Emancipation Proclamation

[angus]

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

[angus]

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.

fair enough. 

as I said before, I don't think the SC legislature did anything illegal when it seceeded, only when it refused to relinquish US property.  The EP is another matter altogether.  If the US was trying to take over another country, and the UN hadn't been invented yet, then nothing it could do to that other country would really be illegal.  Still, your analogy is a good one, but as has been pointed out, might makes right, so legality is really not that important to history.  Victory is.

[angus]

So, in your estimation, the move against Fort Sumter was illegal.  Actually, there's a good case to be made that it was, and you have pretty much summed it up.

Then, doesn't it follow that the maintaining Navy bases on Vieques is illegal too, since PR doesn't want it there.  (yes, I'm aware that a portion of the island was ceded to PR by President Bush.  A good move, in my estimation, but what about the rest of it?)