163 years ago o,n May 27, 1862, the Talbot County courthouse was surrounded by Union troops to support federal Provost Marshals in the arrest of Judge Richard Bennett Carmichael.   Four Provost Marshals barged into the Judge’s courtroom and bloodily bludgeoned him with the butt of a pistol in front of his jury and civilian spectators.  Prosecuting attorney J.C.W. Powell rushed to the judge’s aid, and the crier of the court ran to the window to call for the Sheriff, but both were physically subdued.  All three were sent to Fort McHenry for imprisonment.   

The next day, the federal War Department issued a press release stating that the Judge had been imprisoned for treason.  The press release was published in every major Northern newspaper and in Europe as soon as the news crossed the Atlantic.  Judge Carmichael and attorney Powell were imprisoned for over 9 months under the harshest conditions without trial or charges ever placed against them.  

These men were imprisoned and denied their basic constitutional rights to have legal counsel challenge the validity of their imprisonment, to be presented with charges, to have the government’s charges reviewed by a civilian court, to confront their accusers or to provide a defense in a civilian court of law.  All these constitutional rights were denied because the President had suspended the sacred right of habeas corpus, an act that the Constitution had granted solely to Congress and not the Executive. 

The Judge’s imprisonment for treason, as professed by the federal government, became established history for over 160 years touted by follow-on historians who simply relied upon the statements issued by the government.  This was indicative of how history recorded the imprisonment of so many other Maryland political leaders, newspaper editors and other citizens imprisoned under the suspension of habeas which denied their right to present a defense or to even publicly proclaim their side of the story.  The free press was grossly impacted by the suspension of habeas with numerous newspapers who presented dissenting views shut down or had their editors imprisoned and where the threat of such retaliation caused many others to remain compliant and not question the Executive.  

With today’s technology to digitally search thousands of official records along with historical newspapers across the globe, the actual history of Judge Carmichael’s arrest can now be told – and it had nothing to do with secession or traitorous activity. 

Judge Carmichael got the attention of Secretary William Seward in June of 1861 by sending a petition along with 48 others, to the Maryland Legislature detailing how Union soldiers had entered Queene Anne’s County and had placed themselves as a military police superior to civilian authority and were conducting unlawful searches, arrests and imprisonments and had unilaterally suspended habeas corpus to those they detained.  This document recorded in the Maryland Archives is hugely important in understanding President Lincoln’s early suspension of habeas enacted just weeks prior.  The President’s first suspension was touted as a military necessity to protect a narrow supply corridor between Philadelphia and Washington.  With Carmichael’s communication to the Legislature, we find it was also suspended in places in Maryland far removed from this supply route and for totally different reasons as well.  

Secretary Seward in learning of the Judge’s communication, issued a directive to General John Adams Dix to have the Judge imprisoned in Fort Lafayette for “treason”  and to have the arrest conducted in the Judge’s courtroom to maximize the public impact.  General Dix, however, did not act upon this directive at this time but continued to monitor the Judge.   As a circuit court Judge, Carmichael was also a Judge in Queen Anne’s County and shortly before the state elections in November 1861 the clerk of Queen Anne’s Court, Madison Brown, was arrested and temporarily imprisoned by Union troops.  Brown was running on the “Peace Party” ticket as a candidate for the Maryland Appellate Court during the upcoming state election and was just one of many Maryland political candidates that had been harassed and even imprisoned by the occupying Union troops prior to the election. Judge Carmichael had the offending military officers charged by the grand jury for the unlawful imprisonment of Brown and others, but the Union military simply relocated the charged officers outside of the Judge’s jurisdiction to prevent their trial.

Similar incidents also happened in Talbot County where dissenters were imprisoned by the occupying military command.  In Talbot County however, something very different occurred. Prosecuting attorney J.C.W. Powell learned that a Maryland politician, State Senator Henry Holiday Goldsborough, had embroiled himself in directing the Union troops on the arrest of Talbot civilians.   Goldsborough was the leader of the Maryland Senate and a strong Lincoln ally.  Attorney Powell was successful in having Talbot’s Grand Jury issue indictments against Goldsborough, along with the associated Union officers responsible for the arrests.   

