They were unanimous in not allowing the secession issue to be part of the case, Walt. That's all. You don't comprehend things very well.
The Court split 5-4 on the question of who could prosecute the war, the president or Congress.
Your interpretation of the issues is confused. The main issue was that the legal actions in question (the blockade) were enacted by the President prior to the Congressional Act of July 13, 1861. In a sense, they argued that the President, by enacting war measures before he was given Congressional authorization, was himself declaring war, which is illegal. The court decided that the President's actions were in response to a state of war that existed, with or without Congress recognizing it and it was his duty to respond to a state of war as soon as possible, and not be limited to waiting on Congressional declaration. It was nothing more than a legal point about how early the President can act.
The Supreme Court In the Prize Cases held, by happily a unanimous opinion, that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy's territory was a question of fact, depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war.
ROFLMAO!!!! All that says is that the issue of secession was not allowed to be part of the case. Secession was NOT an issue in the case, Walt. That's what I told you to begin with. Like, duh. They did not allow it to be a legal issue in the case and made NO decision on it.
You don't know the history.
LOL - You don't even understand what you're reading, Hahahahahahahahaha.
Your interpretation of the issues is confused.
As I said before, it's not my interpretation, it's the U.S. attorney's.
The Court agreed unanimously that secession was outside the law. What else would you expect from Taney? He was appointed by Andrew Jackson.
Walt