Was any motion to impeach even offered?
Maybe with a Civil War going on and all that entailed, the Congress was not overly concerned with the limited suspension of the writ.
The problem with that assertion is that it is neither factual nor an acceptable exercise in logic. Why? Because it arbitrarily assumes that the only means by which Congress can reject an action of the President that it doesn't like is by impeaching him - a logical absurdity on its face, especially given that only two presidents have ever been impeached. Applying your argument consistently one could presume upon this latter fact that only two presidents have ever been substantively opposed by Congress on anything, and we know that proposition to be inherently false.