That was of course the Founders' position.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
From 1861 to 1865 a rebellion was in full swing, and every year from 1861 to 1864 invasions of actual Union states by large forces in the service of a purported "foreign power" took place.
IOW, throughout the Civil War both rebellion and invasion were in progress, fully authorizing suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights if "the public safety requires it."
One can make a claim that the public safety did not require such action, in which case the suspension of civil rights would not be constitutional. But I don't think there is a very good argument for such a position.
Alright, Sherman, and where is the provision (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2)? It is an Article I power, not an Article II power. As you should know, Article I sets forth the powers given to CONGRESS. The entire discussion has had to do with Lincoln unconstitutionally usurping Congress’ power in this area. People familiar with this area of the law know that well before 1860 even the federal courts had recognized that this was an explicit grant of power to the Congress. John Marshall, years before, had written in an opinion that “if ...the public safety should require the suspension of [the writ of habeas corpus] it is for the legislature to say so.” By the time of Lincoln there was a line of precedent for this very obvious constitutional point. Lincoln ignored a USSC order telling him to stop his unlawful arrests, and the unlawful suspension of the Great Writ continued for some time (and thousands of illegal arrests) before the Congress voted a suspension.