Also, assuming a treason conviction, this stands for the proposition that the rogue Union regime had the disposition to bully Captain Nobody to seize his ship but lacked the intestinal fortitude to indict far better men than the Union cabinet and generals like Robert E. Lee and Longstreet and Hood and Stephens and Breckinridge and....
I suppose you will also defend Sherman's March to the Sea which deserved to be treated to a Nuremburg trial of its own but for the fact that the Union bullies won. Like many Conferederate sympathizers, I have zero ancestry in the Confederacy but every sympathy for it.
Finally, unless Greathouse was serving a hostile FOREIGN power in time of war, Lincoln's agents had no legal business interfering with his ship under maritime law. The blockade was an illegal exercise and the incident you reference seems likely to have been an act of piracy by federal revenue agents. The Union argument was that the Confederacy was in rebellion. The Union never conceded the sovereignty of the south until the south had been conquered and the Union acted opportunistically in massacring international law.
I haven't heard your answer as to how Congress's approval was necessary to the "re-admission" of eleven states which, according to Union mythology, never left in the first place, much less with constitution-changing state legislative acts required as a precondition.
The Court upheld the Treason convictions, yes.
Theft (of the vessel) seems perfectly consistent with the left.
How so? And you are aware the South "liberated" an awful lot of stuff they never paid for either. Trains. Ships. States... so... Pot, Meet Kettle.