Was the Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Jefferson Davis Necessary - Research Paper Example

Task Was the suspension of habeas corpus by Jefferson Davis necessary? Introduction “…the problem of survival was now inexorably his [Davis]. Congress had given him what he asked, or most of it, and if his program failed, the reckoning would be grim”1 The writ of habeas corpus is a common feature in most modern jurisdictions. However, its enforcement, application and suspension have been at the center of controversy especially with regard to its suspension. It is this suspension of the right that has spilt tons of scholarly ink on the subject with many scholars taking different stances over the subject. It is thus imperative to begin with a detailed explanation of the meaning and key concepts of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a writ founded on the legal doctrine of an accused person’s entitlement to a fair trial. Its essence is that a person deserves to be tried before an open court of law where he can respond to the charges presented before him as an accused person. It is therefore a court order to show cause as to the purpose and a justification for the arrest of the accused person. When presented before a court of law, the state is required to bring forth a prisoner held in custody so that the court can determine the lawfulness of the detention.2 It is for this reason that Habeas corpus is considered to be among the cornerstones of American civil liberties and has been used extensively as a powerful safeguard against unlawful arrests. The term ‘habeas corpus’ originates from the Latin maxim “to produce the body of”, whereby ‘habeas’ loosely translates to “you have” and ‘corpus’ refers to the body. The writ can be traced as far back as the British occupation of the United States. However, the most accurate detailed explanation of its origin is found in the British Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was a pact between King George and his subjects outlining many promises including the promise that no person would be seized or imprisoned, outlawed, or exiled without lawful judgment of his equals or by the laws of the land.3 As earlier noted, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus has been a highly controversial subject in history. This is because of the grave consequences that the suspension of the writ engenders. The American Constitution allows for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or the invasion of the public safety.4 Under the American history, the writ has been suspended severally, especially during the American civil war. The first suspension of the writ took place in 1861, where President Abraham Lincoln authorized a suspension of the writ upon the outbreak of riots, threats of succession and resident militia actions.5 Even then, this generated a public outcry in which the Maryland courts challenged the suspension of the writ.6 President Jefferson Davis repeated the same act upon the emergence of the American civil war. However, his suspension of the writ during the confederacy period earned him a lot mob criticism. This is because not only did he suspend the writ once, but also sought to seek the extension of the suspension through congress. Unlike in the north where the suspension arose from civil unrest, the suspension of the writ in the south was mainly to spur economic development that had been rampaged by the economic crisis of the south. Partly to blame for the extension of the suspension was the reasoning, by Jefferson Davis, that winning the confederacy war and uniting the northern and southern states was his priority. The extension of the martial law was just but the means to win the war over the south and return the south to economic prosperity. This therefore meant that when the attention of the world was upon the Confederacy, President Davis’ focus was solely upon how to win the war, no matter what it took and any step towards achieving this objective was acceptable. Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy The American civil war emerged as a fight to preserve the union that was the United States of America. The existence of divergent views on the role of the federal government had always presented a source of conflict since the passing of the American constitution. These views were presented by the federalists, who held the view that the federal government should have the power to control the affairs of the union, while the anti-federalists believed that the states should have their own autonomy to govern their conduct. This was the belief that the states should have the power to determine their own laws within their borders and only result to the federal government as the last resort. The main reason for the confederacy was the conflicting economic interests of the northern and the southern states.7 Whereas the north was mainly an industrial and manufacturing center, the south was mainly an agricultural center tan relied heavily on slave labor for production. This was thus the beginning of the confederacy war. Slavery, which formed the bulk of the labor force in the south, was banned on the northern states. This ban faced stiff opposition from the southern states that were opposed to the abolition of the slave trade leading to an escalation of tensions between the north and the southern states. Formal secession, as result of these tensions, first took place in 1860 upon the election of Abraham Lincoln as president. The state of Carolina was the first one to secede from the union and was later followed by other southern states. Jefferson Davis was nominated into power in 1861 as the confederate president, on a provisional basis, to rule for a six-year term. Upon his nomination into office, Davis was faced with the daunting task of restoring the confederate to its initial successes and economic prosperity. He thus inherited a confederate involved in war with the north, and a confederate facing serious economic hardships. In 1862, after congress was prodded by complaints of illegal arrests of civilians by civil and military officials, the congress voted for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This was regarded as a necessity considering the prevailing unrest and the economic woes of the confederate at the time.8 Considering the circumstances, Davis was quick to enforce these provisions, and immediately suspended the writ of habeas corpus. By the end of March the same year, he had imposed martial law on all port cities in Virginia and several parishes of Louisiana.9 This power for Davis to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was renewed in October the same year. The resultant effect of this suspension was the blatant curtailment of civil liberties of individuals. This is because the executive had enacted martial law upon the confederate and thus persons could be arrested upon the suspicion of aiding the opposition. There are several accounts highlighting the misuse of the suspension of the martial law. One of these cases surrounded the arbitrary arrest of Dr. Charles McGill in Maryland. He was a doctor within the city of Baltimore and was arrested by confederation soldiers on the suspicion of attending to wounded soldiers. He was incarcerated without trial under inhumane conditions for almost over a year.10 The second case involving the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was the case of Reverend Robert Douglas from Maryland who was arrested by the military upon the suspicion of treason. It was alleged that his sermons that his sermons were treacherous to the cause of the confederation government and posed a threat to the interests of the public. He was first placed under house arrest and later into full custodial arrest by the military when he left his house to administer dying rights to a sick person. The military explained that his arrest was due to the discovery of some seditious material from his house after a search on his premises had