← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON BEGINS:

Thread ID: 17291 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2005-03-13

Wayback Archive

Walter Yannis [OP]

2005-03-13 14:33 | User Profile

[URL=http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/today_relocate.cgi?p=%2Fcgi-bin%2Ftoday_relocate.cgi&month=03&day=13&section=thisday&x=21&y=7]History Channel[/URL] IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON BEGINS: March 13, 1868

For the first time in U.S. history, the impeachment trial of an American president gets underway in the U.S. Senate. President Andrew Johnson, reviled by the Republican-dominated Congress for his views on Reconstruction, stood accused of having violated the controversial Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress over his veto in 1867.

At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, Johnson, a U.S. senator from Tennessee, was the only senator from a seceding state who remained loyal to the Union. Johnson's political career was built on his defense of the interests of poor white Southerners against the landed classes; of his decision to oppose secession, he said, "Damn the negroes; I am fighting those traitorous aristocrats, their masters." For his loyalty, President Abraham Lincoln appointed him military governor of Tennessee in 1862, and in 1864 Johnson was elected vice president of the United States.

Sworn in as president after Lincoln's assassination in April 1865, President Johnson enacted a lenient Reconstruction policy for the defeated South, including almost total amnesty to ex-Confederates, a program of rapid restoration of U.S.-state status for the seceded states, and the approval of new, local Southern governments, which were able to legislate "black codes" that preserved the system of slavery in all but name. The Republican-dominated Congress greatly opposed Johnson's Reconstruction program and passed the "Radical Reconstruction" by repeatedly overriding the president's vetoes. Under the Radical Reconstruction, local Southern governments gave way to federal military rule, and African-American men in the South were granted the constitutional right to vote.

In March 1867, in order further to weaken Johnson's authority, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act over his veto. The act prohibited the president from removing federal office holders, including Cabinet members, who had been confirmed by the Senate, without the consent of the Senate. It was designed to shield members of Johnson's Cabinet like Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who was appointed during the Lincoln administration and was a leading ally of the so-called Radical Republicans in Congress. In the fall of 1867, Johnson attempted to test the constitutionality of the act by replacing Stanton with General Ulysses S. Grant. However, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the case, and Grant turned the office back to Stanton after the Senate passed a measure in protest of the dismissal.

On February 21, 1868, Johnson decided to rid himself of Stanton once and for all and appointed General Lorenzo Thomas, an individual far less favorable to the Congress than Grant, as secretary of war. Stanton refused to yield, barricading himself in his office, and the House of Representatives, which had already discussed impeachment after Johnson's first dismissal of Stanton, initiated formal impeachment proceedings against the president. On February 24, the House voted 11 impeachment articles against President Johnson. Nine of the articles cited his violations of the Tenure of Office Act; one cited his opposition to the Army Appropriations Act of 1867 (designed to deprive the president of his constitutional position as commander in chief of the U.S. Army); and one accused Johnson of bringing "into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States" through certain controversial speeches.

On March 13, according to the rules set out in Section 3 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the impeachment trial of President Johnson began in the Senate. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presided over the proceedings, which were described as theatrical. On May 16 and again on May 26, the Senate voted on the charges brought against President Johnson. Both times the vote was 35 for conviction and 19 for acquittal, with seven moderate Republicans joining 12 Democrats in voting against what was a weak case for impeachment. Because both votes fell short--by one vote--of the two-thirds majority needed to convict Johnson, he was judged not guilty and remained in office. Nevertheless, he chose not to actively seek reelection on the Democratic ticket. In November, Ulysses S. Grant, who supported the Republicans' Radical Reconstruction policies, was elected president of the United States.

In 1875, after two failed bids, Johnson won reelection to Congress as a U.S. senator from Tennessee. He died less than four months after taking office at the age of 66. Fifty-one years later, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Tenure of Office Act unconstitutional in its ruling in Myers v. United States.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-13 14:39 | User Profile

[URL=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522892,00.html]Rice fuels rumours that it’s Condi v Hillary in 2008[/URL] Tony Allen-Mills, Washington

WASHINGTON is suddenly agog at the prospect of President Condi. A flurry of speculation about the political ambitions of Condoleezza Rice was ignited yesterday when the US secretary of state took a first step towards wooing conservative Republican voters. Asked in a newspaper interview to comment on widespread speculation that she might stand as the Republican candidate for the White House in 2008, Rice not only declined to rule out a run; she went on to discuss an unusual subject for a secretary of state — the rights and wrongs of abortion.

