Maryland Writ Of Execution: Fill & Download for Free

Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the United States’ most beloved president, widely adored for ushering the country through the trying times of the American Civil War and abolishing slavery……also suspended habeas corpus.Now, let’s lay the groundwork. First we’ll define what habeas corpus is, for anyone who isn’t aware. In the United States, when a person is arrested by the police on suspicion of a crime, a court can issue a writ of habeas corpus—a piece of paper which requires the arresting authority to either demonstrate ample cause for the arrest (say, by filing charges) or release the detainee.Second, let’s look and see where the state of Maryland is on a map, in relation to the northern and southern United States:Yup. Smack dab in the middle.April, 1861.[1] War had broken out between the Union in the north and the Confederacy in the south. Abraham Lincoln called for the northern states to send militia troops to Washington, D.C. Naturally, any troops coming from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island had to pass through Maryland on their way to the nation’s capital. Quite a number of Marylanders were against the idea of making war on the South, and riots broke out. Mobs of angry Marylanders even attacked federal troop transports.A number of Maryland politicians were leery of war with the South. These included Thomas Hicks (the governor), George Brown (the mayor of Baltimore), and almost the entire Maryland state legislature. Fearful of further rioting and violence, the legislature voted against opening rail lines to the North. The legislature also officially petitioned President Lincoln to remove the growing numbers of federal troops piling up in their state. Lincoln refused. Governor Hicks and Mayor Brown then asked Lincoln to prevent the crossing of any more troops through Maryland. Lincoln again refused.Not long after this little incident, Lincoln asked Attorney General Edward Bates whether it would be possible to suspend habeas corpus.Edward BatesNow, I’ll grant you that Lincoln’s back was against the wall. Washington, D.C. is quite close to Virginia. The Confederate capital was in Virginia—Richmond, just a hundred miles south. Almost everything south of D.C. was Confederate territory—and the Confederate armies were massing for an attack, too. Lincoln had to get those troops to Washington. He had no time for pettifogging Maryland politicians obstructing the movement of his precious blue-clad soldiers.On April 27, 1861, Lincoln authorized Union troops to suspend habeas corpus if they encountered any resistance on the “military line” throughout Maryland.On April 29, the Maryland legislature voted against allowing federal troops to use Maryland as a highway to Washington. Governor Hicks then allegedly authorized the Maryland state militia to destroy several key railroad bridges that the Union was using to move its troops southward.Militia lieutenant John Merryman was arrested on May 25 for his role in destroying railroad bridges at the Bush and Gunpowder Rivers. He was charged with treason, taken to Fort McHenry in Baltimore, and there imprisoned.John MerrymanMerryman’s lawyers lost no time. They headed straight to Washington and barged into the offices of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (and author of the infamous Dred Scott decision), demanding a writ of habeas corpus. Taney issued the writ the day after Merryman’s arrest, May 26. The writ ordered General George Cadwalader, the commander of the military district wherein Fort McHenry was located, to bring Merryman before Taney the next day, without fail.Roger B. TaneyGeneral Cadwalader sent one of his colonels to Justice Taney on May 27. The colonel bore a letter from Cadwalader explaining to Taney that, under orders from President Lincoln, the Federal Army had suspended habeas corpus in Maryland for the time being, that Merryman was being held for treason, doncha know, and for being illegally in possession of U.S. government arms, dude, and, like, advocating armed hostility against the federal government and all that jazz. Cadwalader advised Taney that these were dark and dangerous times, and it was perhaps better to err on the side of national security. Due to the complex nature of the issues at stake and the dire nature of the charges being leveled against Merryman, Cadwalader politely asked Taney for an extension so he (Cadwalader) could seek clarification from President Lincoln.George CadwaladerWell, one doesn’t just say “no” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Taney fired back the 1861 equivalent of a “Oh hell NAW you didn’t” to Cadwalader. Then the incensed Taney went one step further: he held Cadwalader to be in contempt of court. Taney ordered a U.S. Marshal to arrest Cadwalader and haul his sorry carcass up in front of Taney the next day.The marshal dutifully knocked on the door of Fort McHenry on May 28, but the sentries refused to let him in. Rumor has it that Cadwalader, earlier that day, had received orders from U.S. Army headquarters telling him to keep holding Merryman at all costs, Chief Justice Taney be damned. Whether that’s true or not, Cadwalader had decided to stand his ground. He ordered his sentries to turn the marshal away.Taney filed a written opinion with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland on June 1, 1861. In