The military officers were removed from Talbot’s legal jurisdiction, but Senator Goldsborough lived in Talbot County and could not avoid prosecution.  Shortly before Goldsborough’s trial General Dix issued a written communication to him stating that he was sending the military officers subpoenaed for his trial but was also sending four Provost Marshals “well armed.”  In this communication, Gen. Dix left it to Goldsborough to authorize the Provost Marshals to arrest Judge Carmichael.  In Dix’s after-action report to Secretary Seward, he noted that the Judge had been arrested in his courtroom for the maximum public impact per the stated desire of Seward.  The imprisonment of Judge Carmichael and prosecuting attorney Powell had nothing to do with treason but was simply to protect a political ally of the President and to display the power of the federal government.  The false report of “treason” was simply cover to make such a drastic measure publicly acceptable.

Some of those who read this will attempt to immediately defend President Lincoln’s actions.  Human nature has not changed in 163 years and there are many who will blindly trust and defend their chosen political leader regardless of evidence.  These events are our history which cannot be changed but which provide us with important insights and lessons that we should apply to the issues of our day.

For more on this important history to include the uncovering of the details regarding the imprisonment of the Maryland Legislature and other important Maryland leaders, please refer to my book “When Democracy Fell, The Subjugation of Maryland During the U.S. Civil War,” available on Amazon or locally at Vintage Books in Easton and Unicorn Books in Trappe.  

Paul Callahan is a native of Talbot County Maryland, a graduate of the Catholic University of America and a former Marine Corps officer. When Democracy Fell is due for release on October 3, at all major retailers to include Amazon. Image of prisoners courtesy of “The Local History Channel.”

Most of us are aware of the damage Donald Trump is doing to government service, freedom of expression, our universities, and democracy. And the moral decay our “national role model” is inflicting upon America with his daily lying, greed, spite, and vindictiveness.

But most of us are less aware of the grave threat Trump and his spineless minions represent to our precious children, just by broadcasting his malignant narcissism every day. It is not too early to sound the alarm.

For starters, just picture our vulnerable teens bombarded by their commander-in-chief, who rules as a greedy, lawless king—where kindness, honesty, humility, and cooperation are for “suckers and losers.” Our kids, with their online tools and savvy, know this. They see and hear it every day. The most powerful leader in the world (their “leader”) is trashing the most sacred values that have defined America since its founding.

And to what effect on our coming-of-age children? At a minimum, confusion about what behavior or character counts. More frequently, they embrace the loss of moral guardrails and behave (as in Golding’s Lord of the Flies) any way they want.

This is not a theory. I first saw it recently at a boarding school for needy children I once led. It has over 2,000 students and prides itself on building character. Just four months into Trump’s leadership model, more students are flouting rules and debasing their school’s Sacred Values.

When challenged, responses include:

• “Why should I be kind to a weak classmate?”

• “Why do I need to tell the truth?”

• “Why should I share credit with a teammate?”

The school’s Sacred Values—like Integrity and Mutual Trust—are being routinely tested.

Note: These behaviors seem to be more manifest in boys, who are more likely to challenge norms and authority (and who already have excessive learning difficulties these days). And, BTW, where were these teens during Trump’s first term? In late elementary and early middle school, where early character formation is founded.

What fate, then, for our children and their character? What is the future for the sacred values of our critical institutions?

Awareness of a real and present danger is always the first step to combating a serious threat. “This too will pass” is not a sufficient response to 8–12 years of socially induced character decay.

Such a grave challenge will fall first to our parents… and then to our teachers and coaches, who influence behavior the most. And then to our community, church, and political leaders—who, when organized, can effectively resist the moral decay.

