Why was andrew johnson impeached?

The primary charge against Johnson was that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act. Specifically, that he had acted to remove from office Edwin Stanton and to replace him with Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas as secretary of war ad interim.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was initiated on February 24, 1868, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution to impeach Andrew Johnson, the 17th president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The alleged high crimes and misdemeanors were afterwards specified in eleven articles of impeachment adopted by the House on March 2 and 3, 1868. The primary charge against Johnson was that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act. Specifically, that he had acted to remove from office Edwin Stanton and to replace him with Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas as secretary of war ad interim. The Tenure of Office had been passed by Congress in March 1867 over Johnson's veto with the primary intent of protecting Stanton from being fired without the Senate's consent. Stanton often sided with the Radical Republican faction and did not have a good relationship with Johnson.

Johnson was the first United States president to be impeached. After the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment, they forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. The trial in the Senate began on March 5, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, the Senate voted against convicting Johnson on one of the articles, with its 35–19 vote in favor of conviction falling one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority. A 10-day recess of the Senate trial was called before reconvening to convict him on additional articles. On May 26, the Senate voted against convicting the president on two more articles by margins identical to the first vote. After this, the trial was adjourned sine die without votes being held on the remaining eight articles of impeachment.

The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative-executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which future-President Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1880s as "Congressional Government".

Tensions between the executive and legislative branches had been high prior to Johnson's ascension to the presidency. Following Union Army victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg in July 1863, President Lincoln began contemplating the issue of how to bring the South back into the Union. He wished to offer an olive branch to the rebel states by pursuing a lenient plan for their reintegration. The forgiving tone of the president's plan, plus the fact that he implemented it by presidential directive without consulting Congress, incensed Radical Republicans, who countered with a more stringent plan. Their proposal for Southern reconstruction, the Wade–Davis Bill, passed both houses of Congress in July 1864, but was pocket vetoed by the president and never took effect.[1][2]

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, just days after the Army of Northern Virginia's surrender at Appomattox, briefly lessened the tension over who would set the terms of peace. The Radicals, while suspicious of new president Andrew Johnson and his policies, believed based on his record that he would defer or at least acquiesce to their hardline proposals. Though a Tennessee Democrat, Johnson had fiercely criticized Southern secession. After Tennessee joined the states leaving the Union, he chose to stay in Washington, rather than resign his U.S. Senate seat. Later, when Union troops occupied Tennessee, Johnson was appointed military governor. He exercised his powers in that office vigorously, frequently stating that "treason must be made odious and traitors punished".[2]

After Johnson became president, however, he embraced Lincoln's more lenient policies, thus rejecting the Radicals and setting the stage for a showdown with Congress.[3] During the first months of his presidency, Johnson issued proclamations of general amnesty for most former Confederates, both government and military officers, and oversaw creation of new governments in the hitherto rebellious states—governments dominated by ex-Confederate officials.[4] In February 1866, Johnson vetoed legislation extending the Freedmen's Bureau and expanding its powers; Congress was unable to override the veto. Afterward, Johnson denounced Radical Republicans Representative Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Charles Sumner, along with abolitionist Wendell Phillips, as traitors.[5] Later, Johnson vetoed a Civil Rights Act and a second Freedmen's Bureau bill. The Senate and the House each mustered the two-thirds majority necessary to override both vetoes.[5]

At an impasse with Congress, Johnson offered himself directly to the American public as a "tribune of the people". In the late summer of 1866, the president embarked on a national "Swing Around the Circle" speaking tour, where he asked his audiences for their support in his battle against the Congress and urged voters to elect representatives to Congress in the upcoming midterm election who supported his policies. The tour backfired on Johnson, however, when reports of his undisciplined, vitriolic speeches and ill-advised confrontations with hecklers swept the nation. Contrary to his hopes, the 1866 elections led to veto-proof Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.[6][7][8] As a result, Radicals were able to take control of Reconstruction, passing a series of Reconstruction Acts—each one over the president's veto—addressing requirements for Southern states to be fully restored to the Union. The first of these acts divided those states, excluding Johnson's home state of Tennessee, into five military districts, and each state's government was put under the control of the U.S. military. Additionally, these states were required to enact new constitutions, ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and guarantee voting rights for black males.[2][6][9]

On January 7, 1867, the House of Representatives voted to launch an impeachment inquiry against Johnson, to be run by the House Committee on the Judiciary. Since the resolution only created an inquiry and did not actually directly impeach the president as many Radical Republicans wanted to do, it was seen as offering Republicans a chance to register their displeasure with Johnson without actually formally impeaching him.[10] Many Republicans felt safe in the belief that any impeachment resolution would die a quiet death in the Judiciary Committee.[11] The House Committee on the Judiciary initially sided 4–5 on June 3, 1867, against recommending against forwarding articles of impeachment to the full House.[10] However, on November 25, 1867, the House Committee on the Judiciary, which had not previously forwarded the result of its inquiry to the full House, reversed their previous decision due to a change of mind by one of its member and voted 5–4 to recommend impeachment. In a December 7, 1867, vote, the full House rejected impeachment by a 108–57 vote in which more Republicans voted against impeachment than for it.[12][13][14]

