You are such a phoney.
What Congressional leader did Lincoln put into prison for attempting to impeach him?
So the Republican Congress would 'let it slide' an act of tyranny?
After defeating the bill, they would let Bush go ahead and do it anyway and not lift a finger to stop him?
Bills fail all the time, many times due to wording the Congress does not like ...and you have offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Congress was simply upset at the "wording" of Lincoln's bill when they killed it. Much to the contrary, the congressional record is full of stated objections to the bill's intent itself to the point that members specifically sought out assurances that other military bills did not try to slip in a habeas corpus suspension through the back door.
I am sure there was opposition and yet, none of the men opposed were arrested so the bill could get passed.
Yet, the opposition was not enough to bring forth any attempts to impeach?
So, there could a vocal outcry against the bill, but when the President goes ahead and acts anyway, not a peep from Congress?
If the act was criminal, it would have been impeached or at least an attempt to impeach.
Lincoln did not attack anyone for attacking him, he attacked those who hindered the war effort.
There's no way around it, ftD. Lincoln went to congress and used his joint address to ask congress for a habeas corpus suspension. His habeas corpus bill was then designated S. 1 as the most important piece of legislation of the session. In a clear and direct rejection of Lincoln's request, Congress killed the very same bill he explicitly and publicly pled with them to pass.
And no doubt about it, Lincoln still suspended the writ as he thought necessary and the Congress did nothing to stop him with any impeachment precedings.
Now, a way to stop getting in deeper is simply to stop digging.
Lincoln had the support of Congress, many of which thought he was being too conservative.
No impeachment was ever attempted.
And it was not due to any fear of imprisonment by Lincoln.
By the way, I do not have to show the reasons why the bill was defeated.
You have to show why a man who you regard as a tyrant was allowed to run roughshod over the Congress, the same congress who still had enough independence to kill his bill.
They never had the chance. He deported once congressional leader (Vallandigham) for speaking critically of his war and got another expelled from the senate (Bright) for suggesting they peacefully separate.
So the Republican Congress would 'let it slide' an act of tyranny?
The Republican Congress headed by Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, who were more rabid and more radical in their pursuit of blood and violent conquest than even Lincoln, certainly would.