But also to each of us who care about America’s character and the moral fiber of our children—those of us who still value kindness, honesty, and the greater common good, and do not want our young folks to become the “Greedy Me Generation.”

Johnny O’Brien is a former president of the Milton Hershey School and its first alumnus to lead the institution. Orphaned at a young age, he was raised at the school and graduated in 1961 before earning a degree from Princeton University and pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins. O’Brien later founded Renaissance Leadership, a firm that coached executives at major corporations. In 2003, he returned to Hershey as its president. He is also the author of Semisweet: An Orphan’s Journey Through the School the Hersheys Built, and currently lives in Easton.

Editor’s Note. The Spy is pleased to welcome David Montgomery back as a contributor. When the Talbot Spy launched in 2009, David was one of our first political columnists—widely read, often provocative, and a thoughtful voice for socially conservative views. Well before his move to Talbot County, David was a respected figure in Washington, D.C. as he built his reputation as a lead economist at the Congressional Budget Office and later as a private consultant. His work on federal spending models and his successful advocacy for California’s cap-and-trade policy have impacted national environmental and fiscal policy. In his return to the Spy, David will focus on the economic challenges of our times.

I am now more puzzled than ever by the goals of President Trump’s tariff policies. He is now reducing tariffs on China in exchange for China’s offer to reduce tariffs and open its markets to US businesses.  He has announced ongoing negotiations with some 80 other countries to reduce tariffs on both sides.  China is looking like just another trading partner that has tariffs higher than ours.

There are three textbook objectives that might be pursued through tariff policy. They are strategic, retaliatory, and protectionist.  

Strategic tariffs are directed at specific countries and or industries which are deemed to be critical to national security. Thus, the United States should be reducing its reliance on China for certain rare minerals.  Likewise, any components for warfighting equipment that are now sourced from China should be switched to domestic suppliers.  This objective has always been a legitimate purpose for tariffs, but they should be selective and high—or just a ban on imports.  I thought China was the target of strategic tariffs, and I never questioned that such tariffs were in general needed. When it comes to implementing that policy, the specifics of how rapidly we could disengage our supply chains from Chinese sources needed to be considered before setting tariffs arbitrarily high.

Now it appears that we are treating China just like Europe and other countries on which we set retaliatory tariffs‚ that is, tariffs designed to match the tariffs imposed on us by our trading partners. The goal in imposing such tariffs is not necessarily to shrink trade, rather it is to put US industries on an equal footing with industries protected by tariffs of our trading partners. That is a fine objective and beneficial to both countries. The very high tariffs that Trump imposed initially seemed to have brought many countries to the negotiating table. 

If we can achieve a mutual reduction in tariffs and trade barriers with allies, articularly Europe, Japan and Korea, it will benefit both countries.  There will be more demand for goods from US industries that have been priced out of protected markets, and our trading partners will get goods for their consumers at lower cost than they could produce domestically.  That outcome could also help with our broader goal of improving manufacturing wages and output.

So now I am puzzled.   What is our objective for managing trade with China?  The current dramatic reductions suggest that the President is not pursuing a strategy of reducing trade with China for strategic reasons, he was just threatening them to get them to line up like Europe and other countries to reduce their barriers to trade. That, or this is a purely political move to deal with the stock market carnage that the high tariffs produced.  

I really hope that Walmart has not won again on this one. We do need to disengage from trade with China on goods like strategic minerals and electronics. We might not need 145% tariffs on all Chinese goods but we certainly need even more on some. 

That also lets me touch briefly on the third reason for tariffs, which I characterized as protectionist. These are tariffs designed to protect specific industries and encourage their growth here in the US. Protectionism goes further than reducing barriers to exports, though that helps.

I can enthusiastically support economic policies that are designed to recreate the traditional American family. That is, whose objective is to make it possible again for one man to provide for his wife and multiple children on one income, so that the nuclear family headed by a wife living at home, can once again become the norm. 