Rice was careful to avoid any suggestion that she is actively planning a campaign. But Washington pundits seized on her unexpectedly ambivalent responses as evidence that a dream contest is materialising for 2008: Rice v Hillary Clinton, an all-woman battle for the most powerful job in the world.

When the subject was first broached by the Washington Times reporter, Rice replied with a brush-off. “I never wanted to run for anything,” she said. “I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It’s really hard for me to imagine myself in that role.”

She was pressed on whether she was prepared to repeat the famous denial of General William T Sherman, who said in 1884: “If nominated, I will not run; if elected I will not serve.”

Rice replied with a chuckle: “That’s not fair . . . I really can’t imagine it.”

Had she stopped there, many in Washington might not have paid too much attention. But even though President George W Bush has barely begun his second term, Republicans are painfully aware that he has no obvious successor.

The race has begun for various senators and governors who are already nosing around New Hampshire — the scene of early voting — in the hope of staking a claim to Bush’s majority. The first thing they must do to impress conservative voters is establish their views on abortion.

In a striking departure from her preoccupations with the Middle East and Iran, Rice talked about how she approaches an “extremely difficult moral issue” as “a deeply religious person”.

Rice admitted to being “mildly pro-choice” (in favour of a woman’s right to choose) — a position that for some right-wing voters will disqualify her immediately. But she emphasised that abortion should be “as rare a circumstance as possible”. She also argued that the government should not pay for abortions “because I believe those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it”.

Rice insisted that her remarks should not be misinterpreted: “I’m not trying to be elected.” But they are certain to be seized on by an army of admirers who have established websites seeking a Rice candidacy in 2008. “Our lady’s got the buzz,” proclaimed the weblog CondiPundit.

Washington analysts have long been divided over Rice’s chances. Some Republicans argue that she should first return to California and challenge a Democratic senator to gain campaign experience. She had a chance to run for governor two years ago, but yielded to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Her supporters see her as an American Margaret Thatcher, ready to confound convention and become America’s first woman president. Dick Morris, the former Bill Clinton aide who has become an outspoken critic of Hillary Clinton, recently argued that Rice had become a “Republican rock star . . . her every movement covered by an adoring media”.

Rice took Europe by storm on her recent tour. If she pulls off a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, Morris argued, a Rice candidacy could destroy the Democratic party’s electoral chances.

Harder-nosed analysts suggest that her political inexperience is too big a drawback, especially when pitted against the masterful manoeuvring of the Clintons.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Centre for Politics, said that the two women were in different leagues. Compared with the Clinton steamroller, the Rice candidacy was “cotton candy fluff”, he said.

Yet Rice has one card up her sleeve. She is a close friend of the president, whose endorsement could prove decisive. Bush recently joked that “if I catch her thinking that way (about becoming president), I’m going to remind her that I picked her to be secretary of state”. If she does well he may need to promote her.

vytis

2005-03-13 15:40 | User Profile

According to my sources Jews believed that President Andrew Johnson was anti-Semitic...Maybe that's why history has been unkind to him, and the press so very unsympathetic.

The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln, Calude G. Bowers, 1929, Literary Guild of America. The Story of Reconstruction, Robert S. Hanry, 1938/1963, Peter Smith Publisher. Saga of American Jewry 1865-1914, Harry Simonhoff, 1959, ARCO.

'Wer kennt den Jude kennt den Teufel'

Blond Knight

2005-03-13 18:48 | User Profile

I read somewhere, that due to his impoverished childhood, Andrew Johnson was one of the main proponents of The Homestead Act.

[url]http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Bluffs/3010/homestd.htm[/url]

Walter Yannis

2005-03-13 21:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=vytis]According to my sources Jews believed that President Andrew Johnson was anti-Semitic...Maybe that's why history has been unkind to him, and the press so very unsympathetic.

The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln, Calude G. Bowers, 1929, Literary Guild of America. The Story of Reconstruction, Robert S. Hanry, 1938/1963, Peter Smith Publisher. Saga of American Jewry 1865-1914, Harry Simonhoff, 1959, ARCO.

'Wer kennt den Jude kennt den Teufel'[/QUOTE]

There's a special place in hell for the radical reconstructionists.