Wrong. The indemnity clause in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 was designed to protect Union military officers from lawsuits brought by disaffected, defeated southerners in southern courts.
Quite obviously your insane hatred of all things Southern has warped your mind. The bill was clearly "passed" in 1863 to protect the Lincoln administration officials from lawsuits resulting from the arrest and imprisonment of political opponents. The actions were coming from courts in the NORTH as the only courts in the South were Confederate courts whose jurisdiction did not reach the North.
Moreover, it was not Southerners in the South who were being arrested and unlawfully imprisoned as a result of Lincoln's rape of the Constitution. It was Union citizens, in the North, being made political prisoners in Lincoln's bastille.
SOURCE: James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 186
Our attention has been called in preceding chapters to summary arrests and other arbitrary acts consequent upon the suspension of the habeas corpus privilege. the essential irregularity of such a situation in American law becomes especially conspicuous when one considers its inevitable sequel -- namely, the protection of military and civil officers from such prosecution as would normally follow invasion of private rights and actual injury of persons and property. such protection was afforded by a bill of indemnity passed in 1863; and this law, with its amendment of 1866, forms a significant chapter in our legal history.By the ordinary application of the principles of American administrative law, officers guilty of trespasses (such as false imprisonment and unwarranted seizures) would stand unprotected, though the trespass might be in strict keeping with executive orders.
SOURCE: James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 188-9.
Before the war had proceeded far in the United States it became evident that Federal officers, even of Cabinet rank, were being attacked in State courts for acts done in the performance of duty. One of the earliest cases of this sort was that of Pierce Butler of Philadelphia against Simon Cameron, Secretary of War. Butler was arrested by order of Cameron in August, 1861, on suspicion of having received a commission from the Confederacy, and was confined for about a month in Fort Lafayette, after which he was released by order of Secretary Seward on giving pledge of loyalty. On Butler's petition the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a writ which was served upon Cameron when he was about to sail as minister to Russia, the charge being assault and battery and false imprisonment. The official concern occasioned by this suit may be judged by the fact that the President adopted the act of the Secretary of War as his own, and directed that the suit should "be fully defended as a matter which deeply concerns the public welfare as well as the safety of the individual officers of the Government." To this end the Federal district attorney at Philadelphia was instructed to give particular attention to the defense of Cameron. As a result, the case was dropped in its preliminary stages.In 1863 Secretary Seward was subjected to a similar action for false imprisonment in a New York court by G. W. Jones, former minister to Bogota, who was arrested in a New York hotel and kept prisoner in Fort Lafayette for four months. The effort of Governor Seymour and the judicial authorities of New York to prosecute General Dix for his suppression of the New York World is an example of the same disposition on the part of local courts to enforce judicial remedies at the expense of highly placed officials.6 Secretary Stan ton is said to have remarked that if such prosecutions held, he would be imprisoned a thousand years, at least. These instances will suffice to show that the need of protection for Federal officers was real.
To supply such protection was the purpose of the act of March 3, 1863, which was at once a bill of indemnity and an authorization to suspend the habeas corpus privilege. It is only the fourth and subsequent sections that
Of course, there was much opposition to the bill and its passage was quite irregular. At about 5 a.m., Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull called a voice vote, said the bill passed, denied any taking of yeas and nays, and adjourned the session of Congress. There is no recorded vote other than Trumbull saying it passed.
SOURCE: James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 191
Finally, at about five o,clock in the morning, the presiding officer unexpectedly put a vote, announced that the bill was passed, denied the floor to opposing Senators who insisted that the measure had not passed, refused to entertain a montion to reconsider, and, against the protest of the filibusterers, declared the Senate adjourned.(Cong. Globe, 37 Cong., 3 sess., p. 1477)
Prove it.