"I Saw John Wilkes Booth Shoot Abraham Lincoln (April 14, 1965)"

rusty quoting Justice Scalia: "Although this provision does not state that suspension must be effected by, or authorized by, a legislative act, it has been so understood..."

Perhaps so understood today, but in 1861 there was no precedent or previous exercise of Congress's authority to revoke habeas corpus.
So Lincoln's emergency action, during Congress' recess, of revoking habeas corpus on his own authority in April 1861, set a precedent.
On its return, Congress debated Lincoln's emergency action at great length, and finally decided to:

Not indemnify the President for his unconstitutional acts, but
at the same time to allow on Congress's own authority suspension of habeas corpus.

"That bill, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, was signed into law March 3, 1863.[18]
Lincoln exercised his powers under it in September, suspending habeas corpus throughout the Union in any case involving prisoners of war, spies, traitors, or military personnel,[19]
The suspension of habeas corpus remained in effect until Andrew Johnson revoked it on December 1, 1865.[20]"

Interesting to note that while Congress authorized suspending habeas corpus, it was the President who revoked that suspension.
Later in 1871, Congress specifically authorized the President to revoke habeas corpus, for a limited time.

Bottom line: During the Civil War, Congress decided to preserve its constitutional authority on habeas corpus, while at the same time allowing the President to take such actions as were obviously necessary.

jmacusa: "Did FDR use this power to deny Japanese, Italian and German-Americans their rights during WW2?"

This link discusses habeas corpus during World War II.
It does mention other examples of habeas corpus being suspended, but not those you name.

This link discusses internment of German-Americans during World Wars One & Two, but does not discuss the issue of habeas corpus.

This link discusses internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, and mentions the ex parte Endo (1944) case in which the Supreme Court ruled the War Relocation Authority (WRA) could not deny habeas corpus to civilians.

jmacusa: "Could George Bush have done so after 9/11?"

So far as I know, the "Patriot Act" does not deny habeas corpus to any Americans.

central_va: "to spur industrial growth? What? One sentence in a wiki? What BS."

Here is more on the subject of martial law and habeas corpus in the Confederacy:

"Although historians would, for many years, claim that the Confederacy did not curtail rights in the fashion of the U.S. government, there were, in fact, many such instances.
Both the Virginia General Assembly and the Confederate Congress passed drafts and restricted property rights.
Travel also was restricted.
"The Confederate Congress declared martial law, prohibited the sale of alcohol, and suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
An entire Habeas Corpus Commission was established whose commissioners could arrest any Confederate citizen and question his or her loyalty.

"Although there were protests, mostly directed at the Confederate government, most Virginia citizens accepted these limits on their freedoms as the price of military victory."

“southerners are the backbone of social conservatism”

Amen, brother. I, too, come back once in a while to check these guys out. Their hate and southernphobia is massive and lasting. I find WBTS history fascinating because the causes of the war (other than slavery) are as relevant today as they were 150 years ago. States, rights, social engineering, federalism, regional dominance/suppression, SOTUS decisions.

The one undeniable fact that makes their heads explode is that it was Lincoln and the Union — having forced federalism upon us — that put us on the downward slide toward socialism and made it possible for Marxists like Obama to rise in power. This would NOT have happened in the Confederacy where government tried to preserve the vision of our Founding Fathers. It kills them to admit that Union perseverance and the rise of socialism go hand in hand, and that by worshiping Lincoln they are defacto advocates of Marxism/socialism.

Watch. They won’t be able to help themselves. It will only take a few minutes for them to start spewing hate simply because I spoke the truth. Just like liberals.

rusty: "Perhaps your source does not count the provisional Confederate government and only counts Davis taking office in 1862 after the November 1861 election."

