On several threads here at FreeRepublic, I've asked a simple question: "Should government be bound by law, or by morality?" (Thanks again to rockrr, who was nice enough to reply on one of those occassions!)
It can be a troubling question - government officials are human beings; humans should consider morality (IMHO), to some extent, when making decisions; but a free society has thousands or millions of decision makers , and therefore, it might be that each of us answers that question in a different way.
However (to cut to the chase), most Freepers seem to suggest that government should be bound by law. The reason may be obvious enough - Ronald Reagan's morality based decision would not be the same as Bill Clinton's. Morality varies from person to person: one government official might shut down a kiddy-porn ring, another might shut down a Christian bakery.
We could (no doubt ;^) launch another endless debate, regarding 'the divine right of kings' versus 'the rule of law' versus whatever, but I will conclude with a simple observation: it's not unreasonable to question any government action that seems to be more justifiable on a moral basis, than a legal basis (i.e., than based on the written 'law of the land'). Such government actions might include legalized abortion, 'Obama-Care', any number of gun control laws, military actions lacking a declaration of war, and perhaps even the federal draft.
Obviously IMHO, YMMV, etc...
Short answer: if it had simply been a matter of morality Lincoln would have said so and acted accordingly.
Slightly longer response: This tentacle of the overall debate comes courtesy of jeffersondem who routinely hoists (foists?!) the canard, “...we can forever dismiss the notion that Lincoln and the North fought for the high moral principle of “freeing the slaves.”” or the startlingly insipid “Even after secession, the United States remained the most powerful slave nation in North America, perhaps the world.” or my “favorite”: “If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?”
No matter how many times he is corrected and educated, he persists with these red herrings.
Lincoln had a duty and responsibility to defend and preserve the Union. At a point in the war he determined that freeing slaves in occupied areas was a priority. That there was an element of morality attached to his acts does not diminish the legitimacy or urgency of his actions.
The obvious answer is "yes, by both".
Difficulties come from not just varying definitions of "law" and "morality", but also from the fact that life itself often presents complex situations without pristine moral options.
Often leaders must chose among the least worst of bad options.
Sure, I "get" that pro-Confederates such as yourself wish to bind President Lincoln with BOTH legal and moral sanctions, you'd like to impeach him just like Democrats today wish to impeach Republicans they despise.
But I don't agree that any of your anti-Lincoln arguments are even a whit more valid than Nancy Pelosi's charges against the current Republican president.
They're all just partisan hatred & loathing masquerading under banners labeled "LAW" and "MORALITY".