On January 27, 1868, Rufus P. Spalding moved that the rules be suspended so that he could present a resolution resolving that the House Select Committee on Reconstruction be authorized to conduct a new impeachment inquiry into Johnson for, "what combinations have been made or attempted to be made to obstruct the due execution of the laws," and that the committee have leave to report at any time.[15][16] The motion to consider the resolution was agreed to by a vote of 103–37,[15][16] and the House voted to approve the resolution by a vote of 99–31.[15][16] No Democrats voted for the resolution, while the only Republicans who cast votes against it were Elihu B. Washburne and William Windom.[16][17] On February 10, 1868, the House voted to transfer any further responsibility over impeachment away from the Committee on the Judiciary and to the Select Committee on Reconstruction.[18][19]

Despite Thadeus Stevens being the chair of the committee,[20] the membership of the House Committee on Reconstruction was not initially favorable to impeachment. It had four (Republican) members that had voted for impeachment in December 1867, and five members (three Republicans and two Democrats) that had voted against it.[21] At a February 13, 1868, committee meeting, a vote on a motion to table consideration of a resolution proposed by Stevens to impeach Johnson had effectively signaled that five of the committee's members still stood opposed to impeachment, unchanged in their position since the December 1867 vote. After the February 13 vote, it momentarily appeared that the prospect of impeachment was dead.[19][22][23]

Congress' control of the military Reconstruction policy was mitigated by Johnson's command of the military as president. However, Johnson had inherited Lincoln's appointee Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war. Stanton was a staunch Radical Republican who would comply with congressional Reconstruction policies as long as he remained in office.[24] To ensure that Stanton would not be replaced, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867 over Johnson's veto. The act required the president to seek the Senate's advice and consent before relieving or dismissing any member of his cabinet (an indirect reference to Stanton) or, indeed, any federal official whose initial appointment had previously required its advice and consent.[25][26]

The Tenure of Office Act was put in place to prevent the president from dismissing an officer that had been previously appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate without the Senate's approval to remove them.[27] Per the law, if the president dismissed such an officer when the Senate was in recess, and the Senate voted upon reconvening against ratifying the removal, the president would be required to reinstate the individual.[28] Because the Tenure of Office Act did permit the president to suspend such officials when Congress was out of session, after Johnson failed to obtain Stanton's resignation, he instead suspended Stanton on August 5, 1867, which gave him the opportunity to appoint General Ulysses S. Grant, then serving as commanding general of the Army, to serve as the interim secretary of war.[29] When the Senate adopted a resolution of non-concurrence with Stanton's dismissal in December 1867, Grant told Johnson he was going to resign, fearing punitive legal action.[26] Contrary to Johnson's belief that Grant had agreed to remain in office,[30] when the Senate voted and reinstated Stanton in January 1868, Grant immediately resigned, before the president had an opportunity to appoint a replacement.[31] Johnson was furious at Grant, accusing him of lying during a stormy cabinet meeting. The March 1868 publication of several angry messages between Johnson and Grant led to a complete break between the two. As a result of these letters, Grant solidified his standing as the front-runner for the 1868 Republican presidential nomination.[29][32]

Johnson complained about Stanton's restoration to office and searched desperately for someone to replace Stanton who would be acceptable to the Senate. He first proposed the position to General William Tecumseh Sherman, an enemy of Stanton, who turned down his offer.[33] Sherman subsequently suggested to Johnson that Radical Republicans and moderate Republicans would be amenable to replacing Stanton with Jacob Dolson Cox, but he found the president to be no longer interested in appeasement.[34] On February 21, 1868, the president appointed Lorenzo Thomas, a brevet major general in the Army, as secretary of war ad interim. Johnson thereupon informed the Senate of his decision. Thomas personally delivered the president's dismissal notice to Stanton, who rejected the legitimacy of the decision. Rather than vacate his office, Stanton barricaded himself inside and ordered Thomas arrested for violating the Tenure of Office Act.[35] Thomas remained under arrest for several days before being released, and having the charge against him dropped after Stanton realized that the case against Thomas would provide the courts with an opportunity to review the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act.[36]

Johnson's opponents in Congress were outraged by his actions; the president's challenge to congressional authority—with regard to both the Tenure of Office Act and post-war reconstruction—had, in their estimation, been tolerated for long enough.[2] In swift response, an impeachment resolution was introduced in the House by Representatives Thaddeus Stevens and John Bingham. Expressing the widespread sentiment among House Republicans, Representative William D. Kelley (on February 22, 1868) declared:

On February 21, 1868, the day that Johnson attempted to replace Stanton with Lorenzo Thomas, the chair of the Select Committee on Reconstruction, Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, submitted a resolution to the House resolving that the evidence taken on impeachment by the previous (1867) impeachment inquiry run by the Committee on the Judiciary be referred to the Select Committee on Reconstruction, which was overseeing the ongoing second impeachment inquiry. Stevens' resolution also resolved that the Committee on Reconstruction "have leave to report at any time". The resolution was approved by the House.[15] Soon after, a one sentence resolution to impeach Johnson, written by John Covode, was presented to the House. The resolution read,

No charges were specified in the resolution by Covode.[43] News reports stated that the introduction of the resolution was met with audible laughter by Democratic members of the House.[44] George S. Boutwell made a successful motion to refer the resolution to the Select Committee on Reconstruction.[42][20] Because the resolution had been presented in the late afternoon, the house adjourned without the question being brought to a vote on whether to adopt it. But there was an expectation that it would be debated following day and soon after brought to such a vote.[45]

