[BroJoeK]

rusty: "Many East Tennessee Unionists rose up against the Confederates.
Perhaps the following link to a Confederate communication gives an indication of what the Confederates were facing and suggests why the Confederates held captured Unionists as prisoners"

The debate here is over Article I, Section 9:

"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."

So, were President Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus without prior Congressional approval unconstitutional?
Were similar suspensions in the Confederacy also "unconstitutional"?

Consider, the Confederate Congress granted Jefferson Davis authority to suspend habeas corpus in February 1862, just five days after Davis' formal inauguration as President.
By contrast the US Congress debated the subject from July 1861 to February 1863, before finally approving suspension in certain cases.

But in practical terms, didn't both sides in effect suspend habeas corpus, with or without their Congress's approval?

In short: isn't the equivalent of Lincoln's actions in Maryland, Confederate actions in East Tennessee?

[jmacusa]

What gave the Confederacy any legitimacy in the first place?