The plan articulated by JD Vance is that the manufacturing sector, and with it jobs that do not require expensive college education, must expand to provide that kind of income to families. I doubt that current scattershot tariff policy, or even a combination of policies likely to be implemented in this administration, would be sufficient to achieve this goal. I have a lot more hope that it could all be put together in eight years of a JD Vance administration.

The start toward this goal is protective tariffs, either for the manufacturing sector as a whole or for particular industries, not just large enough to overcome the advantage that countries like China have due to cheap or, in China’s case, forced labor. Tariffs on China probably should be 150% or more to achieve this goal–Robert Lighthizer recommends 200 to 300%–in order to increase both wages and output in US manufacturing.  Unfortunately, the same economic reasoning applies to South Korea and Japan. On top of that, protection would have to be applies to many more carefully chosen sectors to greatly improve the economic status for couples that are struggling to find a way to buy a home, have children and raise them well. Anyway, this beguiling part of the Trump economic plan has not been visible in any of his specific moves on tariffs.

So I am puzzled about what the 40 or 60 or 80 current negotiations on tariffs are intended to accomplish. In the case of China, the only serious antagonist with whom trade, we seem to be abandoning the strategic objective in favor of convincing China to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to exports from the US (a tiny fraction of imports from China) while doing nothing to reduce the flow of goods to the US from China. 

In any event, I doubt that any agreement to open China’s markets is enforceable. China has had thousands of years to figure out how to cheat on any agreement. The opacity of China’s economy means it could find ways to block US investment and exports, even after agreeing to everything that President Trump might demand.  It’s not even “trust but verify” with China. It’s more like “never trust because it’s impossible to verify”.  If we do perceive that US companies remain unable to sell in China, the tit-for-tat response would be to return to the 175% tariffs of a week ago. That at least should gain some strategic benefits, and might be implemented through incremental increases that give supply chains time to adjust.

We may or may not gain any tariff reductions out of current negotiations with China.  Just going into these negotiations to mutually reduce tariffs makes me doubt whether the current round is intended to reduce our strategic vulnerability on China. By reducing tariffs across the board we have given on the effort to shift specific supply chains with national security significance out of China is now being treated as just another trading partner with whom we are working things out. 

I’m also not seeing any efforts toward the goal that appealed to me, which is renewing good jobs that will support the old-fashioned family with all its social and moral benefits.  

Getting back to my introduction, it is not clear what objective President Trump is pursuing in the current trade negotiations.  

David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. He currently serves as councilmember for Ward 3 on the Town of Easton Council. 

On May 6th voters in the Town of Easton will choose a new Town Council President. This is an election of exceptional importance, with two candidates who could not be more different from each other. For this reason, I have had to overcome my preference for neutrality in town elections.

I am endorsing Don Abbatiello for Town Council President.  I have had two years to observe how the candidates for this office conduct themselves on the Town Council. Additionally, I was fortunate to serve alongside Don, as interim President for several months in 2023.  Those experiences convince me that Don must be our new Council President.

Don’s calm demeanor, maturity, and integrity would make him stand out in any election. They have been particularly visible in the work of our Town Council. I have sometimes disagreed with fellow Council members, including Don. On those occasions, Don has always tried to find a middle ground on which we could compromise or an amicable way forward. Even when we disagree, he is always willing to engage with facts and rational arguments and to listen to my point of view. 

It may be selfish, but I look forward to having town meetings conducted by Don in an orderly, professional, and courteous manner. That is not what we have had for the past two years. We need a leader who builds good relations and communicates well with the Mayor and all members of the Town Council. 

Don’s dedication to our community is demonstrated by his 27 years of service as a high school teacher, 16 as an Easton firefighter (Fireman of the Year in 2025) and 6 years as Town Council member. I don’t know how he manages to fit all that into a day. Don does not strive for the limelight or try to be the center of attention on every occasion. He just works quietly and effectively to serve all of us.

