That sounds like an opinion, not a fact.
The fact is that suspension of the Writ is a necessity in times of war. Convenient, useful, and sometimes even justified, yes. A necessity for times of war, no.
Ofcourse it is a necessity, that is why it is justified.
That is why it was allowed in the Constitution.
And Lincoln may have been in most cases justified in using it. There is no such indication, and in fact Lincoln is widely known to have used it to detain innocents (including some very high profile ones), political opponents, underage minors enlisted in his armies, and newspaper editors who disagreed with him in their editorial policies. In a military sense, suspension of the writ is sometimes justified WHEN DONE THROUGH THE PROPER LEGAL CHANNELS (and Lincoln did not for the first two years of his suspension). It is not proper for dissenting newspaper editors, opposition party officials, judges, and 16 year old kids stuck in the military.
I know that Lincoln's orders many times, were over-zealously carried out.
It's a fact as long as it's true, and to date you've offered no credible reason to believe it isn't.
I know that Lincoln's orders many times, were over-zealously carried out.
Yes, and he also overzealously pursued them. The Merrick case is a prime example where Lincoln was DIRECTLY involved in harassing and abusing the judicial branch because they contradicted him on habeas corpus NOT over any genuine real or even imagined criminal but on the case of a teenage minor who was illegally being held in the army. Seward's orders and the court documents reveal that Lincoln personally instructed him to house arrest Judge Merrick, unconstitutionally suspend Merrick's salary, and intervene to prevent the delivery of a contempt summons against the general who placed the guards at Merrick's house.