In the morning of February 22, 1868, the Committee on Reconstruction approved an amended version of the impeachment resolution in a 7–2 party-line vote.[46][47] The amended resolution read,

At 3pm on February 22, 1868, along with the slightly amended version of Covode's impeachment resolution, Stevens presented a majority report from the Select Committee on Reconstruction opining that Johnson should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.[15][20][48][49] The impeachment resolution was debated at length on both February 22 and 24.[15] During the debate on the resolution, Republican members of the House Select Committee on Reconstruction argued that Johnson's effort to dismiss Stanton and appoint Thomas ad interim was a specific violation of the Tenure of Office Act.[15]

Republicans that had voted against the previous impeachment resolution on December 7, 1867, now voiced support for impeaching Johnson, seeing an impeachment of Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act as being grounded in an offense indictable under federal law.[15] James F. Wilson expressed an opinion representative of those expressed during debate by many Republicans that had previously voted against the impeachment resolution brought by the Judiciary Committee at the close of the first impeachment inquiry against Johnson. Ahead of the vote on that previous resolution, Wilson had been tasked by the Judiciary Committee's dissenting members with presenting their argument against impeaching Johnson at that time. Now Wilson expressed support for impeaching Johnson,[15] declaring that,

Wilson opined that in the previous impeachment vote, Johnson had not committed any action that was a crime under either common law or statute. Wilson declared that Johnson had mistakenly been emboldened after he was not impeached in December 1867 and had proceeded to commit an act that constituted clear impeachable conduct,[15] declaring,

Thaddeus Stevens expressed his opinion that impeachment was a purely political process. In the closing remarks of formal debate, Stevens expressed his opinion that the case to be brought against Johnson should be broader than just his violation of the Tenure of Office Act.[15] Before the resolution would be voted on by the House, Thaddeus Stevens, who is considered to have been the leader of the forces behind the push for impeachment, gave a final speech that is described as having brought those in the House chamber to "rapt attention".[50] In the speech, Stevens remarked,

The resolution was put to a vote on February 24, 1868, three days after Johnson moved to dismiss and replace Stanton. Per the record of the Congressional Globe, the House of Representatives voted 126–47 (with 17 members not voting) in favor of a resolution to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors,[37][20][18] [51] This marked the first time that a president of the United States had been impeached.[18] There is a record keeping discrepancy, however. While the Congressional Globe recorded the vote as being 126–47 (with Republicans William Henry Koontz and Francis Thomas being absent), the United States House Journal had recorded the vote as being 128–47 (recording Koontz and Thomas as being present and voting in support of the resolution).[18][52][51][53] The Office of the House Historian uses the Congressional Globe tally on its website,[53] and, therefore, this article also uses that tally.

Almost all of the House Republican caucus that was present voted in support of the impeachment resolution. While every vote cast by those that were elected as a member of the Republican Party was in support of the impeachment resolution, Samuel Fenton Cary (an independent Republican from Ohio), and Thomas E. Stewart (a "Conservative Republican" from New York) voted against it. Both Cary and Stewart had caucused with the Republicans.[54] Every Democrat present voted against impeachment.[18] Fifteen Republicans and one Democrat were absent for the vote.[17][52] Speaker Schuyler Colfax, a Republican, also did not vote, as House rules do not require the speaker to vote during ordinary legislative proceedings, unless their vote would be decisive or if the vote is being cast by ballot.[17][52][55]

All of the 126 votes in favor of impeachment came from members of the Republican caucus (125 from members of the Republican Party, and one from independent Republican Lewis Selye). Of the 47 votes against impeachment, 44 came from members of the Democratic Party, with the other three votes coming from Conservative Charles E. Phelps, Conservative Republican Thomas E. Stewart, and independent Republican Fenton Cary.[17][52]

After the House passed the impeachment resolution, its attention turned to the adoption of articles of impeachment which the Senate would try Johnson on. The approach of having the vote to impeach be an entirely separate vote from the adoption of article(s) of impeachment differs from the approach that has been practiced in more recent United States federal impeachments, in which impeachment has occurred directly through the adoption of article(s) of impeachment. However, the manner in which Johnson was impeached appears to have been the standard order of procedure for nineteenth century federal impeachments in the United States, as each of the five previous impeachments of federal officials that had led to a Senate trial had been conducted the same way, with votes to impeach occurring before votes on articles of impeachment.[18]

After the vote to impeach, Stevens submitted a pair of resolutions that both created a two-person committee tasked with presenting to the Senate bar the impeachment resolution that had been passed and informing the Senate that the House would "in due time" exhibit specific articles of impeachment, and which also created a seven-person committee to prepare and report articles of impeachment. The resolutions gave that seven-person committee the power to subpoena people, papers, and records, and to record sworn testimony. After procedural votes, the House approved both of Stevens' resolutions in a single 124–42 vote. No members of the Republican Party voted against it, while no members of the Democratic Party voted for it.[17][56] Before the House adjourned for the evening, Speaker Schuyler Colfax appointed John Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens to the two-person committee tasked with informing the Senate of Johnson's impeachment, and also appointed John Bingham, George S. Boutwell, and Thaddeus Stevens (all of whom had been members of the Select Committee on Reconstruction) along with George Washington Julian, House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman James F. Wilson, John A. Logan, and Hamilton Ward to the seven-person committee tasked with writing the articles of impeachment.[18]

