Lincoln's wasn't.
Moreover, Davis was still critized for his use of that power, who felt he was overreaching the authority of his office.
Take the legal double talk somewhere else.
Presidents have to make decisions to protect the Constitution that stretch the limits of what the Consitution may have intended, but that is the responsiblity of the President has.
Lincoln defense of his actions was a sound one, based on the practial demands of the time.
That is why the ability to suspend the writ was written into the Consitution for times such as those.
Had any truely horrible abuse had occurred, the Congress could have just as easily impeached Lincoln.
In fact, many in the Congress felt Lincoln was going to easy and wanted stronger measures taken.
Now, all of these noise that you are generating is suppose to prove what?
Were their abuses on both sides, yes there were.
That has been conceded by historians.
What you are attempting to really prove is that Lincoln was a tyrant bent on the destruction of the Rule of Law.
That is simply false.
Had not the South not fired on the U.S. flag and refused to obey the laws that it was obligated to obey under the Constitution, Lincoln would have faded away as probably a one term President.
He said as much at his first Inagural Address.
It was the South's arrogrance that made Lincoln the great President that he was.
You obviously don't understand political violence.
Read a book about the Roman Revolution and the demise of the Roman Republic sometime, or William Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic, about why France fell apart in the 1930's.
You don't understand, as Madison and Calhoun did, the deadliness of a national political faction that is determined to take over the country and run roughshod over the rest of the People. That's what Lincoln had at his back, backing him up on every illegality, every rip in the Constitution, every despotic measure. He was covered. He could do as he pleased. Conversely, his troops and officers in the South were likewise covered -- they could do as they pleased. Sherman was lauded, and none of his troops were court-martialed. Lincoln covered for them, for the tax agents confiscating Southern real estate and selling it to their brothers-in-law, for the carpetbaggers already swooping down on wharves and freight platforms laden with cotton. "Black Republicanism" was a "party" -- in both the political and the street sense. Do what you want to do; do what you can -- it's all good.
This has only happened once in American history. Being taken over like that is like the fourth or fifth exponential power of having your neighborhood taken over by the Rolling Forties. It isn't politics, it's political violence. Emphasis on "violence". And it is instructive, that it wasn't just people in the South who suffered from it. People hauled off to prison in the Old Northwest likewise suffered, and farmers who lost their spreads in the ensuing sixty years of Gilded Age hard-money, railroad-cossetting policies likewise suffered. But outside the South, people never connected the dots, and farmers done in by the Gilded Age never figured it out, that they had been on the wrong side in the Civil War.
Are you finally starting to figure it out? That Lincoln couldn't have achieved emancipation -- his real agenda -- without secession and war? Helllloooooooo!!!
It was John Wilkes Booth that made Lincoln "great."
It is difficult to find anyone who knew Lincoln saying much of anything good about him while he was still alive. Try his generals and cabinet members for example.
It was after he died that he became St. Abe.
Why do you think the Constitution gives the president the power to reconvene congress in an emergency? The supreme court has said it twice now: there's only one way to suspend the writ and that is through Congress.
Moreover, Davis was still critized for his use of that power, who felt he was overreaching the authority of his office.
Criticized or not, Davis' suspension was legally authorized while Lincoln's was not.
Take the legal double talk somewhere else.
I'd invite you to look into the mirror and repeat the same. Your arguments on this subject have devolved into habitual tu quoquery of the lowest order.
Presidents have to make decisions to protect the Constitution that stretch the limits of what the Consitution may have intended, but that is the responsiblity of the President has.
Presidents have an obligation to uphold the constitution. It is logically impossible to uphold the constitution by raping its key provisions, tearing down its specific processes, and running roughshod over the other two CO-EQUAL branches of the government whenever they get in your way. Congress did not authorize Lincoln to suspend the writ for TWO YEARS and killed his bill to do so, yet he did it anyway. The Judicial Branch issued five separate rulings telling him to stop suspending the writ, yet he did it anyway and used his henchmen to harass and detain a judge that ruled against him.
Lincoln defense of his actions was a sound one, based on the practial demands of the time.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.