it, he put Lincoln on blast for bestowing unlimited power on himself. His wording was quite strong:These great and fundamental laws, which Congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.The crux of Taney’s argument was that only Congress, not the President, had the right to suspend habeas corpus, and then only in the most dire of circumstances.Now, technically, Lincoln hadn’t done anything wrong. Not according to the Constitution, anyway. As Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution says: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.Lincoln clearly thought that habeas corpus was indeed a privilege and not a right, and it could be suspended if the public safety required it, and that in this particular case, the public safety most certainly did require it. And he resented Taney for putting up a stink.Lincoln defended his suspension of habeas corpus in a speech he gave to Congress on July 4, 1861, framing the question as he saw it: a choice between strict interpretation of constitutional law, or the dissolution of the Union.The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that “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” is equivalent to a provision—is a provision—that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.On July 10, a grand jury in Baltimore indicted Merryman for treason. The allegations were damning. Merryman was accused of “wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously” waging war upon the United States, with the assistance of 500 armed men. He was charged with destroying no fewer than six railroad bridges as well as telegraph lines, with the aim of hindering Union troops from crossing the state and severing their lines of communication. Merryman posted his $20,000 bail and was released, pending trial.But the case never came to trial. Since treason was punishable by death, it would have to be tried in a federal circuit court. At that time, Supreme Court justices also served as circuit court judges. There were only two federal judges for the U.S. Circuit Court in the District of Maryland: our good friend Roger B. Taney and another man named William F. Giles (who, interestingly enough, had had one of his own writs of habeas corpus ignored by William W. Morris, the commander of Fort McHenry, just a short time prior to the Merryman affair).But the vindictive Taney would have none of it. Though repeatedly asked to schedule hearings for the accused, Taney declined time and time again. Taney justified his obstructionism by proclaiming that neither Merryman nor anyone else who’d been indicted would get a fair trial in Maryland. (He also claimed his health was poor and this was a really bad time for him to be handing down orders from the bench, cough cough.) Taney resisted all attempts made by federal authorities to replace him and put enough pressure on Judge Giles to ensure that Giles wouldn’t hear the case by himself.This brouhaha dragged on for years. In 1864, Taney wrote: “I will not place the judicial power in this humiliating position nor consent to degrade and disgrace it, and if the district attorney presses the prosecutions I shall refuse to take them up.”Taney died in 1864, still bitter. For whatever reason, Salmon P. Chase, who became Chief Justice and circuit court judge for Maryland after Taney’s death, also refused to conduct any Merryman hearings.I’d love to be able to tie a neat bow around this story and wrap it up for you, but this is where it ends. Everything just sort of fizzled out. The war ended. Lincoln was assassinated. Merryman never saw the inside of a federal prison, let alone a gallows, and later became Maryland’s State Treasurer.But let’s stop and think about this for a moment. This is Abraham Lincoln we’re talking about. Freer of the slaves. Preserver of the Union. Savior of America. Inspirational leader, speaker, and writer. Millions of Americans’ favorite American.You can almost see the halo around his head.And yet, despite his sterling reputation as a lover of freedom, democracy, and unity, Lincoln somehow believed that he had the right to throw a man in jail indefinitely, without charges, representation, due process of law, trial, or possibility of parole. Because, in his sainted opinion, an abstract noun (“public safety”) was in jeopardy.Take a minute to let that sink in. The man who often gets the credit for freeing the slaves, the beneficent patriarch who preserved the Union and led the young United States through arguably what was its greatest moral, legal, and existential crisis, basically believed that he had the right to interpret the Constitution as he saw fit, tell the judiciary to go pound sand, and imprison anyone for any length of time during a national crisis. At his sole discretion.It’s really quite disturbing when you allow yourself to contemplate it.Footnotes[1] President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War