That seems correct.
Here is the Almanac's description of it:

February 22, 1862: "President Jefferson Davis is inaugurated as the first elected chief executive of the Confederate States of America...
From this point on, Southerners view their constitution and administration as permanent, not provisional.
February 27, 1862: "Like his northern counterpart, President Jefferson Davis finds it necessary to suspend writs of habeas corpus as a wartime expedient.
He then declares martial law in Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia, then threatened by Union forces."
and from your link, February 27, 1862: "Davis was given permission by the Confederate Congress to suspend habeas corpus if he felt it was necessary to do so.
Davis asked for martial law to be introduced at Norfolk and Portsmouth – both important naval bases in Virginia. "

The key point here seems to be that while Davis received Confederate congressional authority to suspend habeas corpus in February 1862, Lincoln did not receive similar authority until March 1863.

However, the Confederate government's actions in suppressing pro-Unionist civilians in, for example, East Tennessee, did not wait for formal Confederate Congressional authorizations to revoke habeas corpus, etc.

Lee'sGhost: "Watch. They won’t be able to help themselves.
It will only take a few minutes for them to start spewing hate simply because I spoke the truth.
Just like liberals."

Virtually everyone posting on Free Republic is not just "right of center" but "right of the center of the right" -- meaning we are the ones who support and vote for the most conservative of candidates to elected offices.
Of course, if that's "liberal" in your mind...

And truly, the only ones "spewing hate" and nonsense are you and your buddies.
The rest of us do our best to stick to the facts.

Lee'sGhost: "Lincoln and the Union — having forced federalism upon us — that put us on the downward slide toward socialism..."

That slide did not begin under Lincoln -- as has been pointed out here many times -- it began 100 years ago under the "Progressives", including Southerner President Woodrow Wilson, and with full-throated support from the solid Southern-Democrat South.

The South's transition from Liberal-Democrats to Conservative-Republicans began in 1964, and was not really completed until Bush vs Gore in 2000:

1936 -- Roosevelt (blue) vs. Landon (red):

2000 -- Bush (red) vs. Gore (blue)

Nothing more than Angry Amish and their goofball cracker kapos

been that way here since 2000

started as a club of black GOP lads from the DC area and they work as a group

they have been caught staging racism and had cohorts banned..who have likely filtered back

if you scratch the skin of any of them it’s either about that or it’s about their wife etc

blinded by their own bigotry and incapable of reasonable discussion about that period of history and an objective view of slavery in general or Lincoln or Radical Republicans etc

this is not say that many black freepers play this role here..in fact I’d guess 95% do not

the only frustrating thing is that frequently they are proven to be liberal agitators and it takes the mods here forever to zot them since they rarely go off Civil War threads

but when they do they expose themselves...(even though I disagree with X on anything race oriented...I do think he is a conservative otherwise...to this credit)...the rrest race bait any and everywhere if they get the chance

From your post 149: However, the Confederate government's actions in suppressing pro-Unionist civilians in, for example, East Tennessee, did not wait for formal Confederate Congressional authorizations to revoke habeas corpus, etc.

From your post 123: In some areas of the Confederacy, like eastern Tennessee, martial law led to the summary executions of a few civilians and the mass incarceration of others.

A few months after Tennessee's secession, Unionists in East Tennessee started burning railroad bridges to cripple the Confederate war effort. Confederates acted to stop this activity and at least five bridge burners were hung after "trials."

This is similar to Union General Halleck's 1861 order to hang bridge burners caught in the act in Missouri. Link

Many East Tennessee Unionists rose up against the Confederates. Perhaps the following link to a Confederate communication gives an indication of what the Confederates were facing and suggests why the Confederates held captured Unionists as prisoners: Link.

Sorry you wasted time with unrelated charts, because you’re totally missing the point. I’m not saying that Lincoln was a progressive or socialist or anything of the kind. What I am saying is fact — by forcing the issue, Lincoln answered the question that had haunted or nagged the U.S. since it’s inception, were we a federalized country with a strong central government, or a collection of strong states with a weak central government that existed to address the handful of things outlined in the Constitution? Lincoln and the Union determined that it would be federalism. Federalism led to weakening of state rights and strong state governments which naturally lead to stronger and stronger central governance which, taken to its ultimate conclusion, allows socialism to thrive and for Marxists to be elected president.

Period.

Thank you Lincoln and Yankees.

