rusty's correct point is that (per Article 1, Section 9) only Congress has constitutional authority to suspend habeas corpus, not the President on his own authority.
At the time of Lincoln's first suspension of habeas corpus, April 27, 1861, the issue was riots and rebellion in Maryland -- exactly those envisioned by the Founders in the Constitution.
However, Congress was not in session at the time, so Lincoln acted on his own.
When Congress returned, it took up the question of authorizing Lincoln's actions, and eventually approved:
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]"
Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus in the Confederacy:
Without doubt, the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus belongs to Congress, not the President.
However, on occasion, Congress has authorized the President to suspend habeas corpus on his own authority, notably in the Civil Rights act of 1871.
Today the right of habeas corpus is much in the news, regarding terrorists, but that's a whole other subject.
Thanks for the clarification. However I note that Article 1 sec.9 refers to ‘’the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus’’, not ‘’the right of’’. It’s my understanding rights are immutable whereas a ‘’privilege’’ can be revoked.
Thanks, BJK. I did not realize the indemnity had been removed.
It is my understanding that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus only after receiving authority to do so from the Confederate Congress for various limited time periods.
FYI, here is a link to the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863: Link.
Section 4 of that Act instructs the courts that any order of the President during the existence of the rebellion shall be a defense from prosecution, criminal or civil.
Strictly speaking, Congress did not suspend the privilege, they merely passed the authority to do that to the President. I don't know whether one branch of government delegating to another branch of government something the first branch was responsible for under the Constitution is strictly correct under the Constitution. There is a term for that sort of delegation that I don't remember.
jmacusa, I'm not sure why the wording of Article I, Section 9 was left as ambiguous as it was. Perhaps they felt by its being in the Article that dealt with the powers of Congress, there was no need to specify that Section 9 dealt with a power of Congress.
to spur industrial growth? What? One sentence in a wiki? What BS. As far as freedom of the press in the South the Richmond papers certainly didn't mince words of consternation of the wars progress.