I guess it doesn't matter to you that one person made the decision vs. representatives of the people?
From what I've seen, Lincoln was acting in an interim capacity when Congress was out of session. When it was in session it passed laws that confirmed his suspension of habeas corpus. If Congress had disagreed with Lincoln and undone his action, its decision would surely have prevailed over his, and rightly so, though they were all duly-elected "representatives of the people." Just how representative of the people the Confederate Congress or Jefferson Davis was is also open to question. In any event, from the point of view of those who were detained, the fact of the suspension of the writ was more important than who initiated it. The most significant drawback in the article that was posted is that it ignores that the Confederacy applied the same tactics of control or oppression that it attacks Lincoln and the Unionists for employing.
I guess it doesn't matter to you that one person made the decision vs. representatives of the people?
Having too many chiefs and not enough indians is what cost the rebels the war. But you can't see that as even being a problem, which is why you hew to the non-fact based neo-reb rant.
Walt
Who made the decision to open fire on Sumter? Was that done by the representatives of the people or by just one man?