[CR]
"If you look at HR 591, as recorded on Dec 9, 1862, ... Blather. It was the Act of March 3, 1863. I quoted and gave you a picture of the Congressional Record of March 2, 1863.
Here is it again, on March 2, 1863 undergoing final passage.
[cr] Your conclusion ("Had the unconstitutional suspensions been ratified, there would be no cause of action.") does not follow from the historical facts.
One does not get indemnified for something that is lawful. Your blather is irrelevant to legal fact.
"Blather. It was the Act of March 3, 1863. I quoted and gave you a picture of the Congressional Record of March 2, 1863." But the final (March 3, 1863), published title was: "An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases." The Congressional Record is an informational source and not the legal document itself.
Your argument reminds me of the football team that lamented it had won the first 59 minutes of the game.