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.
FORMER congressional "leader" (he had lost re-election and was running for the Democrat nomination to be governor of Ohio)
"... for speaking critically of his war ..."
Herman Belz writes: "“In April 1863, General Ambrose Burnside issued an order prohibiting in the area of his command [Ohio] any declarations of sympathy for the enemy. He also declared that persons who helped the enemy would be tried under military authority. Former Democratic representative Clement L. Vallandigham condemned the order and urged resistance to it. He was arrested, tried, and convicted by a military commission. Burnside imposed a prison sentence, which President Lincoln commutted into banishment beyond Confederate lines.
"Removing to Canada, Vallandigham petitioned a federal circuit court in Ohio for a writ of habeas corpus, but since he was no longer in custody, no basis existed for Supreme Court review of the lower court’s denial of the petition. Vallandigham then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review directly the decision of the military commission."
What came next was Ex parte Vallandigham, which supported the military tribunals.
Prof Thomas Morris wrote about Vallandigham, "The story of another wartime Democrat, the negrophobic U.S. Congressman from Ohio, Clement L. Vallandigham, who was also tried by a military commission in the North, ended differently [from that of Milligan]."
At least Vallandigham retained some of his fame. From the 1860's to the 1940's the term "Vallandigham" was synonymous with traitor, replacing "Benedict Arnold" before the advent of "Quisling."
[GOPc] 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.
Vallandigham introduced resolutions censuring Lincoln for his actions [Congressional Globe, page 130, July 15, 1861], but I imagine they didn't go anywhere what with the Republican majority.
Vallandigham's resolutions hit on the following (my summations of them):
Lincoln usurped the Constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navyLincoln usurped the power of Congress to declare war and regulate the ports
Lincoln usurped the power of Congress in suspending the writ of habeas corpus
Lincoln usurped the power of Congress to make and direct appropriations
Lincoln violated the Constitution in the searches and seizures he ordered
Lincoln abridged Constitutional freedom of speech in suppressing newspaper presses and arresting civilians for expressing political opinion
Lincoln's violated the Constitution in arresting without civil processes citizens who were not subject to the rule of war
Lincoln got him expelled? The Senate had nothing to do with it? If I'm not mistaken it's the Senate that votes to expel membersI'm surprised that you didn't blame Lincoln for the other 14 or so senators that were expelled from the Senate for the same reason as Bright, supporting the cause of the southern rebellion.
CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming amount of historical evidence clearly contradicts Lincoln's assertion that the Constitution "is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power" of suspending habeas corpus. Though legal relativists, loose constructionists, and even some otherwise reliable constitutionalists maintain that Lincoln's action of suspending habeas corpus was without constitutional flaw, the volume of evidence renders such a position insupportable. In addition to the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, there remains the issue of the Merryman ruling. Lincoln's action of ignoring this ruling by failing to either abide by it or appeal it to the Supreme Court constitutes a violation of the United States judiciary branch's authority that remains on his record even if one were to hypothetically permit its unlikely reversal had it been appealed. The sum of these actions by Lincoln amount to clear and material violations of the United States Constitution. It is further not unreasonable to conclude that in other times, similar actions by a president of the United States would have been cause for his impeachment and removal from office.(emphasis mine)
Since Lincoln was not impeached, then your criticism should be to the House, which supported his actions, the very point that you are contending with.