On the morning of February 25, 1868, the Senate was informed by the two-person committee of Bingham and Stevens that Johnson had been impeached and that articles of impeachment would be created.[57][58] Later that day, Stevens reported to the House that the committee had gone before the bar of the Senate on behalf of the House.[58] Later on February 25, Ellihu B. Washburne moved to suspend the rules and order that, once the special committee tasked with preparing the articles of impeachment reported those articles, the House would immediately hold a full-house vote on the articles, and set the rules for speeches and debate on the articles. The House voted 106–37 to approve Washburne's motion.[59] Later that day, George S. Boutwell presented two resolutions to enable the committee of seven that had been appointed to prepare and report the articles of impeachment to sit during sessions of the House. These resolutions were passed 105-36.[60]

Thaddeus Stevens felt that Radical Republicans on the committee were yielding too much to moderates to limit the scope of the violations of law that the articles of impeachment would charge Johnson with. He wrote Benjamin F. Butler, proposing that, while Stevens worked to add two more additional articles to the seven already written by the committee, Butler would write his own separate article of impeachment from outside of the committee. Butler accepted this proposal.[18]

The committee of seven initially delivered ten proposed articles of impeachment to the House on February 29, 1868.[18] These would be revised and reduced to nine articles before being voted on on March 2.[19]

One week after it voted to impeach Johnson, the House adopted eleven articles of impeachment against the president.[20] The first nine articles were approved on March 2, while the last two were approved on March 3, 1868. The third and fourth articles each received a single Democratic vote in support of them (George W. Morgan for the third and Charles Haight for the fourth article).[17][53][61][62] The tenth article was the only to have Republican opposition, with twelve Republicans casting votes against it. However, two other members of the Republican caucus that were not formally part of the Republican Party (Samuel Fenton Cary, an independent Republican from Ohio, and Thomas E. Stewart, a "Conservative Republican" from New York) voted against nearly every article of impeachment (with Stewart having been absent from the vote on the fourth article).[17][63][64][65]

The House debated the proposed articles on March 1 and 2, 1868.[19] On March 2, the House voted to ratify the nine articles of impeachment referred to it by the committee of seven. These articles were "strictly legalistic" and molded on criminal indictment. Eight concerned the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, while the ninth accused him of violating the Command of Army Act by pressuring General William H. Emory to ignore Acting Secretary of War Grant and instead take orders directly from Johnson.[18]

After a series of speeches during debate, Thaddeus Stevens took the floor to criticize the committee of seven for going too easy on Johnson,[18] declaring,

Stevens argued that the articles put before the house had failed to address just how much Johnson had imperiled the governing structure of the United States.[18]

After Stevens delivered his remarks, which closed out debate, Boutwell brought forward revised articles, with the number of articles proposed by the committee being decreased from ten to nine.[19] Benjamin Butler then submitted his own lengthy impeachment article, inspired by Stevens' request to him. Butlers' proposed article stated no clear violation of law, but instead charged Johnson with attempting, "to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States."[18] The article was written in response to speeches that Johnson had made during his "Swing Around the Circle".[66] Butler's remarks on his impeachment resolution were very long, and this frustrated many, even including Stevens. The House quickly rejected Butler's article before approving all nine articles from the committee one by one.[18]

After the March 2 adoption of articles of impeachment, the House appointed the impeachment managers that would serve as prosecutors in the impeachment trial before the Senate. The following day, in hopes of strengthening the case that they would bring before the Senate, the impeachment managers requested that the House consider additional charges.[18] First, the managers reported the article previously proposed by Butler, which they reintroduced as the tenth article. It was approved.[18][15] After this, an eleventh article drafted by Thaddeus Stevens and James F. Wilson was approved.[18] The eleventh article accused Johnson of violating his oath of office to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" by declaring that the 39th United States Congress was unconstitutional because it only represented some of the United States (with unreconstructed states being excluded) and therefore lacked legislative powers or the power to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[57]

Both the first eight articles and the eleventh article adopted in the House related to Johnson violating the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to dismiss Secretary of War Stanton. In addition, several of these articles also accused Johnson of violating other acts, and the eleventh article also accused Johnson of violating his oath of office.[18][20][57][75] The first article specifically alleged that Johnson's February 21, 1868, order to remove Stanton was made with intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act. The second and third articles argued that the appointment of Thomas as secretary of war ad interim was similarly done with intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh articles alleged conspiring between Johnson, Thomas, and others to oust Stanton. The sixth article also alleged a conspiracy to forcefully seize the property of the United States Department of War. The eighth article specifically alleged that the appointment of Thomas ad interim was with the intent of unlawfully controlling the property of the Department of War. The eleventh article effectively provided a restatement of the first nine articles.[20][76]

The ninth article focused on an accusation that Johnson had violated the Command of Army Act, a charge reiterated by the eleventh article. The tenth article charged Johnson with attempting, "to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States", but did not cite a clear violation of the law.[18][20][57][75]

The eleven articles presented the following charges:

