How typically liberal of you! I said the court ruled it illegal and they did. Some 10 years earlier the Supreme Court held that private property may not be seized capriciously
Our duty is to determine under what circumstances private property may be taken from the owner by a military officer in a time of war. And the question here is, whether the law permits it to be taken to insure the success of any enterprise against a public enemy which the commanding officer may deem it advisable to undertake. And we think it very clear that the law does not permit it.The court also addressed the issue of UNcompensated takings,
Chief Justice Taney, Mitchell v Harmony, 54 How. 115, 135 (1851)
There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with a particular duty, may impress private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner.
Ibid. at 134.
Bullshit. You claimed that the court ruled Lincoln's actions illegal and dredge Mitchell v Harmony for support, despite the differences in circumstances. What it all boils down to are three simple facts. Fact 1, Congress passed the Confiscation Acts in 1861 and 1863 which allowed for the seizure of private property when used to support the rebellion. Fact 2, the Emancipation Proclamation was an offshoot of that authority. Fact 3, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Confiscation Acts. Conclusion, your premise and what passes for logic are completely flawed.