Replies

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.

See my response above, "But it was sufficient that Texas had again been considered a state, in some form, after Lee's surrender and Union military occupation."

Utterly irrelevant.

Only to you. As usual, you refuse to consider the argument. The point being that the South made a strategic blunder by 1) making war against the North when it was the weaker of the two, and 2) abandoning its power in the U.S. before negotiating a separation. Justice Campbell was far more valuable to the South on the U.S. Supreme Court than he was as a Confederate officer. Lincoln would not have been able to gain approval of his SCOTUS nominees had the South retained its senators, and consequently the issue of secession could have been decided in the courts, not the battlefields.

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 case was contrived for political purposes. It's decision was counterfactual, and with regard to the constitutionality of on secession, so much dicta.

A 5-3 opinion is as binding as a 9-0 opinion.

You assume that all decisions of SCOTUS, even if theoretically binding on lower courts, are enforced by SCOTUS when the times change. They aren't. More to follow on that.

[Dr. Franklin #122] 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,
[woodpusher #149 ] Utterly irrelevant.
[Dr. Franklin #167] Only to you. As usual, you refuse to consider the argument.

I have carefully considered that at the time of Texas v. White Chief Justice Taney had died. Carefully considered, this is still irrelevant to Texas v. White.

I have carefully considered that Justice Campbell resigned from the Court after secession and that Taney and Archibald may not have agreed with CJ Chase. Carefully considered, it is still irrelevant. Former justices and dead justices are not on the Court. Whatever you imagine they would have done is irrelevant. If you can find their dissenting opinions, provide a link and quote.

Had Taney's dead body have been there, it would not have voted. Had Campbell remained on the court and cast a dissenting vote, it would have changed nothing. During the war, the Court was expanded to 10 justices so Lincoln could appoint 5. Had they needed more insurance, Congress could have made it 11 or 12 justices.

When they desired to prevent an adverse decision, Congress just took away the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. See Ex parte McCardle.

Rewriting or reimagining history is not a legal argument.