The articles of impeachment were presented to the Senate by John Bingham on March 4, 1868.[26][57][78] As prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, chief justice of the United States Salmon P. Chase presided over the trial.[26] The extent of Chase's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings was a frequent point of contention. Chase maintained that deciding certain procedural questions on his own was his prerogative, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings.[79]

The House appointed seven members to serve as House impeachment managers, equivalent to prosecutors: John Bingham, George S. Boutwell, Benjamin Butler, John A. Logan, Thaddeus Stevens, Thomas Williams, and James F. Wilson.[80] The president's defense team was made up of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, William M. Evarts, William S. Groesbeck, Thomas Amos Rogers Nelson, and Henry Stanbery. On the advice of counsel, the president did not appear at the trial.[26]

The Senate trial opened on March 4, 1868,[57][26] and was conducted mostly in open session. The Senate chamber galleries were often filled to capacity. Public interest was so great that the Senate issued admission passes for the first time in its history. For each day of the trial, 1,000 color coded tickets were printed, granting admittance for a single day.[26][81]

The impeachment managers argued that Johnson had explicitly violated the Tenure of Office Act by dismissing Stanton without the consent of the Senate. They contended that U.S. presidents were obligated to carry out and honor the laws passed by the United States Congress, regardless of whether they believed them to be constitutional, arguing that, otherwise, presidents would be allowed to regularly disobey the will of Congress (which they argued, as elected representatives, represented the will of the American people).[57][19][82]

The defense both questioned the criminality of the alleged offenses and raised doubts about Johnson's intent. One of the points made by the defense was that ambiguity existed in the Tenure of Office Act that left open a vagueness as to whether it was actually applicable to Johnson's firing of Stanton. They also argued that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional, and that Johnson's intent in firing Stanton had been to test the constitutionality of the law before the Supreme Court of the United States (and that Johnson was entitled to do so). They further argued that, even if the law were constitutional, that presidents should not be removed from office for misconstruing their constitutional rights. They further argued that Johnson was acting in the interest of the necessity of keeping the Department of War functional by appointing Lorenzo Thomas as an interim officer, and that he had caused no public harm in doing so. They also argued that the Republican Party was using impeachment as a political tool. The defense asserted the view that presidents should not be removed from office by impeachment for political misdeeds, as this is what elections were meant for.[57][19][82]

The Senate was composed of 54 members representing 27 states (10 former Confederate states had not yet been readmitted to representation in the Senate) at the time of the trial. At its conclusion, senators voted on three of the articles of impeachment. On each occasion the vote was 35–19, with 35 senators voting guilty and 19 not guilty. As the constitutional threshold for a conviction in an impeachment trial is a two-thirds majority guilty vote, 36 votes in this instance, Johnson was not convicted. He remained in office through the end of his term on March 4, 1869, though without influence on public policy.[6] All nine Senate Democrats voted against conviction.[83] Ten Republicans refused to support their party and voted against conviction.[84]

The first vote was taken on May 16 for the eleventh article. Prior to the vote, Samuel Pomeroy told Senator Ross that if Ross voted for acquittal that Ross would become the subject of an investigation for bribery.[85] Afterward, in hopes of persuading at least one senator who voted not guilty to change his vote, the Senate adjourned for 10 days before continuing voting on the other articles. During the hiatus, the House passed a resolution to launch an investigation by the impeachment managers of alleged "improper or corrupt means used to influence the determination of the Senate".[86] Despite the Radical Republican leadership's heavy-handed efforts to change the outcome, when votes were cast on May 26 for the second and third articles, the results were the same as the first. After this, the Senate voted to adjourn the trial sine die.[87]

After the trial, Butler conducted hearings on the widespread reports that Republican senators had been bribed to vote for Johnson's acquittal. In Butler's hearings, and in subsequent inquiries, there was increasing evidence that some acquittal votes were acquired by promises of patronage jobs and cash bribes. Political deals were struck as well. Grimes received assurances that acquittal would not be followed by presidential reprisals; Johnson agreed to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, and to appoint General John Schofield to succeed Stanton. Nonetheless, the investigations never resulted in charges, much less convictions, against anyone.[88]

Moreover, there is evidence that the prosecution attempted to bribe the senators voting for acquittal to switch their votes to conviction. Senator Fessenden was offered the ministership to Great Britain. Prosecutor Butler said, "Tell [Senator Ross] that if he wants money there is a bushel of it here to be had."[89] Butler's investigation also boomeranged when it was discovered that Senator Pomeroy, who voted for conviction, had written a letter to Johnson's postmaster general seeking a $40,000 bribe for Pomeroy's acquittal vote along with three or four others in his caucus.[90] Butler was himself told by Wade that Wade would appoint Butler as secretary of state when Wade assumed the presidency after a Johnson conviction.[91] An opinion that Senator Ross was mercilessly persecuted for his courageous vote to sustain the independence of the presidency as a branch of the federal government is the subject of an entire chapter in President John F. Kennedy's book, Profiles in Courage.[92] That opinion has been rejected by some scholars, such as Ralph Roske, and endorsed by others, such as Avery Craven.[93][94]

None of the Republican senators who voted for acquittal ever again served in an elected office.[95] Although they were under intense pressure to change their votes to conviction during the trial, afterward public opinion rapidly shifted around to their viewpoint. Some senators who voted for conviction, such as John Sherman and even Charles Sumner, later changed their minds.[93][96][97]

