Texas v. White was a 5-3 decision made with the benefit of four justices nominated by Lincoln with out the Southern states having representation in the Senate.
A 5-3 opinion is as binding as a 9-0 opinion. Who nominated the justices is irrelevant to the legal validity of the opinion.
Chief Justice Taney had died in 1864, and Justice John Archibald Campbell, a Southerner born in GA, quit after secession. Neither is likely to have agreed with Lincoln appointed CJ Chase on that point,
Utterly irrelevant.
and even so Chase's argument can be dismissed as so much obiter dicta, as that was incidental to the issue of whether or not Texas had actually sold the U.S. bonds at issue.
Absolutely false.
The decision could not be reached without determining whether Texas was, or was not, a state and in the Union. To establish jurisdiction of the Court, Plaintiff State of Texas had to show that it was a State and in the Union.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
Syllabus. A case summary appearing before the printed judicial opinion in a law report, briefly reciting the facts and the holding of the case.- - - - - - - - - -
Holding. A court's determination of a maztter of law pivotal to its decision; a principle drawn from such a decision.
- - - - - - - - - -
Obiter dictum. [Latin "something said in passing"] A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case, and therefore not precedential.
Holdings are recited in the Syllabus, dicta are not. See what is recited at the start of the Syllabus in Texas v. White.
1. The word State describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country, or territorial region, inhabited by such n community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government uder which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.2. In the Constitution the term State most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.
3. But the term is also used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. In this sense it is used in the clause which provides that the United States bhall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.
4. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew'out of conimon origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographicil relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction, from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "' to form a more perfect Union."
Texas v. White, Opinion of the Court at 719-720:
The other allegation presents a question of jurisdiction. It is not to be questioned that this court has original jurisdiction of suits by States against citizens of other States, or that the States entitled to invoke this jurisdiction must be States of the Union. But it is equally clear that no such jurisdiction has been conferred upon this court of suits by any other political communities than such States.If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not, at the time of filing this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.
We are very sensible of the magnitude and importance of this question, of the interest it excites, and of the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of so disposing of it as to satisfy the conflicting judgments of men equally enlightened, equally upright, and equally patriotic. But we meet it in the case, and we must determine it in the exercise of our best judgment, under the guidance of the Constitution alone.
The question of jurisdiction is paramount as, without jurisdiction, the Court has no authority to hear the case. Absent a holding that Texas was and had been a State, the case would have, of necessity, been dismissed. The related holding of the Court determining that Texas was a state at all relevant periods was most definitely not dicta.
At 724, the Court framed the question it needed to answer:
In all respects, so far as the object could be accomplished by ordinances of the convention, by acts of the legislature, and by votes of the citizens, the relations of Texas to the Union were broken up and new relations to a new government were established for them.The position thus assumed could only be maintained by arms, and Texas accordingly took part, with the other Confederate States, in the war of the rebellion which these events made inevitable. During the whole of that war, there was no governor, or judge, or any other State officer in Texas who recognized the National authority. Nor was any officer of the United States permitted to exercise any authority whatever under the National government within the limits of the State except under the immediate protection of the National military forces.
Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
It was not just the majority that addressed this indispensable issue. All of the dissents focused on it.
Grier, J., dissenting at 737:
The first question in order is the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this bill in behalf of the State of Texas.The original jurisdiction of this court can be invoked only by one of the United States. The Territories have no such right conferred on them by the Constitution, nor have the Indian tribes who are under the protection of the military authorities of the government.
Is Texas one of these United States? Or was she such at the time this bill was filed, or since?
Swayne, J., dissenting at 741:
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. The question, in my judgment, is one in relation to which this court is bound by the action of the legislative department of the government.Upon the merits of the case, I agree with the majority of my brethren.
I am authorized to say that my brother MILLER unites with me in these views.
The Court very explicitly provided the answer required to assume jurisdiction of the case. Texas had not ceased to be a state and the state had not left the Union.
I have no doubt the case was concocted for the purpose of giving the Court a case upon which it could issue a holding finding secession unconstitutional. The State of Texas was represented by the military government imposed upon it by the Federal government. The value of the bonds was less than the attorney fees paid to process the suit at the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is the same person who had recently given the Federal prosecutors a way out of ever bringing Jefferson Davis to trial. Chase's idea was quite intrigueing. The 14th Amendment, Section 3, indicated that a person who had taken part in insurrection or rebellion could not hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or any State. This Davis (and others) had been punished for such acts. His trial, delayed since 1865, had to be dismissed due to the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment. It was on Chase's ex parte suggestion that a motion was brought and the case was dismissed.
Panels of legal experts repeatedly counseled against bringing Davis to trial, lest the Federal government lose the argument of secession in criminal Court. A dream team of of the best criminal defense attorneys stood ready to defend Davis. They were highly motivated by four years experience dealing with the suspension of habeas corpus, and clients held without charge or trial.
Regardless, Texas v. White stands as Supreme court precedent that secession is unconstitutional, and declarations of secession are null and void. It will remain the law until the Constitution is amended to way otherwise, or the Court changes its mind and issues a superseding opinion.
The defendants had argued that the Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction in the case because Texas' current situation was not that of a state as contemplated by the Founders, but was that of a territory secured by military conquest. So the question on whether Texas was a state was certainly a matter before the court and central to the ultimate decision.