??? reference, please. looking at the text at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ildefens.aspIt wasn't legal.
...
Napoleon did not have the right to sell it, Frances treaty with Spain prohibited the sale of Louisianna to a third party.
So...what about the Indian tribes living there? Where do they fit in?
??? reference, please. looking at the text at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ildefens.asp
I don't see any such provision.
From what I know (and I cannot find a refence to specific document, but mention of this is in dozens of places on the net when I look), king Charles IV of Spain refused to sign the treaty unless Napoleon formally pledged that Louisiana would not be ceded to a third party, and Napoleon did so.
...Because... Boney was so big on international law?
Well, this thread IS discussing legalities, not facts on the ground, so its a valid argument. You could only question the usefulness of the thread as a whole...
They don't, honestly.
Since, at the time they were considered, at best uneducated heathens and at worst savages, they had no say in the eyes of anyone else involved.
Beyond that, while obviously all people's should have the right to choose on matters like that, most of them did not have anything like an organized state, therefore they are'nt comparable to say any of the established states.
Guys, guys, you're never going to believe this, but I think I found evidence that Napoleon's conquest and restructuring of the entire European continent was not up to the standards of international law. Crazy, I know, but hear me out...
Nevertheless, the odd thing about the Louisiana Purchase is that Jefferson at the time admitted that he was contradicting his previously articulated principles calling for a strict reading of the Constitution. He seems to have believed that he had little to no Constitutional authority, but the opportunity to control the Mississippi (and to double the size of the country) were worth the compromise.