Well, you didn't say that; I'm just trying to make sense of what you did say.
I just don't understand how you can make hay over the Confederacy not fulfilling one of the requirements of its constitution, as a fledgling state, when the Union, as an established state, didn't have a SCOTUS review until after the end of hostilities.
On the contrary the Supreme Court ruled on administration policies throughout the war. The legality of the blockade was upheld in the Prize Cases. The confiscation acts were upheld by the courts. And in both cases Taney was one of the justices ruling. The Milligan case was reviewed in May of 1865 because that happens to be when it was taken to the court. And as for your dismissing the lack of a court as merely 'not fulfilling one of the requirements of its constitution, as a fledgling state' I should point out that that same fledgling state had no problems keeping it's cabinet fully staffed, or implementing protective tariffs, or imposing income taxes, or seizing private property, or any other actions that were not mandated by the constitution and which, indeed, were prohibited by it. But it never got around to establishing the one branch of government that might have halted the abuses. Doesn't that tell us something?