Some are applying Party labels to candidates in this election, even though all elections in the town of Easton are nonpartisan. Don has not accepted financial support from either Party. He voluntarily disclosed campaign contributions, expenditures and names of contributors for this election, while his opponent has been hiding behind a promise to file a report at the start of next year. 

Don’s character, experience, qualifications and positions on policies affecting the town transcend party labels. He will not be indebted to any party or special interests when this election is over.

We are facing the prospect of devastating change if developers are given their way to build, build, build in Easton. My most important criterion for ranking candidates is their position on whether and how to slow that senseless growth. Don has spoken and voted consistently to restrain growth as long as I have known him. He has been more consistent on limiting proposed developments than anyone else on the Council, including me. 

Don and I have both questioned the proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance because it would be burdensome and have negligible effects. Neither of us wants taxpayers to bear the burden of subsidizing housing for some. I believe that under Don’s leadership, we will be able to find different, more constructive ways to deal with the cost of housing.

Preserving our town’s character, fiscal restraint, and strong support for public safety are my hallmarks of conservatism at the local level. I hope my conservative friends recognize that Don and I agree on all of these. In addition to his stance on growth, Don has worked hard to restrain spending while at the same time fully supporting our police and firefighters.

Don’s positions on all questions have been thoughtful and consistent. He thinks for himself and responds spontaneously, rather than reading prepared statements from notes. He has a clear set of principles that he applies across the board. Don does not vary his positions to suit the audiences that he is addressing or to garner votes. 

To sum it up, Don is the leader that Easton needs.

I am not endorsing Don lightly or even because we agree on everything. We have voted differently on issues that I think are important. But I have learned how destructive it is to make one issue a litmus test for support. When I compare Don to his opponent, I see an overwhelming difference in character, experience, and behavior, as well as clear and sound positions on critical issues for Easton. That makes Don Abbatiello my choice for Council President.

David Montgomery is the Easton Town Councilmember for Ward 3

If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s that Maryland is facing a budget crisis. But how we got here – and why it’s becoming so much worse so quickly – shouldn’t be up for debate.

Maryland’s economy has been relatively stagnant for years. According to the Maryland Comptroller’s office, our state’s economy grew just 1.6% between late 2016 and early 2023. Meanwhile, our neighbors in Virginia and Pennsylvania grew by 11.2% and 6.6%, respectively. The U.S. economy grew 13.9% during that same period.

This lack of growth was a ticking time bomb. In fact, economists have predicted since 2017 that this issue – a $3 billion structural deficit – was set to detonate this year.

While you may not like specific solutions in this budget – and it is by no means perfect – it is misleading to blame Governor Wes Moore for a budget shortfall that was predicted eight years before he was elected to office. It’s further misleading to point to a 2022 budget surplus because, like every other state, Maryland received a crucial financial lifeline from the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was convenient for the former governor, but not a long-term solution to Maryland’s ongoing budget issues.

Maryland also must face a stark reality: we will be hit disproportionately hard by the federal government’s workforce reduction priorities and bureaucratic consolidation. Whether you support this effort or not, our friends and neighbors on both sides of the Bay are going to be hit hard by these federal cuts. This does not even account for a stubborn inflation rate, ongoing and incoming tariffs, and a continuing rise to prices.

I’ve tried to read the latest budget proposal with a clear, unbiased perspective. It has things that both do and do not work for us on the Shore. It is not perfect, but it is a budget that can get us through very difficult times both now and ahead. It’s a sensible plan that balances $2 billion in cuts with $1 billion in new revenue. There are areas where all Marylanders may pay more in fees and such, but a significant majority of Marylanders will not see an increase to their individual tax rates. I think, given the difficult times ahead, this is an acceptable solution.

