I have some sympathy for this argument. Lincoln said it is never wise to risk a body for a limb and he acknowledged having bent the rules a bit because it was necessary.
I suppose that not even the fact that the confederate congress gave explicit power to davis - and that davis repeatedly used it - doesn’t cut any ice with that crowd.
That's a tu quoque argument that doesn't justify the abuses of a different government under a different charter. The US Constitution stipulates the rules for the US Government, not the Confederate one.
Generally the tu quoque fallacy is when one party to the debate accuses the other party of behavior similar to behaviors of the first party. I’m not accusing you of anything - I just offered Rusty an additional perspective on the whole issue of suspension of habeas corpus. You are welcome to view this as a tu quoque if you really really want to, but my point was that is seems inconsistent to get ones panties in a bunch over the actions of one side when it can be demonstrated that the other side engaged in the same behavior.
As an example, I do not point an accusing finger at the confederates regarding treatment of prisoners in POW camps because of the equally wretched performance by the north. I would consider it hypocritical to do so.