Motivated primarily by partisan political differences, this first attempt to impeach a U.S. president created a constitutional crisis that crippled Andrew Johnson’s presidency and weakened federal Reconstruction policy in the defeated southern states.
On February 24, 1868, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that President Andrew Johnson should be impeached, few observers were surprised. Angry Republicans, especially members of the radical faction who saw Johnson as the great enemy of their program, had put through the House a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to inquire into Johnson’s conduct in January, 1867. Among the many charges made against Johnson
Charles
The impeachment campaign arose over Johnson’s alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act
The conflict grew out of Johnson’s determination to replace Edwin M. Stanton
Grant accepted the cabinet post but soon became unhappy because he supported the congressional party and knew that he was its choice for the Republican presidential nomination in 1868. As his discomfort increased, his relations with the president worsened. As a consequence, modern historians have debated Grant’s integrity, or lack of it, in the episode. When the Senate, as expected, refused to concur in Stanton’s ouster, Grant turned the office back to him. Johnson, however, remained determined to rid himself of Stanton. He then invited General William Tecumseh Sherman
At that point, the Radical Republicans in the House saw their chance to strike at Johnson. On February 24, 1868, the House passed, by a large majority, the Covode Resolution, which declared that the president should be impeached. For many, it was a psychological catharsis to bring down the great opponent of Reconstruction and the great sustainer of rebellion. Some powerful legislators, such as Senator Charles Sumner
Another motive of the Republicans in Congress was to deal with the real problem of military Reconstruction.
Congressional sergeant-at-arms George T. Brown serving President Andrew Johnson with a summons to appear for impeachment proceedings.
After the House had done its work by initiating Johnson’s impeachment, it was left to the Senate to convict or acquit him. The U.S. Constitution stipulated that a two-thirds majority vote was necessary for conviction. In 1868, that meant that the votes of thirty-six senators were needed. In early March, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
On March 30, the trial opened. The prosecution, composed of important Radical Republicans, claimed that Johnson had subverted the will of Congress, the will of the Republican Party, and the will of the people. As the defense duly noted, the prosecution made no effort to pin any specific crime on the president. Emphasizing that fact, Johnson’s defense counsel argued that Johnson had done nothing to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.
Voting took place on May 16; the result was one vote short of the number needed to convict. Two more votes were taken on May 26, with the same result. Thirty-six votes were needed, but each time the outcome was only thirty-five to nineteen. Johnson was saved by seven Republicans who supported Reconstruction in Congress but who did not believe there were legal grounds for conviction in this case. Typical of the Republican senators who reluctantly opposed conviction was Kansas’s Edmund G. Ross
President Johnson was acquitted by the narrowest of margins. He served the remainder of his term with little further direct influence on Reconstruction policies. The office of the presidency survived this constitutional crisis, but the direction of Reconstruction remained firmly in the hands of the leaders of Congress. There would not be another impeachment trial of a U.S. president until 1998, when the House voted to impeach President Bill Clinton
-
Beale, Howard K. The Critical Year: A Study of Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958. Clearly explains the positions taken by the executive and legislative branches as the crisis erupted. -
Benedict, Michael Les. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson. New York: W. W. Norton, 1973. Exceptionally good study of Johnson’s impeachment. Concludes, with much supporting evidence, that the impeachment was justified and conviction would have been proper. -
Brodie, Fawn M. Thaddeus Stevens: Scourge of the South. New York: W. W. Norton, 1959. Well-written and balanced biography of Johnson’s chief nemesis. -
Hearn, Chester G. The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2000. One of several books about Johnson’s impeachment written after Congress initiated impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. Hearn focuses on the political turmoil after the Civil War that led to Johnson’s impeachment. -
McPherson, James M. Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. Analysis of the war and the political intrigue that flourished after Lincoln’s assassination. -
Simpson, Brooks D. The Reconstruction Presidents. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998. Comparative study of the presidencies of Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Rutherford B. Hayes—the four presidents who presided over the Union’s Reconstruction policies in the defeated South. -
Trefousse, Hans Louis. Impeachment of a President: Andrew Johnson, the Blacks, and Reconstruction. New York: Fordham University Press, 1999. Study of Johnson’s impeachment that examines why Congress failed to convict Johnson, the consequences of his acquittal, and connections between the impeachment and failure of Reconstruction.
Reconstruction of the South
Surrender at Appomattox and Assassination of Lincoln
Thirteenth Amendment Is Ratified
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Russia Sells Alaska to the United States
Fourteenth Amendment Is Ratified
Scandals Rock the Grant Administration
Salmon P. Chase; Ulysses S. Grant; Andrew Johnson; William Tecumseh Sherman; Edwin M. Stanton; Thaddeus Stevens; Charles Sumner.