In 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus suspension Act. Awesome. He finally obtained authorization from Congress, two years late.
Lincoln was not Congress and could not assume the powers of Congress. Lincoln had unlawfully authorized military officers to suspend habeas corpus at their discretion and further delegate their bogus authority.
In 1861, Congress flatly refused to ratify the actions of Lincoln. The bill, SR-1, was offered on the first day of the special session. Last ditch efforts on the last day of the session were met with such protest that it was withdrawn from a vote, lest President Lincoln be humiliated.
Mr. President, in the State of Missouri, there was no "Law of the United States opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed by combinations of men too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Indeed, sir, there was no resistance of any United States law. Yet Missouri, peaceful and law abiding, without cause, against law and in defiance of the Constitution, was invaded by United States troops, by troops from Illinois, by troops from Iowa, and by troops from Kansas. Indeed, sir, it seems that from the very moment in which the administration resolved upon this policy of coercion, the State of Missouri was marked as a victim for sacrifice, for invasion, and subjugation.
— Mr. Polk, July 11, 1861, page 64 ~ The joint resolution would seem, upon the face of it, to admit that the acts of the President were not performed in obedience to the Constitution and the laws. If that be true, I should be glad to hear some reasons assigned by gentlemen showing the power of the Congress of the United States, by joint resolution, to cure a breach of the Constitution or to indemnify the President against violations of the Constitution and the laws. If, in any respect that officer has violated the laws, he has also violated the Constitution; because one clause of that instrument declares that "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It confers on him the power to see that they are executed; but no power to violate them.
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 137
I deny, Mr. President, that one branch of this Government can indemnify any other branch of the Government for a violation of the Constitution or the laws. The powers conferred upon the General Government by the people of the States are the measure of its authority. Those powers have been confided to different departments, and the boundaries of those departments determined with perfect exactitude. The President has his powers and rights conferred on him by the Constitution; the legislative authority its powers and rights; the judicial authority its powers and rights; the judicial authority its powers and rights; and I deny that either can encroach upon the other, or that either can indemnify the other for a usurpation of powers not confided to it by the Constitution. Sir, Congress, by a joint resolution, has no more right, in my opinion, to make valid a violation of the constitution and the laws by the President, than the President would have by an entry upon the executive journal to make valid a usurpation of the executive power by the legislative department. Congress has no more right to make valid an unconstitutional act of the President, than the President would have to make valid an act of the Supreme Court of the United States encroaching upon executive power; or than the Supreme Court would have the right to make valid an act of the executive encroaching upon the judicial power.
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 137-138
It is proposed, sir, to approve and make valid the act of the President in enlisting men for three and five years. I ask you by what authority of Constitution or law he has done this act? The power is not conferred in the constitution; it has not been granted by the law. It is, therefore an unconstitutional and illegal act of executive power. The President, of his own will — and that is one of the acts enumerated in this joint resolution which is proposed to approve and ratify — has added immensely to the force of the regular Army. The Constitution says that Congress shall raise armies, and a law now upon your statute book limits the number of the regular force, officers and men. Hence, sir, that is an act in derogation both of the Constitution and of the laws.
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 138
The President has added immensely to the Navy of the United States. The Constitution says that Congress shall provide and maintain a navy; and there is now a law upon the statute book limited the number of men to be employed in the Navy. That, like the rest, sir, will not bear argument. I doubt if an attempt will be made to defend it upon constitutional or legal grounds. I pronounce it a usurpation.
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 138
I need not say to the Senate that in England, whence we derive this right, the legislative power alone can suspend it. We all know, sir, that the monarch of England cannot suspend it. We all know, sir, that the monarch of England cannot suspend that writ; but transatlantic freemen seem to be eager to approve and ratify acts which a European monarch would not dare to perform. Mr. President, it needs no elaborate argument to show that the executive authority of the United States has no right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 138
I enumerate what I regard as usurpations of the Executive to go upon the record as a protest of those of us who are not willing to see the Constitution subverted, and the public liberty trampled under foot, under whatever pretext, of necessity or otherwise.
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 139
I remember to have read, not long since, a speech made by the present able Secretary of War, in this city, in which he said that the southern States must be subdued, and that at the end of this contest there would be no more Virginians as such, or Carolinians as such; but only Americans all. Sir, the name of American is a proud one, and I love it; but it is the preservation of the names of Virginians and Pennsylvanians, and the distinctive existence of all these States, which alone can keep the name of American a proud one. I never want to see them blotted out. I said, sir, that in my opinion, the tendency was to change our character of government, and that the purpose, if not avowed, is acted upon to conduct those proceedings without regard to the limitation of the Constitution. these things I have enumerated go to show it. This Joint Resolution goes to show it. I call upon Senators to defend the constitutionality of these acts, or else to admit that we intend to conduct this contest without regard to the Constitution.
