I think there is a problem with your mental health.
What is the matter?
You don't want me to read Bansel for myself?
The problem is that you have assumed that suspending the Writ is a bad thing.
Based on that overly simplistic assumption, you then conclude that the Union did 38,000 bad thing to the Souths 4,000.
But, the suspension of the Writ, while it may have been illegal, may not have been the worse action, a far worse action would have been to allow traitors to operate behind your lines.
He might be correct in his opinion. If he is correct (and you have offered absolutely no credible reason to believe he isn't) it is not opinion but fact. Either the north was worse or the south was worse. It can only be one of two things, and all the evidence is pointing at the north.
Again, you are assuming the suspension of the Writ was always wrong.
Given recent events with courts, I am not at this moment feeling any great sympathy for them. Whatever idiocy emerges from the courts last week has absolutely no bearing on an unrelated case from 140 years ago. Unless you believe Ted Kennedy, not even the most partisan and justified critic of the courts today in Congress would ever advocate doing today what Lincoln did to Judge Merrick. Not even to George Greer, who actually did something wrong unlike Merrick.
What we saw recently is simply a failure of the two other branches of Government to reign in an out of control judicary.
And I think you've stolen a projector, all the while subconciously aware of your own condition. I suppose you will call me whatever you like, but one thing is certain. You are the one who would not even admit that 38,000 exceeds 4,000 by almost tenfold.
Again, you are assuming the suspension of the Writ was always wrong.
Just as you are assuming that the suspension of the writ is justified in a broad range of circumstances.