...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. 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.
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. But it was sufficient that Texas had again been considered a state, in some form, after Lee's surrender and Union military occupation. The issue of secession was not necessarily for SCOTUS to claim original jurisdiction, and thus it was so much
dicta. Since Texas had been required to apply for readmission to the Union in order for its representatives to take office in Congress, Chase's argument is counterfactual. Only an idiot would argue to the contrary:
An Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States. March 30, 1870