No, what's understandable is that both sides waged war according to rules of war well understood at the time.
That included, for both sides, confiscations of property deemed "contraband".
DiogenesLamp: "I guess Lincoln's thinking went something like this: ...
..."We have to break the law to save it."
Yeah, that makes sense."
Except that no laws of war, as understood at the time, were broken.
This is what is called "hand waving." The refusal to deal with the details and just wishing they would go away.
If the Confederates are correct, and they were a separate country, then seizing their assets is understood under long standing rules of war. But if Lincoln was correct, and they are merely in Rebellion, they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, which does not allow the President to do this, so long as state laws exist to the contrary.
You are telling us Lincoln treated them like a foreign country when he wanted them to fall under that body of law, and treated them like a "Rebellion" when he needed that as a justification to invade them.
Except that no laws of war, as understood at the time, were broken.
If they weren't a foreign country, then no laws of "war" would apply. Laws of war only apply to differing nation states, not to regions in rebellion.
Constitutional law was broken by applying rules of war to a "rebellion."
Also Constitutional law was broken in recognizing West Virginia as a separate state.