Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
This is not true. At the time filibuster rules did not have what we now call closure. As long as the Democratic Senators kept filibustering, they could deny any legislation they wanted to kill.

I looked up the 1863 bill you mentioned, and it seems that this is exactly what happened. Even though Dem's controlled 25% of the Senate (at the time) they had to be borderline cheated out of their time on the floor for the Republicans to pass the bill.
Also keep in mind that in 1861 at the war's outbreak, the Dems share of the Senate was much higher (40%+). So this bill only passed under sketchy means after 2 years of expulsions and vacancies which reduced the number of Democrats in the chamber by 45%.

I would say the lack of closure gives Lincoln the justification to do what he did. As long as 1 Democratic senator was loyal to the rebel cause, Congress was at risk of sabotaging the war effort through delay and inaction.
Such is the nature of Civil War, that these situations give rise to bending the rules dramatically.
The peace democrats were a much bigger political problem in 1863 and 1864 -- up until "little Napoleon" was beaten by absentee balloting....passed by Congress without demur. There were Democrats on the roster in 1861 but they were not a real factor. Certainly there wasn't enough of an active effort by them to derail anything else Lincoln was doing for the war effort. I simply do not see why it took them (and it should have been them not Abe) to issue the suspension resolution.

You are absolutely correct that a lot of things get tossed on their ear in a civil war.