Real financial pain is on the horizon. Partially because of nearly a decade of economic stagnation in Maryland, partially because lawmakers have no choice but to accept an unpopular, but responsible, budget, and partially because of economically questionable decisions being made at the federal level. But I do have faith that we have the right individuals in charge in the State House and within the General Assembly – and that includes Del. Sample-Hughes’ thoughtful vote against the budget proposal in a symbolic gesture to support her constituents for a bill that would inevitably pass the House of Delegates.

The last thing I would contribute is that it is disingenuous to attack and sling mud at the lawmakers from the sidelines as they make tough decisions entering uncharted waters. There has never been a more important time to work together, across the political aisle, in search of and support for common-sense, bipartisan solutions that work for all Marylanders. And we citizens have a duty to remind our elected officials that they are sent to Annapolis to work together, to form partnerships, and to advance their constituents’ interests. Rather than “just say no,” perhaps our Eastern Shore delegation can begin conversations with their fellow lawmakers that begin with, “yes, and I need this for my constituents.” Maybe then they can be stronger advocates for our community. We all share the important value of securing a stronger, more sustainable future for our state and for the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Patrick Firth is the outgoing chair of Talbot Democrats.

I consider it a privilege to live and work in a place so many Marylanders associate with vacations, retirement, recreation, and quiet retreats. But as good as our parks, rivers, beaches, and charming towns are for those very activities—the Eastern Shore is equally a place of everyday living and hard honest work, schools and small businesses, boat builders and watermen. At Easton Utilities, we are invested in it all – whether we’re powering the air conditioning in a vacation home so that a young family can escape a summer heat wave, keeping the lights on in a farmer’s winter workshop, helping a local restaurant cook with natural gas, or providing high speed internet to a long-awaited new healthcare facility.

It’s easy to see how a utility company economically benefits the residents and visitors of the Shore. But all of our services would be irrelevant if not for the benefits provided by our water, woodlands, clean air, wildlife, fertile soil, beaches, and abundant seafood. These natural resources offer more than an admirable landscape and deep cultural identity, they drive our economy. Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC), in collaboration with the Delmarva Restoration and Conservation Network (DRCN), recently released a report titled, “Economic Impact of Natural Resources Conservation on the Delmarva Peninsula.” This comprehensive study highlights the undeniable benefits of the Eastern Shore’s natural resources.

Since I first began at Easton Utilities, we have made sustainability a priority. Our Easton Sustainability Campus is constantly developing new innovative ways to pursue our sustainability mission of conserving natural resources in a way that is economically viable. Located at our Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) Wastewater Treatment Facility, this campus also houses our cost-effective 2 MW solar array which was significantly grant-funded by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). In fact, our ENR Wastewater Treatment Facility’s exceptional performance regarding nitrogen and phosphorous discharge concentrations has resulted in additional grant funding year over year from MDE. These funds are reinvested in the wastewater facility for ongoing operations and maintenance undertakings in order to continue optimal performance.

In addition, from our annual tree planting initiative to our pollinator habitat, we remain committed to enhancing the quality of life in our beloved coastal communities by making environmental stewardship a priority and seeking out cost-effective projects which can help us to address the needs of both our place and our people.

Now more than ever, ESLC’s economic report reveals just how critical conservation efforts are if we want to preserve our beautiful peninsula home and unique way of life. Land conservation anchors environmental stewardship; it’s a cornerstone for preserving the Eastern Shore’s cultural heritage and its economy. By safeguarding Delmarva’s natural resources, we ensure that future generations can experience the beauty, traditions, and productive, meaningful work that define this unique region.

In my role as the President and CEO of Easton Utilities, I am ever mindful of what drives the Eastern Shore quality of life for both our employees and our customers. This new report shares in numbers what we all feel daily: the natural resources of the Shore keep us afloat. I am confident that Easton Utilities, through our partnership with the Town of Easton and Mayor Megan Cook, will continue to do everything in our power to conserve our precious region while providing for our community, and now with an even greater understanding of the essential value of our natural resources.

John Horner is the president and CEO of Easton Utilities

The report can be read here.