... in 1861 there was no precedent or previous exercise of Congress's authority to revoke habeas corpus

Thomas Jefferson asked Congress to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in connection with Aaron Burr's actions. IIRC, the Senate gave its consent but the House did not, so habeas corpus was allowed. That seems ample precedent for Lincoln to ask Congress for a suspension rather than assume the duties of the legislature himself.

Then there was the case of General Andrew Jackson who suspended the writ and even jailed the judge in 1815 following his victory in the Battle of New Orleans. The following used to be on a DOJ web site, but my old link to it no longer works.

Major General Andrew Jackson Indicted

A very interesting case occurred during the tenure of United States Attorney John Dick in 1815. Just after the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812, United States Attorney Dick indicted Major General Andrew Jackson on charges of obstruction of justice. Jackson also was charged with contempt of court. According to the indictment, Jackson had "...disrespectfully wrested from the clerk an original order of the honorable the judge of this court, for the issuing of a writ of habeas corpus in the case of a certain Louis Louallier, then imprisoned by the said Major General Andrew Jackson." Jackson incurred the charges of obstruction when he imprisoned the judge who had charged him with contempt. When the future President of the United States appeared in court, he refused to answer the interrogatories and promptly received a fine of $1,000 which he paid and then left the court. Leaving the courthouse, Jackson stopped and spoke to a large crowd that had gathered:

I have during the invasion (of New Orleans) exerted every one of my faculties for the defense and preservation of the Constitution and the laws. On this day I have been called upon to submit to their operations, under circumstances which many persons might have thought sufficient to justify resistance Considering obedience to the laws, even when we think them unjustly applied, is the first duty of the citizen, and I do not hesitate to comply with the sentence you have heard pronounced; and I entreat you to remember the example I have given you of respectful submission to the administration of justice. (As quoted in Proceedings of the Louisiana Bar Association, 1898-1899, p. 120.)

That is precedent for Lincoln on what to do if you suspend the writ without the approval of Congress.

"The whole country now is in a state of rebellion. A thousand men are within six miles of Strawberry Plains Bridge, and an attack is contemplated to-morrow." - Colonel William B. Wood

What rich irony. Union loyalists fighting to protect their communities referred to as rebels by rebels fighting to subjugate them.

I am reminded of the stories of trial and tribulation in these border states whenever I hear loose talk of secession. This is the face of it - families and communities torn apart and set against one another. Good seldom comes from it.

Not Lincoln alone. Chief Justice Rehnquist spoke and wrote on the subject numerous times.

Delhi, I refer you to an interesting old GOPcapitalist thread where he and Non-Sequitur argued about Rehnquist and Bollman and Swartwout. It contains more habeas corpus quotes and even sources for Lincoln’s “What is to become of the revenue?” quote.

See: Lincoln's Unconstitutional Suspension of Habeas Corpus - an analysis of an impeachable offense

I have followed on the web the successful career of GOPcapitalist since he terminated his FR membership. Who knows what happened to old non-seq? He’s probably running a copy machine for others and getting coffee for the professionals at an IT company.

An interesting discussion, but it proves nothing other than GOPcapitalist thought that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. As it happens, I fall into that same camp. I believe that the founders intended for habeas corpus to be suspended by Congress alone under the circumstances outlined in the Constitution. But that, too, is merely opionion and it does not prove Chief Justice Rehnquist wrong. The Constitution is, unfortunately, vague on who may suspend habeas corpus, and the question of who has never definitively been decided by the Supreme Court. And hopefully it never will be, because in order to do so habeas corpus would have to be suspended again. I’m not looking forward to that.

Another uncharacteristic and unfair comment from you rustbucket. I haven't been on the WBTS threads as long as you - or gopc or non-seq - but I have gone back and reviewed many of the threads and a couple of things stand out. One, I don't recall non sequitur ever slandering you or offering a gratuitousness insult. Perhaps there was something but I never saw it.

As for gopc, I don't recall that he ever gave you the time of day. How could he? He was consumed with the "sound" of his own voice. My read of the threads reveals him to be a whiny b*tch who may be an ardent arguer but, like Øbozo, didn't cotton well to anyone disagreeing with him.

YMMV

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.