[4CJ]

Texas v. White was not a 5-3 decision. It was a 7-1 decision. Five justices joined Chase in his opinion, while two others issued a separate, but concurring decision. Only Justice Grier dissented.

You don't say. Justice Grier dissented I'll agree. Justice Swayne, writing for himself and Justice Miller wrote, I concur with my brother Grier as to the incapacity of the State of Texas, in her present condition, to maintain an original suit in this court. [State of Texas v. White et al 74 Wall. 700, 741, (1869)].

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You left out the key line of Swayne’s opinion: “Upon the merits of the case, I agree with the majority of my brethren.” Even if Swayne and Miller didn’t agree with Chase’s reasoning, they agreed with the decision. That makes it 7-1.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

For that matter, Grier's decision isn't exactly upholding the right to secession, either. It basically accuses Texas of duplicity:

The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract [74 U.S. 700, 740] with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion. Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void.