Now, the fact is that Congress did support the Presidents actions at least implicity by not attempting to impeach him for what he did.
And in 1863 protecting him from any legal actions.
While Habeas Corpus was used sparingly, I am sure there were abuses of it by both the Union and Confederates.
But Lincoln can not in any stretch of the imigination be considered a tyrant for his use of it during a crises of the magnitude of the Civil War.
Jefferson Davis took some heat for his use of it as well.
Now, the fact is that Congress approved of Bill Clinton's Oval Office Lovin', at least implicity, by not convicting him for what he did.
Your logic is impeccable.
While Habeas Corpus was used sparingly, I am sure there were abuses of it by both the Union and Confederates.
Interested in the source for this, especially since "sparingly" seems like a pretty subjective thing. I'm sure that those locked away in Fort Lafayette would disagree. Not less than two prisons (Ft Lafeyette and the Old Capital Prison) earned the nickname American Bastille. For some, there could have been exactly one Northerner walking around outside a prison, and "sparingly" would seem fitting ("See, he spared at least one!")
But Lincoln can not in any stretch of the imigination be considered a tyrant for his use of it during a crises of the magnitude of the Civil War.
What are the objective criteria being used? Whether or not one is a tyrant is a matter largely of opinion.