In 1887, the Tenure of Office Act was repealed by Congress, and subsequent rulings by the United States Supreme Court seemed to support Johnson's position that he was entitled to fire Stanton without congressional approval. The Supreme Court's ruling on a similar piece of later legislation in Myers v. United States (1926) affirmed the ability of the president to remove a postmaster without congressional approval, and the dictum of the majority opinion stated, "that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867...was invalid".[99]

Lyman Trumbull of Illinois (one of the ten Republican senators whose refusal to vote for conviction prevented Johnson's removal from office) noted in his speech explaining his vote for acquittal, that, had Johnson been convicted, the main source of the American presidency’s political power (the freedom for a president to disagree with the Congress without consequences) would have been destroyed, as would Constitution's system of checks and balances.[100] Indeed, the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had long-lasting effects on the separation of powers. It established the rule that Congress should not remove the president due to a conflict over the structure of their administration. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which future-President Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1880s as "Congressional Government".[6]

During the years immediately following the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson clashed repeatedly with the Republican-controlled Congress over reconstruction of the defeated South. Johnson vetoed legislation that Congress passed to protect the rights of those who had been freed from slavery. This clash culminated in the House of Representatives voting, on February 24, 1868, to impeach the president. On March 5, the trial began in the Senate, where Republicans held more seats than the two-thirds majority required to remove Johnson from office. When the trial concluded on May 16, however, the president had won acquittal, not because a majority of senators supported his policies but because a sufficient minority wished to protect the office of the president and preserve the constitutional balance of powers.

Born into poverty in North Carolina in 1808, as a young boy Andrew Johnson became apprentice to a tailor. He had no formal schooling, but through the sheer force of will became a self-educated man. While still in his teens, Johnson moved with his family to Tennessee, settled in Greeneville, and married a shoemaker's daughter named Eliza McCardle. Aiding Johnson in his self-education, Eliza helped to improve his social status and political opportunities.

Andrew Johnson may have lacked a formal education, but he possessed an innate talent for debate and oratory. His political career began when he was elected alderman of Greeneville in 1829, and five years later he became the small town's mayor. In 1835 he joined the Tennessee state legislature, only to lose reelection two years later. He returned to state politics in 1839, moved to the state senate in 1841, and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1843. Johnson's humble beginnings and populist style endeared him to the working-class poor but put him at odds with the wealthy landowners who controlled state politics. In 1853 his opponents gerrymandered him out of office. He retaliated by being elected governor—twice. By 1857 Johnson had gained enough support in the state legislature to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

Johnson proved to be an independent thinker. This was most evident following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States, when Southern states began to secede. While the secession convention met in Charleston, South Carolina, Johnson addressed the Senate and proclaimed his allegiance to the Union. Tennessee seceded, but Johnson remained in Washington. In March of 1862, President Lincoln rewarded Johnson's loyalty with appointment as military governor of Tennessee. When Lincoln sought a second presidential term in 1864 and needed the support of "Union Democrats," he chose Johnson as his running mate. Johnson became vice president on March 4, 1865. Forty-two days later, he was president of the United States.

The initial response to a Johnson presidency was optimistic. Even the so-called Radical Republicans, who would pursue impeachment proceedings three years later, supported the new president. "By the Gods," proclaimed Senator Ben Wade of Ohio, "there will be no trouble now in running this government." Such good relations quickly soured, however, as Johnson's views on Reconstruction surfaced. Within weeks, Johnson opposed political rights for freedmen and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders. The president looked for every opportunity to block action by the Radical Republicans. He had no interest in compromise. When Johnson vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau bill in February of 1866, he broke the final ties with his Republican opponents in Congress. They responded with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, promising political rights to African Americans. In March of 1867 they also passed, over Johnson's presidential veto, the Tenure of Office Act which was designed to limit the president's ability to shape his cabinet by requiring that not only appointments but also dismissals be approved by the Senate.

By mid-1867, Johnson's enemies in Congress were repeatedly promoting impeachment. The precipitant event that resulted in a third and successful impeachment action was the firing of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a Lincoln appointee and ally of the Radical Republicans in Congress. Stanton had strongly opposed Johnson's Reconstruction policies and the president hoped to replace him with Ulysses S. Grant, whom Johnson believed to be more in line with his own political thinking. In August of 1867, while Congress was in recess, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed Grant as secretary of war ad interim. When the Senate opposed Johnson's actions and reinstated Stanton in the fall, Grant resigned, fearing punitive action and possible consequences for his own presidential ambitions. Furious with his congressional opponents, Johnson fired Stanton and informed Congress of this action, then named Major General Lorenzo Thomas, a long-time foe of Stanton, as interim secretary. Stanton promptly had Thomas arrested for illegally seizing his office.

This musical chair debacle amounted to a presidential challenge to the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act. In response, having again reinstated Stanton to office, Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives, backed by key allies in the Senate, pursued impeachment.

Led by an aging and ailing Thaddeus Stevens, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction rapidly drafted a resolution of impeachment, which passed the House on February 24, 1868, by a vote of 126 to 47. Immediately, the House proceeded to establish an impeachment committee, appoint managers, and draft articles of impeachment.