been conducted. He was incarcerated for about six weeks without trial, a period of which he contracted a fatal disease. Although he was later released after six weeks, he succumbed to his illness a few weeks later.11 So was all these arbitral arrests justified under the prevailing circumstances? This I one question that many critics of Davis seem to pose in light of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the establishment of conscription. One of the key arguments that are presented by most sympathizers of Jefferson Davis is that in times of war sacrifices have to be made. Scholars such as Thomas (1979) subscribe to this school of thought in defending Jefferson Davis. In his book he argues that, “To fulfill southern nationalism, confederate southerners had to slaughter some of the sacred cows and overturn some of the shibboleths that had previously defined them as people.”12 This is clearly the line of thought that was followed by Davis in suspending the writ of habeas corpus and the establishment of conscription. He used this line of thought especially in the establishment of legal conscription, as the results from voluntary reenlistments were inadequate in filling the much-needed gaps in the confederate army. “To him it was not merely a way to fill the armies and distribute the burden of military service, but also a way to organize society’s human resources for the completion of those tasks most vital in wartime.”13 However, in sharp contrast to the north, Davis did not impose martial law without the authority of congress. He undertook all the necessary efforts to ensure that the suspension of habeas corpus would be specific and careful. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the North The writ of habeas corpus was first suspended in the north by President Abraham Lincoln because of riots, and actions of the local militia who sympathized with the confederate. Instead of launching a military offensive in Baltimore, Lincoln sought a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus on the Maryland state to stop the ongoing riots by the sympathizers of the confederate supporters. This suspension meant that the military could arrest and detain persons without trial on the suspicion that they were a threat to public safety.14 What followed this suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the north was a series of widespread criticism of Lincoln’s administrative practices. This is because it was considered illegal for the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus without the express authorization of congress. Of particular importance was the court’s decision in Ex Parte Milligan15 where the U.S Supreme Court held that the act of congress allowing the president to continue suspending the writ of habeas corpus was illegal and excessive. It thus called for the president to put an end to the suspension of the writ. Similarly, in the case of Ex Parte Merry man16 the court protested President’s Lincoln’s actions of allowing the military power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. However, Lincoln sympathizers argued that in the event of a declaration of a state of emergency only the president could act fast enough to protect public safety. The president himself took that view in his congressional speech arguing that it was only he who could act fast enough, and this was possible only through martial law. This view was even supported by Judge Bett when he infamously opined that: "If this construction of the Proclamation is correct, the instrument exceeds the power of the President under the act of March 3, 1863. We think it by no means desirous to attribute to the President a meaning which he never contemplated, for the purpose of making his legal act illegal by a strained construction. The language of the Proclamation is in the present tense; its authority is derived from a statute which clearly contemplates that the action of the President shall act prospectively. It is not decent to impute to President Lincoln an intention to do more than the law allowed.”17 This indicated that Lincoln, as opposed to Davis in the south, was unwilling to consult the congress first before suspending the writ of habeas corpus. This illustrates that Jefferson Davis was more willing to protect the affairs of his home front. This is evidenced by the fact that Davis first suspended the writ on the account of the economic hardships that faced the confederate. This decision is also used to defend his decision to enforce conscription to replenish his army reserves. This is because despite the numerous approaches formulated by his administration towards rising an army voluntarily did not succeed. According to many accounts of the war, Davis army was greatly overrun in terms of numbers.18 Davis had thus no other option other than raising his armies through conscription. The southern war As earlier discussed, when Jefferson Davis was nominated to office, he inherited a confederate that was engaged in a civil war, and whose economy was in shambles. There was thus the need for the executive to take up drastic actions to restore balance to the confederate and ensure that the war with the north was won. To achieve this objective, Davis thought that conscription was the only solution that was available to him in his quest to raise enough soldiers to sustain the war with the north. Although this was the first time in the U.S history that conscription was employed in a war, most sympathizers thought that the prevailing conditions required such measures as the south was losing the war to the north and there was a significant reduction in confederate labor. His stance of sticking to conscription earned him many critics but he would not yield to the demands of lifting the law on conscription .Instead, he chose to remove all the extraneous causes of complaint, and thus sought to punish and eliminate any action that amount to harsh treatment of the conscripts.19 Among the greatest critics of Davis was his vice president. Vice President Stephens completely disagreed with the policies of President Davis to the extent of criticizing his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. She was also public ally outspoken against slavery and even went ahead to criticize Davis conscription polices openly.20 In her growing criticism of Davis, she was aided by Governor Brown who combined with the Vice President to voice their resentment of the bill. However, despite these resentments and public criticism of the president the congress went ahead to pass the bill into law. From the foregoing, it is right to conclude that despite the great criticism that Jefferson Davis amassed during his tenure in office, he was an astute leader who stuck firmly in his principles. Though is actions drew a lot of criticism from his critics, it was obvious that the then desperate time needed desperate measures. In light of this therefore, it is quite clear that Davis was only acting on the best interest of the confederation. Conclusion The American civil war will always remain embedded in American history for many generations to come. This is because it marked a dark period on the American history and one that forever remains as the greatest threat to the existence of the union. Both northern and the southern state faced criticism for their blatant disregard of the law in the formation of their policies. This is evident from the fact that both stuns were responsible for suspending the writ of habeas corpus and the use of unorthodox practices in the strategy of this civil war. However, most of the observers of the civil war placed unfair criticism on President Jefferson Davis not noting that the north had whole most the same practices perhaps that can be attributed to the fact that the north won the war and was thus actions were considered lawful. From foregoing arguments in this paper, it is correct to argue that the suspension of the habeas corpus was warranted for in the havoc of the civil war. Read More