The impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 stands as a pivotal moment in United States history, a dramatic clash between the executive and legislative branches in the tumultuous aftermath of the Civil War. But Why Was Johnson Impeached? This question delves into the deep political divisions of the Reconstruction era, the struggle for power, and the fundamental principles of American governance. This article will explore the complex circumstances that led to the impeachment of President Johnson, the trial itself, and its lasting significance.
Background: Andrew Johnson and Post-Civil War America
To understand the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, it’s crucial to examine the context of his presidency and the era of Reconstruction. Born into humble circumstances in North Carolina in 1808, Johnson’s early life was marked by poverty and lack of formal education. Apprenticed as a tailor, he was self-taught, driven by ambition and a talent for oratory. Moving to Tennessee, he entered politics, serving as alderman and mayor in Greeneville before rising through the ranks of state and national government. He served in the Tennessee legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate, often championing the cause of the common man against the planter elite.
Johnson’s political trajectory took a dramatic turn with the outbreak of the Civil War. A Southern Democrat, he remained loyal to the Union when Tennessee seceded, a courageous and controversial stance that earned him national attention. President Abraham Lincoln appointed him military governor of Tennessee in 1862, and in 1864, seeking to broaden his appeal and unite the nation, Lincoln selected Johnson as his running mate on the National Union ticket. Johnson became Vice President in March 1865, only to ascend to the presidency upon Lincoln’s assassination just weeks later in April.
Initially, Johnson’s presidency was met with optimism, even among the Radical Republicans in Congress who would later become his fiercest opponents. Senator Benjamin Wade, a leading Radical, famously declared, “there will be no trouble now in running this government.” However, this brief period of goodwill quickly evaporated as Johnson’s Reconstruction policies became clear. The nation faced the daunting task of rebuilding the South and reintegrating it into the Union, while also grappling with the question of the rights and status of newly freed African Americans.
President Johnson favored a lenient approach to Reconstruction, prioritizing the swift reunification of the country and the restoration of Southern states to the Union. He believed in pardoning former Confederate leaders and restoring their property rights. Crucially, he opposed granting political rights to formerly enslaved people, holding views that were deeply rooted in racial prejudice and states’ rights ideology. This stance put him on a collision course with the Republican-controlled Congress, particularly the Radical Republicans, who advocated for a more transformative Reconstruction that included protecting Black civil and political rights and restructuring Southern society.
The Clash with Congress and the Tenure of Office Act
The fundamental disagreement over Reconstruction policy fueled a growing chasm between President Johnson and Congress. Johnson repeatedly vetoed legislation passed by Congress aimed at protecting the rights of freedmen and reshaping the South. He opposed the Freedmen’s Bureau bill, designed to aid formerly enslaved people, and resisted efforts to enforce racial equality.
Congress, in turn, sought to assert its authority and implement its vision of Reconstruction. Overriding Johnson’s vetoes, Republicans passed key legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Acts of 1867. They also proposed constitutional amendments to secure Black rights, resulting in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, guaranteeing citizenship and suffrage to African American men.
Amidst this escalating conflict, the Tenure of Office Act was passed in March 1867, over Johnson’s veto. This act, ostensibly intended to protect presidential cabinet members from being dismissed without Senate approval, became the central point of contention in the impeachment crisis. The act stipulated that any official appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent could not be removed without the Senate’s consent. This was a direct challenge to presidential power and was seen by many, including Johnson, as an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch. Republicans argued it was necessary to prevent Johnson from undermining Reconstruction by replacing officials sympathetic to their policies with those who aligned with his more lenient approach.
The Firing of Edwin Stanton and Impeachment Proceedings
The immediate trigger for Johnson’s impeachment was his attempt to remove Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Stanton, appointed by Lincoln, was a holdover from the previous administration and a staunch supporter of Radical Reconstruction. He became a major obstacle to Johnson’s policies, and the President sought to replace him with someone more aligned with his own views.
In August 1867, while Congress was in recess, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed Ulysses S. Grant, the celebrated Civil War general, as Secretary of War ad interim. Johnson hoped Grant would be more amenable to his policies. However, when the Senate reconvened and refused to concur with Stanton’s suspension in January 1868, Grant, wary of political entanglement and potential damage to his own future presidential ambitions, resigned and Stanton resumed his post.
