OK I found the article and I started reading it. I couldn't get far before the opinions being paraded as fact got too much for me. Let's take them one by one and we can discuss each before proceeding to the next. Let's start with this one: "On April 13, he declared the seceding states in a condition of rebellion and called for 75,000 troops to deal with them — a declaration expressly reserved to Congress by the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”"
If Mr. Dwyer had done even the most cursory research before writing his article he would have no doubt come across a piece of legislation called the Militia Act of 1792, which was revised in 1795 and on several occasions after that. The pertinent part is in Section 2:
"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.
Note the two parts in bold print. It is lawful for the president to decide if the militia needs to be called up. He can determine if rebellion exists, he doesn't need to wait for Congress to do so. And he has the power to call up the militia in his own authority if Congress was not in session, which it was not. So that claim that Lincoln abused his powers and violated the Constitution is flat out wrong. I'll turn it back to you for your response before we proceed to the next one.
Normally the southern partisans assert that the changes to the 1795 militia act that permitted the President to determine if an insurrection exists, and to call out the militia, are unconstitutional, because Lincoln did it, so it must be unconstitutional.