Rustbucket, do what I did,get a copy of the Constitution and read Article 1 sec.9. It’s all right there.
No, it is not "all right there." You are reading it as though it is in isolation without considering where it is in the Constitution and the historical interpretation of the clause. According to you, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, various ratifiers and ratification conventions, and various Supreme Court Justices had it all wrong, but you and Lincoln had it right.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it this way:
"Our Federal Constitution contains a provision explicitly permitting suspension, but limiting the situations in which it may be invoked: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Art. I, §9, cl. 2. Although this provision does not state that suspension must be effected by, or authorized by, a legislative act, it has been so understood, consistent with English practice and the Clause's placement in Article I. See Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 101 (1807); Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144, 151–152 (CD Md. 1861) (Taney, C. J., rejecting Lincoln's unauthorized suspension); 3 Story §1336, at 208–209"
Are you perhaps an advocate of a "living Constitution" where the interpretation of the Constitution changes to suit political desires?
Taney's Ex Parte Merryman order was a legal order and should have been obeyed by Lincoln until it was possibly overturned on appeal to the full court. I suspect Lincoln would have lost on appeal, so he simply ignored a legal order thereby putting himself above the law.