Furious and defiant, Johnson then directly violated the Tenure of Office Act by firing Stanton outright on February 21, 1868, and nominating Lorenzo Thomas as interim Secretary of War. Stanton refused to vacate his office, barricading himself in the War Department, and Thomas was promptly arrested. This dramatic confrontation was seen by many in Congress as a direct challenge to their authority and a blatant violation of the Tenure of Office Act.
The House of Representatives, already considering impeachment, moved swiftly. Led by figures like Thaddeus Stevens, the House Committee on Reconstruction drafted a resolution of impeachment, which passed on February 24, 1868. The House then appointed managers, including Benjamin F. Butler and Thaddeus Stevens, to prosecute the case before the Senate and drew up eleven articles of impeachment.
These articles, while varying in specifics, largely centered on Johnson’s violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Article 1 accused Johnson of unlawfully removing Stanton with the intent to violate the Act. Articles 2, 3, and 8 focused on the appointment of Thomas as a violation of the Constitution and the Tenure of Office Act. Articles 4 through 7 alleged conspiracy with Thomas to remove Stanton. Article 9 concerned Johnson’s alleged attempt to bypass the General of the Army in military orders. Article 10, championed by Benjamin Butler, was a more politically charged article, accusing Johnson of making scandalous speeches intended to disgrace Congress. Article 11, backed by Thaddeus Stevens, accused Johnson of unconstitutionally declaring the 39th Congress illegitimate.
The Senate Impeachment Trial
With the articles of impeachment approved by the House, the case moved to the Senate for trial. This marked the first presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history, a moment of intense national drama and constitutional significance. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presided over the Senate trial, which began on March 5, 1868.
President Johnson, advised by his legal team, did not appear at the trial in person, but he assembled a distinguished defense team led by former Attorney General Henry Stanbery and including prominent lawyers like William M. Evarts and Benjamin R. Curtis. The House Managers, acting as prosecutors, presented their case, calling witnesses and arguing that Johnson had deliberately violated the Tenure of Office Act and undermined the authority of Congress.
The defense team countered with a complex legal argument. They contended that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional and that Johnson was justified in testing its legality. They also argued that the Act did not apply to Stanton, as he had been appointed by Lincoln, not Johnson. Furthermore, they insisted that even if Johnson had technically violated the Act, his actions did not constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors” warranting removal from office. They emphasized that Johnson’s intent was not criminal but rather to ensure the functioning of the War Department and to challenge what he believed was an unconstitutional law.
The trial became a public spectacle, drawing immense media attention and public interest. The Senate gallery was packed with spectators, and tickets to witness the proceedings were highly sought after. The trial provided a platform for grand oratory and intense political maneuvering, captivating the nation as the fate of the President hung in the balance.
The Verdict and its Significance
After weeks of testimony and debate, the Senate moved to a vote on May 16, 1868. Johnson’s opponents focused on Article 11, believing it offered the strongest chance of conviction. The roll call vote was dramatic and closely watched. Thirty-five senators voted “guilty,” while nineteen voted “not guilty.” While a majority favored conviction, it fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for removal from office under the Constitution. Johnson was acquitted.
The outcome was the same when the Senate voted on Articles 2 and 3 ten days later. Notably, seven Republican senators, known as the “Republican Recusants,” defied their party and voted to acquit Johnson. Motivated by concerns about the precedent of removing a president over policy disagreements and a desire to preserve the balance of power between the branches of government, these senators played a crucial role in Johnson’s acquittal. Senator James Grimes of Iowa, one of the Recusants, famously stated, “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President.”
Andrew Johnson served out the remainder of his term, leaving office in March 1869. In a remarkable turn of events, he was later elected to the Senate in 1874, returning to the very chamber where he had faced impeachment. He served briefly before his death in 1875.
The impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson had profound and lasting consequences. While Johnson was acquitted, the impeachment process itself demonstrated the power of Congress to check the executive branch. It also highlighted the deep political and ideological divisions of the Reconstruction era and the intense struggle over the future of the nation. The failure to convict Johnson narrowly preserved the principle that impeachment should not be used as a political tool to remove a president simply because of policy disagreements. However, the trial also left a legacy of tension and unresolved questions about the limits of presidential power and the scope of impeachable offenses, issues that continue to resonate in American political discourse today. The question of why Johnson was impeached ultimately reveals a complex interplay of personal ambition, political conflict, and constitutional principles at a critical juncture in American history.
