President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment in 1868 stands as a pivotal moment in United States history, a dramatic clash between the executive and legislative branches of government in the tumultuous aftermath of the Civil War. This event, the first presidential impeachment trial in American history, arose from deep-seated disagreements over Reconstruction policies and the balance of power enshrined in the Constitution. While Johnson was ultimately acquitted by the Senate, the impeachment proceedings themselves offer critical insights into the political tensions of the era and the enduring questions surrounding presidential authority and accountability.
Background to Impeachment: Johnson’s Presidency and Reconstruction Clashes
Andrew Johnson, a Democrat from Tennessee, ascended to the presidency unexpectedly following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. His background was markedly different from his predecessor. Born into poverty in North Carolina and self-educated, Johnson began his career as a tailor before entering politics. He served as alderman and mayor in Greeneville, Tennessee, before rising through the ranks to the Tennessee legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives, and eventually the U.S. Senate. His populist appeal resonated with working-class citizens, though it often put him at odds with the Southern aristocracy.
Johnson’s Rise to Presidency
Johnson’s loyalty to the Union during the Civil War, despite Tennessee’s secession, earned him Lincoln’s trust. Appointed military governor of Tennessee in 1862, he was chosen as Lincoln’s running mate in 1864 to broaden the Republican ticket and appeal to “Union Democrats.” Becoming Vice President in March 1865, Johnson’s unexpected elevation to the presidency just weeks later set the stage for a presidency marked by conflict and controversy.
Conflict with Radical Republicans
Initial optimism surrounding Johnson’s presidency quickly dissipated as his Reconstruction policies came into focus. Radical Republicans in Congress, advocating for robust protection of rights for newly freed slaves and a stricter approach to the defeated South, found themselves increasingly at odds with Johnson’s more lenient and conciliatory vision. Johnson favored a swift reintegration of the Southern states with minimal changes to their social structures, often clashing directly with Congress. He vetoed legislation designed to protect the rights of freedmen, including the Freedmen’s Bureau bill in February 1866, further widening the rift with Republicans.
Congress, in turn, responded by passing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, aiming to secure civil and political rights for African Americans. This period saw a series of vetoes from Johnson and overrides from Congress, demonstrating the escalating power struggle between the two branches of government.
Tenure of Office Act
The breaking point in this conflict came with the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress in March 1867 over Johnson’s veto. This act was specifically designed to limit the President’s power to remove cabinet members without Senate approval. It stipulated that officials appointed with Senate consent could not be removed without the same consent, aiming to protect officials like Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a Lincoln appointee and ally of the Radical Republicans, who strongly opposed Johnson’s Reconstruction policies. The Tenure of Office Act, while arguably of questionable constitutionality, became the central legal justification for Johnson’s impeachment.
The Impeachment Process
By mid-1867, calls for Johnson’s impeachment were growing louder in Congress. The direct catalyst for impeachment proceedings was Johnson’s attempt to remove Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton.
Firing of Edwin Stanton
Johnson desired to replace Stanton with Ulysses S. Grant, believing Grant would be more aligned with his own policies. In August 1867, while Congress was in recess, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed Grant as Secretary of War ad interim. However, upon reconvening, the Senate refused to concur with Stanton’s suspension, and Grant, wary of conflict with Congress, resigned and Stanton resumed his position. Undeterred, Johnson then directly fired Stanton in February 1868 and nominated Lorenzo Thomas as interim Secretary of War. Stanton refused to vacate his office, and Thomas was subsequently arrested for unlawful conduct.
This defiance of the Tenure of Office Act was perceived by Radical Republicans as a direct challenge to congressional authority and a violation of the law. It provided the immediate grounds for impeachment.
House Impeachment Vote
Fueled by Johnson’s actions regarding Stanton, the House of Representatives, led by figures like Thaddeus Stevens, initiated impeachment proceedings. The House Committee on Reconstruction quickly drafted a resolution of impeachment, which was passed on February 24, 1868, by a vote of 126 to 47. The House then moved swiftly to establish an impeachment committee, appoint House Managers to prosecute the case, and draft formal articles of impeachment.
Articles of Impeachment
The House impeachment committee formulated eleven articles of impeachment against President Johnson. While some articles were considered minor or politically motivated, the core charges centered on Johnson’s alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act.
- Articles 1, 2, 3, and 8: These articles directly accused Johnson of unlawfully removing Stanton and appointing Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim without Senate approval, violating the Tenure of Office Act and the Constitution.
- Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7: These alleged that Johnson conspired with Thomas and others to prevent Stanton from holding office, characterizing this conspiracy as a “high crime.”
- Article 9: Accused Johnson of undermining the command structure of the military by directly instructing Major General William H. Emory, bypassing General of the Army Ulysses S. Grant and Secretary Stanton.
- Article 10: Stemming from speeches Johnson delivered in 1866, this article accused him of attempting to “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach” Congress through “scandalous harangues.”
- Article 11: This “catch-all” article asserted that Johnson had declared the 39th Congress illegitimate and that his actions to undermine the Tenure of Office Act were further evidence of his disregard for the Constitution and the laws of Congress.
On March 2 and 3, 1868, the House formally approved these eleven articles of impeachment, sending the case to the Senate for trial.
The Senate Trial
The Senate convened as a court of impeachment, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. The trial began on March 5, 1868, amidst intense public and media attention.
Key Players
House Managers: The prosecution was led by seven House Managers, including prominent Republicans such as Benjamin F. Butler (chief prosecuting attorney), Thaddeus Stevens, and John A. Bingham. These managers presented the case against Johnson, arguing for his conviction and removal from office.
Defense Team: Johnson assembled a distinguished legal team, headed by former Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who resigned his position to lead the defense. Other notable members included William M. Evarts, Benjamin R. Curtis (former Supreme Court Justice), and William S. Groesbeck. The defense team mounted a complex and vigorous defense of the President.
Defense Arguments
The defense strategy focused on several key arguments:
- Constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act: They questioned the constitutionality of the Act itself, arguing it unduly restricted presidential power.
- Interpretation of the Act: They argued that even if constitutional, the Act did not apply to Stanton’s case, as Stanton had been appointed by Lincoln, not Johnson. Therefore, Johnson was not obligated to retain him.
- Lack of Criminal Intent: The defense contended that Johnson’s actions, even if technically violations, did not constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors” warranting impeachment. They argued Johnson was acting in what he believed to be his constitutional prerogative and to test the law’s validity in court.
- Public Injury: They argued that Johnson’s actions, even if misguided, had not caused sufficient public harm to justify removal from office.
The Senate Vote and Acquittal
The Senate trial became a major public event, with packed galleries and intense scrutiny. After weeks of testimony and debate, the Senate moved to deliberate in closed session. Facing uncertainty about securing the necessary two-thirds majority for conviction on all eleven articles, the House Managers strategically focused on Article 11 and two others (likely Articles 2 and 3).
On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted on Article 11. The result was 35 senators voting guilty and 19 not guilty. While a majority favored conviction, it fell one vote short of the two-thirds required for removal. Votes on Articles 2 and 3 ten days later yielded the same outcome. President Johnson was acquitted.
“Republican Recusants” and the Significance of Acquittal
Crucially, nineteen senators, including seven Republicans who defied their party—often referred to as “Republican Recusants”—voted to acquit Johnson. Motivations varied, but a central concern was protecting the office of the presidency from being weakened by politically motivated impeachment. 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.”
The acquittal, while not an endorsement of Johnson’s policies, was seen as a victory for the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the executive branch. It established a high bar for presidential impeachment, suggesting it should be reserved for truly egregious offenses that undermine the constitutional order, not merely policy disagreements.
Legacy and Conclusion
Andrew Johnson served out 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 died just three months into his term in July 1875.
Long-term Impact of the Impeachment Trial
The impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson had a lasting impact on American political history. It solidified the understanding that impeachment is a grave and extraordinary measure, not to be used lightly or for partisan purposes. It reinforced the importance of an independent executive and the delicate balance of power within the U.S. government. The trial also highlighted the deep divisions and unresolved issues of the Reconstruction era, a period of profound social and political transformation.
Conclusion: Why it Matters Today
The question of “Why Was President Andrew Johnson Impeached?” reveals a complex interplay of political ambition, constitutional principles, and the struggle to define the nation after the Civil War. While Johnson escaped conviction, the impeachment proceedings remain a vital case study in American constitutional law and presidential history. They serve as a reminder of the enduring tensions inherent in a system of separated powers and the critical importance of upholding constitutional norms, even in times of intense political conflict. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson continues to be debated and analyzed, offering valuable lessons about the limits of presidential power, the role of Congress, and the enduring strength of the American constitutional system.
