They were the highest courts in their respective states and existed as they should have. The appeal process had already worked its course by the time that the case got to its given state's high court. To appeal it further would require the typical leftist tactic of losing a case then running off crying to big daddy federal government to make it all better by superseding the authority of the mean old states.
There were potentially 13 versions of what was constitutional and what was not.
And on a case by case basis in the respective states where the ruling was that is perfectly permissible. Or do you think that a ruling in Virginia should bind a person in Alabama? Cause if you do you might as well attempt to enforce Virginia's code of statutes in the borders of Alabama as well.
So if the Alabama State Supreme Court had ruled that conscription was unconstitutional and refused to allow the state to provide troops to the Davis regime then that would have been OK? What if the Louisiana state Supreme Court ruled that the confederate tariff was protectionist in nature and unconstitutional and refused to allow it to be collected? Could the Arkansas state Supreme Court have ruled that the attack on Sumter was illegal and that the fort did belong to the federal government, and could that have meant that Arkansas wasn't at war with the U.S.? When the Davis regime suspended habeas corpus througout the south, heck with any laws passed by the regime at all, then the individual states could have agreed to enact them or disagreed depending on how their state Supreme Court decided?
And on a case by case basis in the respective states where the ruling was that is perfectly permissible. Or do you think that a ruling in Virginia should bind a person in Alabama? Cause if you do you might as well attempt to enforce Virginia's code of statutes in the borders of Alabama as well.
It's not a case of imposing Viginia's statutes on Alabama, it's imposing the Davis regime's statutes on the country as a whole.