Ex Post Facto laws - defined in the common law and by the US Supreme Court as a law which alters the penalty of an offense after it was committed (meaning laws that both penalize your political enemies or let your political friends off the hook) - are unconstitutional. Insofar as Congress retroactively removed any penalty Lincoln would otherwise face absent their action, they accordingly did so without a constitutional right.
It further remains that, even if he got approval in 1863, Lincoln still conducted unilateral suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus for a period of two full years without sanction from Congress to do so.
In the process of unconstitutionally suspending the writ for the period of 1861-63, Lincoln also wantonly disregarded at least five federal court rulings against him and in at least one of those cases he the power of the military to harass and obstruct the judge who had ruled against him. The case is that of Murphy v. Porter before the DC Circuit Court. Murphy was an underage minor who had lied about his age to get into the army - probably thinking it would be an adventure only to find out it wasn't fun and games. Murphy's father and legal caretaker subsequently petitioned the DC court for a writ of habeas corpus for his son's discharge - the standard legal mechanism for getting an underage kid out of the army at the time (much like a discharge is today). The case went before Judge William Merrick who granted the routine writ to Murphy's attorney. The attorney then took it down the street to Provost Marshall Andrew Porter, expecting Murphy would be released. Porter refused, informed the attorney that Lincoln had suspended the writ, and placed the attorney under arrest for simply trying to serve the case. Word of the ruling against Lincoln made it to the White House and later that evening Secretary of State William Seward issued directions to Porter that he place Judge Merrick under "surveilance." Merrick returned to his home after dinner and found that, for the next several days, he was confined there under House arrest - the apparent purpose being to prevent him from attending the circuit court's 3 judge panel, which was set to take up Murphy's case in lieu of Porter's refusal to abide by the writ. Seward also sent a message to the treasury department ordering them to suspend Judge Merrick's salary - a violation of the constitution, which specifically prohibits the government from lowering the salaries of judges who are appointed for life.
The circuit panel met as scheduled without Merrick and heard the case anyway. Their first action was to issue a contempt order against Porter for obstructing Merrick's attendance. The order was issued to be delivered but Abe Lincoln personally intervened, had his agents intercept it, and had them inform the court that it would not be served. The panel then ruled on the case, holding like Taney that Lincoln had exceeded his powers in suspending the writ and this time was also harassing judges. Lincoln again simply ignored the court and continued to run roughshod over the constitution as he saw fit.
Any attempts to impeach him?
Did he stop Congress from meeting?
Were there Northern Democrats among the Congress?
Actually, Lincoln was getting criticism for being too weak in his action from many members of Congress.
Since your only goal is the destruction of the United States and all governments for that matter, your 'legal'arguments'ring hollow.
We are now in a war against Islamic terrorism, is the President going to have the ACLU types (like yourself and Nolu Chan) coming in and screaming, Rights, when the men who are using those same rights are attempting to destroy them forever?
No one has a 'right'to use the laws of the United States against the United States in order to destroy it.
The Southern Cabel is just angry that Buchanan wasn't the incoming President, when you guys revolted, then you would have gotten away with it.
Ofcourse, Buchanan, even though pro-South, disagreed that there was any right to secession, but he also did not believe the Federal Government had any 'right'to defend itself from secession.
Had you attempted the Secession a year earlier you might had gotten away with it.