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 140
In the course of the same speech to which I have referred, that eminent Senator declared that not only must that country be ravaged by armies, but that unless the people of those States paid willing and loyal obedience to the Federal Government, their State form must be changed, and they must be reduced to the condition of Territories; to be governed by Governors sent from Massachusetts and Illinois. This was said seriously; and afterwards, when referred to by my colleague on a subsequent day, reaffirmed by that eminent Senator. If necessary, reduced to the condition of Territories! Is there authority in the Constitution to do it?
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 140-141
We can only hope that this flash of frenzy may not assume the form of chronic madness, and that in any event Divine providence may preserve for us and for posterity, out of the wreck of a broken Union, the priceless principles of constitutional liberty and of self-government. [Applause in the galleries.]
— Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 142
The suspension of the privilege of the habeas corpus by executive authority is a violation of the principles of public freedom which have been consecrated for centuries. These principles were dear to our Anglo-Saxon forefathers before the period of Magna Charta. From the days of Magna Charta, which, seeking to restore ancient rights, provided that no freeman should be taken or imprisoned without the lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land, down to the declaration of our independence, that principle has been dear to the freemen of England and America.
— Mr. Pearce, July 30, 1861, page 333
If necessity, which is an odious plea, known for hundreds of years as "the tyrant's plea" -- a plea by which you may overthrow all constitutional provisions -- if that plea is efficient here; if that is a justification for a violation of one provision of the Constitution, it is equally a justification for any and all violations of it.
— Mr. Pearce, July 30, 1861, page 333
So too, sir, these domiciliary visits, which are equally in violation of a provision of the Constitution, are sought to be justified by necessity. Now, let us see where these things are done. Nowhere, so far as I am informed, except in the State of Maryland, unless there be some exceptions in the State of Missouri.
— Mr. Pearce, July 30, 1861, page 334
My objection to taking up this resolution I will state in a word. I believe it is in order to state briefly the objection. This resolution which the Senator from Massachusetts seeks to take up is germane to the bill which is the unfinished business. The resolution proposed to declare legal the acts which have been done by the President in the recess of Congress. Will our declaration make them legal if they are not legal? Will it make them so if they were unconstitutional and void?
— Mr. TRUMBULL, August 2, 1861, page 392
The Senator from Maine evidently entertains a very sincere conviction that the action of the President has not been in violation of the constitution or the laws; because he has asserted it six or seven times in the course of the brief speech he has made to the Senate. His convictions are evidently deep and sincere. All I have to say in reply to that is, that it will be a very great comfort to the President to be assured of that fact; for he himself has been under the impression that he has been transcending both; and, indeed, he admits it in his message, and puts it expressly on the ground of a popular demand and what he deemed to be a public necessity. It has also been admitted by many Senators on the other side of the chamber. I have not believed, all along, that the resolution was going to be voted by the Senate. I do not believe it now. It may be; but I think not. My deliberate judgment is, that in some mode the Senate will avoid putting itself on record in favor of the principles contained in this resolution. It is indifferent to me whether it does or not. Of course, every Senator will vote his own convictions if brought to a vote; but I do not think there are many Senators who want their names to go upon history in favor of this resolution.
— Mr. Breckinridge, August 2, 1861, page 392
The President issued a proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers. It was clearly illegal; I am not satisfied it was necessary. I am inclined to think it was not.
— Mr. Howe, August 2, 1861, page 395
I cannot consent to give my approval to the fourth and sixth acts enumerated in the resolution, by which the President authorized the commanding General to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I do not rise to make a speech; but to give the reason why I cannot vote for the resolution.
— Mr. Thomson, August 2, 1861, page 395
MR. WILSON. Let us have a vote.
MR. TRUMBULL. Now, my friend is clamorous. He cannot keep still. He says "let us have a vote." I am not disposed to vote upon the resolution. I will tell the Senator from Kentucky I am not prepared to vote for the resolution, and it is not going to pass without consideration. It is not going to pass in the shape it is by my approbation.
—Messrs. Wilson and Trumbull, August 5, 1861, page 453.
Trumbull, a supporter of Lincoln, stepped in to save Lincoln from a most embarrassing vote.
Mr. Trumbull stated, "The resolution proposed to declare legal the acts which have been done by the President in the recess of Congress. And Mr. Trumbull asked, Will our declaration make them legal if they are not legal? Will it make them so if they were unconstitutional and void?
Or, as Wikipedia fudges it, "Senator Lyman Trumbull, the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, had reservations about its imprecise wording, so the resolution, also opposed by anti-war Democrats, was never brought to a vote." Uh huh.