Yes, it was okay.In Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, the U.S. Constitution clearly states:"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."Read it again, if you must. "Unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it." Whatever way you look at secession, the situation was either rebellion or invasion.Lincoln suspended the writ for only a brief amount of time in a very specific area of Maryland, the railroad corridor from Baltimore to Washington. His reasons were eminently sensible, given his position. He was charged with defending the Constitution of the United States, and the Republic it ordained and established. The capital at Washington was essentially a besieged city at that moment, with rebellious Confederate armies across the Potomac to the south, and pro-secessionist Marylanders flitting about cutting telegraph wires and burning railroad bridges to the north. The capital falling to the Rebels, along with the government itself, would spell victory for them before the contest had well and truly begun.Given that Congress was not in session at the time of this crisis, and the Constitution having within it a clearly worded clause indicating that dire circumstances may excuse its suspension, Lincoln acted, and suspended it in the aforementioned area. Some Marylanders were imprisoned without due process as a result.Perhaps the best man to explain his rationale is Lincoln himself. When Congress did reconvene in July, Lincoln sent a message to them detailing the actions he had taken in their absence and asking for their approval. As regards his suspension of habeas corpus, he had the following to say:Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to authorize the Commanding General, in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; or, in other words, to arrest, and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it, are questioned; and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’’ should not himself violate them. Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power, and propriety, before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty, than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken, if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law, would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that “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,’’ is equivalent to a provision—is a provision—that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.So, either you find his rationale eminently sensible and reasonable, and his actions both moderate and justified...or you consider him a tyrant. There appears to be very little middle ground.

How about a president who:Declared martial law in a state, imprisoned much of the state legislature and numerous city officials without charges, then ignored a Supreme Court order that demanded their releaseFollowing that, declared that he had suspended the writ of habeas corpusImprisoned without charge news media and publishers who criticized himDecreed that an executive order overrode a clause of the ConstitutionChanged his definition of a state in order to withhold statehood from several states until they accepted his executive orderSound like a tyrannical dictator? His name is Abe Lincoln.The Civil War tested the boundaries of the separation of powers like no other event in American history. There were no precedents, and the executive branch had the natural advantage as it controlled the mechanisms of enforcement.When Maryland seemed ambivalent on whether to support the union, Lincoln ensured that Washington DC would not be surrounded by Confederate states by sending the union army to declare martial law and arrest state legislators. Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney, infamous author of Dred Scott, ruled these arrests unconstitutional. Lincoln simply ignored this ruling. This impelled Frank Key Howard, grandson of Francis Scott Key, to write an editorial criticizing the President. Lincoln promptly had Key arrested and imprisoned, with no sense of irony, in Fort McHenry.Maryland in the American Civil WarToday we see the Emancipation Proclamation as anything but controversial. At the time, however, it constituted an unprecedented executive power grab. The pre-13th Amendment Constitution explicitly protected the institution of slavery through the Fugitive Slave Clause. Yet here was the President simply declaring, with no Congressional authorization or Amendment, that not only would runaway slaves not be returned as the Constitution demanded, but that all slaves in rebellious territories were from that point on, freedmen. Calling this an expansive interpretation of the executive power of the President as Commander in Chief is quite the understatement.In the early part of the War, Lincoln was vehement that the Confederate states never left the union. He claimed all state secession laws were invalid, as the Constitution provided states no such authority. When speaking or writing, Lincoln would simply refer to them as states "in rebellion." However, he realized that this posed a problem when post-war planning began in 1863. Confederate states would have considerable legislative power once they rejoined the federal government, as freed slaves would give the south a much larger official population. (The Three-Fifths Compromise would no longer apply) Lincoln and other Republicans were very wary that the war may have been fought for nothing if the south could simply undermine the Emancipation Proclamation legislatively. So Lincoln simply changed his definition of what constituted a state. Instead of defining the confederacy as states "in rebellion", he now declared that they were not part of the union and would need to agree to a list of conditions to be readmitted. These conditions would later include passing the 13th Amendment, which officially ended slavery.Ten percent plan