The committee quickly produced charges that eventually became eleven articles of impeachment. Some of the charges were petty, but most centered on the president's alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Article 1 stated that Johnson ordered Stanton removed with the intent to violate the act. Articles 2, 3 and 8 alleged that the appointment of Thomas, to replace Stanton, without the advice and consent of the Senate was a further violation of the Constitution. Articles 4 through 7 accused Johnson of conspiring with Thomas to remove Stanton, citing such conspiracy as a "high crime in office," thus illegally depriving Stanton of his rightful position. The 8th article charged Johnson with conspiring to deprive Stanton of his rightful possessions. Article 9 accused Johnson of diverting orders and instructions related to military operations through the general of the army, bypassing Secretary Stanton. Another article, proposed by Massachusetts representative Benjamin Butler, charged Johnson with making speeches "with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues" with the intent to disgrace Congress. This article was initially rejected, but later adopted as Article 10. The final article was championed by Thaddeus Stevens, accusing Johnson of declaring the 39th Congress unconstitutional, since it was a Congress of only part of the states, and therefore did not have legislative powers nor the power to propose constitutional amendments. This, argued Stevens, placed Johnson in violation of his presidential oath requiring him to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."v

On March 2, 1868, the House approved the first nine articles of impeachment with the final two articles approved the following day. Amidst tremendous public attention and press coverage, the case moved to the Senate.

Quickly, the Senate debated and adopted an updated set of 25 impeachment rules, setting the stage for the first presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. With Chief Justice Salmon Chase presiding, the trial began on March 5, 1868. On the advice of counsel, the president did not appear at the trial, although he did agree to a number of press interviews during the trial process.

Leading the president's defense team was Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who resigned his post to devote all of his attention to the trial. Four well-known and highly respected lawyers also donated their services, including William M. Evarts of New York, Benjamin R. Curtis of Boston (best known for his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case), Judge Thomas A. R. Nelson, an old friend of Johnson's from Tennessee, and William S. Groesbeck of Ohio.

The defense presented a complicated argument, designed to raise doubt in the senators' minds about Johnson's intent and to question the role of criminality in impeachable offenses. They argued that Johnson's actions had not violated the Tenure of Office Act. Since Stanton had been appointed by Lincoln, Johnson was not obligated to continue his service. Even if the senators accepted the act as constitutional, the defense team insisted, Johnson could not be impeached for a mistaken interpretation of the law. Furthermore, they claimed that Johnson's intent was to test the very constitutionality of the act before the Supreme Court, which he had a right to do. The president, they insisted, should not be convicted and removed from office for misconstruing his constitutional rights. On the issue of appointing Thomas as interim officer, the defense team noted that Johnson was attempting, by necessity, to keep the War Department staffed and operational. The president's action, they noted, had resulted in no public injury sufficiently grave to warrant removal from office.

***

The trial of the president, including testimony of 25 prosecution and 16 defense witnesses, became a public spectacle as well as a constitutional crisis. It gave the grand orators of the Senate a chance to dazzle the public with their speaking skills, and the trial was conducted mostly in open session before a packed gallery. During final deliberations on the 11 articles of impeachment, however, the Senate cleared the gallery and closed the doors.

Acknowledging the spectacular nature of the trial, the Senate opted to manage the overflow crowds by strictly controlling access to the visitors' gallery through a ticket system. For each trial day, 1,000 tickets were printed, allowing admission for a single day. Social and political protocol dictated the distribution of tickets, with 40 going to the diplomatic corps, 20 to the president, 4 to each senator, 4 to the Chief Justice, and 2 to each representative, with the few remaining tickets to be distributed to the public. Members of Congress received hundreds of requests each day for the highly coveted tickets.

Sensational in every detail, the trial ended in a dramatic fashion. Johnson's fiercest opponents in the Senate maneuvered a vote on only 3 of the 11 articles of impeachment, believing those 3 offered the greatest chance to gain conviction. On May 16, 1868, in a dramatic call of the roll, 35 senators voted to convict the president of "high crimes and misdemeanors," while 19 senators voted to acquit. A clear majority voted against the president, but the tally fell one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority to convict. Ten days later, when the Senate voted on articles 2 and 3, the result was the same. Notable among the 19 senators who voted to acquit were seven "Republican Recusants" who defied their party to save the impeached president. "I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution," concluded recusant senator James Grimes of Iowa, "for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President."

Johnson served out his term as president, leaving office on March 4, 1869. In 1874 he ran a successful senatorial campaign and returned to Washington—to the very chamber where he had been tried and acquitted a few years earlier. He served just three months before his death on July 31, 1875.

Mar 27, 1867Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act. Feb 21, 1868President Johnson ordered Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton removed from office. Feb 22, 1868The House Committee on Reconstruction reported resolution of impeachment against Johnson. Feb 24, 1868House voted 126 to 47 to impeach Johnson of high crimes and misdemeanors. Feb 25, 1868House informed Senate of impeachment vote. Feb 28, 1868Rules of procedure in impeachment trials reported in the Senate. Mar 2, 1868House approved articles of impeachment. House managers appointed. Mar 2, 1868Senate adopted updated rules of impeachment. Mar 4, 1868House presented articles of impeachment to the Senate. Mar 5, 1868With Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding, Senate trial began at 1:00p.m. Mar 7, 1868Sergeant-at-arms presented summons to President Johnson, who chose not to appear at trial. Mar 30-Apr 9, 1968Prosecution presented its case. Apr 15-20, 1868Defense presented its case. May 7, 1868Senate deliberated in closed session on articles of impeachment. May 16, 1868Senate voted 35 to 19 to acquit on article 11. May 26, 1868Senate voted 35 to 19 to acquit on articles 2 and 3. May 26, 1868Senate acquitted Johnson and adjourned as court of impeachment.

