Abraham Lincoln and Treason in the Civil War: The Trials of John Merryman

EPILOGUE: “HABEAS CORPUS JOHN”

107 Epilogue “Habeas Corpus John” John Merryman’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus became a cause célèbre in both the northern states and the Confederacy. In Maryland, his case became a flashpoint of controversy and heated exchanges. Between April and August 1861, the Maryland legislature adopted resolutions and enacted statutes rebuking the Lincoln administration for its usurpations in their state. From the legislators’ vantage point, the state and its citizens needed to be vindicated against the federal government’s encroachments on civil liberties. Lincoln’s policies in Maryland also seemed to justify the South’s course of action. As a consequence, the general assembly requested their representatives in Congress to “urge and vote for an immediate recognition of the independence of the government of the Confederate States of America.” While it is true that the assembly never voted for Maryland to secede, resolutions such as these can hardly be considered loyal.1 The assembly adopted several resolutions decrying the military occupation of Baltimore and the arrest of Maryland civilians. In one such set of resolutions, the legislature declared itself for “peace . . . in favor of a recognition of the Southern Confederacy” and viewed “with utmost alarm and indignation the exercise of the despotic power, that has dared to suspend [the writ of habeas corpus] in the case of John Merryman now confined in Fort McHenry.” The assembly also adopted legislation to protect leaders in Baltimore who might be accused of taking actions against the Union. In May 1861 the legislature enacted a law prohibiting the prosecution of the mayor or police of Baltimore, or any of their subordinates, for any actions they had taken “in their efforts to maintain peace and good order, and prevent further strife on and after the occurrences on the nineteenth day of April.”2 Just as Lincoln and Congress would come to realize about officers at the federal level, the state of Maryland believed it needed 108 | Abraham Lincoln and Treason in the Civil War to protect those who acted in controversial ways on behalf of the state. On June 18, 1861, the legislature reaffirmed Merryman’s commission as first lieutenant of the Baltimore County Horse Guards “as if he had taken the oath of office,” which he presumably was unable to take since he was still confined in Fort McHenry. In January 1862, however, after the state government had fallen into firm Unionist hands, the legislature stripped Merryman of his commission. Both of these laws were symbolic gestures since the Horse Guards had disbanded by May 1861.3 The Union military presence in Maryland generally ensured that state authorities remained loyal to the federal cause during the war. As a consequence, the legislature enacted several laws to punish treason and disloyalty within the state. In February 1862, perhaps in response to Ex parte Merryman, the Maryland legislature denied the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to persons charged with treason. The following month the state passed a major piece of legislation that defined and punished “Treason and other kindred offences,” such as displaying rebel flags “with a view and intent to excite seditious feelings.” Later during the war, the state constitution disfranchised Maryland voters who could not take an oath of both past and future loyalty to the United States.4 As odious as such legislation must have been to southern sympathizers like Chief Justice Taney and John Merryman, Maryland Democrats were powerless to stop their enactment and execution. RogerB.Taneyhadgonetogreatlengthstohavehisopinionreachasmany readers as possible. The chief justice saw to the publication of the opinion in pamphlet form, and Mark Neely suggests that Ex parte Merryman ought to be read like a nineteenth-century political stump speech. Taney’s opinion reached the broad audience he desired. South of the Mason-Dixon Line, Confederate leaders applauded Taney’s actions in the Merryman case. “The eminent and venerable Chief Justice Taney . . . whose purity of character and whose great legal ability are acknowledged by all, has in a recent decision clearly exposed the unconstitutionality of the proceedings ,” wrote Confederate secretary of state R. M. T. Hunter of the suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland. Both publicly and privately Confederate president Jefferson Davis echoed Taney’s criticism of that “ignorant usurper” in the North who was “trampl[ing] upon all the prerogatives of citizenship” and “exercis[ing] power never delegated to him.”5 Epilogue | 109 In Louisiana, twenty-two-year-old Maryland native...