[Non-Sequitur]

But it did not rule if Lincoln's actions in Maryland in 1861 were illegal. Nor did it rule if, say, suspension of habeas corpus in New Orleans was illegal. It just ruled that in states not in rebellion and where the courts operated freely then suspension of habeas corpus was not necessary so it couldn't be done.

Had there been such a thing as a confederate supreme court I wonder what they would have thought of the Davis suspension of habeas corpus. If they followed the same legal thinking of the U.S. Supreme court I would assume that they should have found Davis in violation of the constitution as well. But we'll never know.

[4CJ]

"Had there been such a thing as a confederate supreme court I wonder what they would have thought of the Davis suspension of habeas corpus. If they followed the same legal thinking of the U.S. Supreme court I would assume that they should have found Davis in violation of the constitution as well. But we'll never know."

If you or I believe that the Constitution is a document for all times and places, for war and peace, and that the powers are delegated to a specific party for a reason, then I would have to agree that it was unconstitutional for Lincoln and Davis. Amend the Constitution if you want, but do not deviate from it until then.