Article 2: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty

Article 3: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty

Article 11: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty

John A. Bingham of Ohio

George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts

James F. Wilson of Iowa

Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts (chief prosecuting attorney)

Thomas Williams of Pennsylvania

Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania

John A. Logan of Illinois

Henry Stanbery, former Attorney General

William M. Evarts, New York attorney

Benjamin Robbin Curtis of Boston, former Supreme Court Justice

Thomas A.R. Nelson, Judge from Tennessee

William S. Groesbeck, Ohio attorney

First presidential impeachment Impeachment resolution passed prior to formal presentation of articles of impeachment.

ARTICLE 1. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office and of the requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been, therefor, duly appointed and commissioned by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States as such Secretary; and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1867, and during the recess of said Senate, having suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, on the 12th day of December, in the year last aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case, and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily, until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Senate therafterwards, on the 13th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, did refuse to concur in said suspension; whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled “an act regulating the tenure of civil officer,” passed March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there notice, and the said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21st day of February, was lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from the office of Secretary for the Department of War and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of their communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all books, paper and other public property now in your custody and charge. Respectfully, yours,

Andrew Johnson.

To the Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War

Which order was unlawfully issued, and with intent then are there to violate the act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, and contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said E. M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 2. That on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, without the advice and consent of the Senate, then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did appoint one L. Thomas to be Secretary of War ad interim , by issuing to said Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority, in substance as follows, that is to say:

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary of the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge. Respectfully yours,

Andrew Johnson.

To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General United States Army, Washington, D.C.

Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 3. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington in the District of Columbia, did commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this: That without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War, ad interim , without the advice and consent of the Senate, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which said appointment so made by Andrew Johnson of said Lorenzo Thomas is in substance as follows, that is to say:?

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: The Hon. E. M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge. Respectfully yours,

Andrew Johnson

To Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General

United States Army, Washington, D.C.

ARTICLE 4. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there, the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of the United States, from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the provisions of an act entitled “An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,” approved July 31, 1861, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high crime in office.

ARTICLE 5. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and on divers other days and time in said year before the 28th day of said February, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons in the House of Representatives unknown, by force to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did attempt to prevent E. M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 6. That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the duties of his high office and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take and possess the property of the United Sates at the War Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,” approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office.

ARTICLE 7. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, and on divers other days in said year, before the 28th day of said February, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas to prevent and hinder the execution of an act of the United States, entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did unlawfully attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, under the laws of the United States, from holding said office to which he had been duly appointed and commissioned, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did there and then commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 8. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, to seize, take and possess the property of the United States in the War Department, with intent to violate and disregard the act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 9. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 22nd day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in disregard of the Constitution and the law of Congress duly enacted, as Commander-in-Chief, did bring before himself, then and there, William H. Emory, a Major-General by brevet in the Army of the United States, actually in command of the Department of Washington, and the military forces therefor, and did and there, as Commander-in-Chief, declare to, and instruct said Emory, that part of the law of the United States, passed March 2, 1867, entitled “an act for making appropriations for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,” especially the second section thereof, which provides, among other things, that all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President and Secretary of War, shall be issued through the General of the Army, and in case of his inability, through the next in rank was unconstitutional, and in contravention of the commission of Emory, and therefore not binding on him, as an officer in the Army of the United States, which said provisions of law had been therefore duly and legally promulgated by General Order for the government and direction of the Army of the United States, as the said Andrew Johnson then and there well knew, with intent thereby to induce said Emory, in his official capacity as Commander of the Department of Washington, to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and receive, act upon and obey such orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General of the Army of the United States, according to the provisions of said act, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office; and the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibition, at any time hereafter, any further articles of their accusation or impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and also or replying to his answers, which will make up the articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article, accusation or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said Andrew Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be thereupon had and given had and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.

ARTICLE 10. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:

"Specification First. In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, In the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1866, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

"So far as the Executive Department of the government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and, to speak in a common phrase, to prepare, as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character and co-extensive with the wound. We thought and we think that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and moving element opposing it. In alluding to that element it shall go no further than your Convention, and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered the report of the proceedings, I shall make no reference that I do not believe, and the time and the occasion justify. We have witnessed in one department of the government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called or which assumes to be the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only part of the States. We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of States inevitable. We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon constitutional rights, and violate day after day, and month after month, fundamental principles of the government. We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself."

"Specification Second. In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore to wit: On the third day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

“I will tell you what I did do? I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the government. In conclusion, beside that Congress had taken much pains to poison the constituents against him, what has Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the union of the States? No. On the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it: and because he stood now where he did when the Rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor, Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factions and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people."

"Specification Third. In this case, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit: On the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of acts concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:?