Student Student 1

Student Student Ms. Glatter/Mr. Green Humanities II April 1, 2010

The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson

By just one vote, the Senate acquitted President Andrew Johnson of twelve charges on May 16, 1868. The Union victory in the Civil War three years earlier had hardly been certain, and the dangers of disintegration were not part of the distant past. Americans were confronted with the dilemma of facing an enormous number of traitors who had fought to destroy the Union. To the people of the time, the Reconstruction period following the Civil War would decide the future of the nation (Benedict 1-3). The controversial debate over Reconstruction that swelled amidst a climate of tension between Congress and the President grew into the first impeachment trial in American history. In the one hundred and forty-two years since his acquittal, historians have moved from seeing President Andrew Johnson as an inept politician responsible for the travesty of Reconstruction, to seeing a heroic common man extolling his beliefs in the face of extreme radical pressure, and back again to seeing Johnson negatively. This shifting assessment followed the changing perception of Johnsons congressional adversaries, the Radical Republicans. When the Republicans were viewed favorably, Johnsons star fell, and vice versa. These shifts of historical opinion have been influenced by the rise of the Progressivism in the 1920s, the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, the inception of the Republican South in the 1960s, the Watergate scandal and resignation of President Nixon, and the impeachment of President Clinton.

Student Student 2 Andrew Johnson as a Politician and Presidential Reconstruction Nominated for and elected as the vice-president on the Republican ticket in 1864 after being the only Southern Senator to remain loyal to the Union in 1861 and the military governor of Tennessee, self-educated Jacksonian Democrat Andrew Johnson was elevated to the presidency following President Lincolns assassination by a southern sympathizer on April 14, 1865 (Benedict 3-6; Donald). Raised as a politician in the Tennessee backwoods, he frequently used crude humor, bitter denunciations, and fiery rhetoric when he spoke (Donald).

[Several pages of background material follow.]

Historians over Time The historical reputation of no other president has risen so suddenly or fallen so precipitately as that of Andrew Johnson from historical goat in the 1890s to hero in the 1920s and 1930s and back to goat, and in some cases even villain, in the 1960s and 1970s (Benedict 201-202). The earliest Reconstruction historians Rhodes, Dunning, Burgess, and others judged Johnson as responsible for the evils of Radical Reconstruction. Through his incapacity for leadership and inability to compromise, he allowed the Radicals to take vengeance on the South through Reconstruction (Benedict 202). However, Republican Senator Blaine and 1896 Democratic presidential candidate Tilden took a different view. Blaine, twenty years after voting in favor of conviction, wrote, [R]eflectionhas persuaded many who favored impeachment that it was not justifiable on the charges made, and that its success would have resulted in greater injury to free institutions than Andrew Johnson in his utmost endeavor was able to inflict.(qtd.

Student Student 3 from Benedict viii), while Tilden admonished the Republican party for not following Johnsons lead and for exercising its power of removal over a democratically-elected president due to a mere difference of opinion, rather than with the pretense of an actual crime (Tilden, Arraignment of the Republican Party 395-420). D. M. DeWitt, the first historian to thoroughly review the impeachment process, began the trend followed in the 1920s by viewing the impeachment as a misguided attempt by the Radicals to control Reconstruction (Benedict 202-203). In a review of DeWitts book on Johnsons impeachment, historian Hugh Egerton wrote that, though Johnsons vulgarity and extravagance injured his cause, Johnson was fighting for two important principles, the value of his and Lincolns method of Reconstruction and the independence of the executive from Congress. To DeWitt, the return of the South to its antebellum racism was the intent of both Lincoln and Johnsons policies throughout the Civil War of restoration rather than recreation (Rev. of The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson 393-394). In the 1920s, Johnson came to be seen as a common man who valiantly stood up for his beliefs. During a time of reaction against industrialization, Progressive historians such as Winston, Stryker, Milton, Beale, and Bowers also found a dislike of industrial capitalism in Johnsons views, bettering their own opinions of Johnson. The opinions of these Progressive historians continued through the 1940s and into the 1960s with Lomask and Thomas (Benedict 202-203). The tensions of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s and inception of Republican power in the South in the 1960s hurt Johnsons reputation, beginning with the works of McKitrick, LaWanda, and Cox (Benedict 203). These events led historians to criticize Johnson for not further helping Southern blacks and to idealize the Republicans opposed to him. For example, Eric McKitrick wrote that Johnson, despite good intentions, threw away his

Student Student 4 political power as president and party leader and slowed the reconciliation of the country, thus disrupting the political life of the nation (Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction 14). Donald and Trefousse continued this trend by showing the political climate surrounding the impeachment, but by also disparaging the political motivation behind the trial. Trefousse, however, had a more sympathetic view toward Johnson (Donald; Perman, Review: A President and His Impeachment 462-466). Finally, Benedict, writing in the 1970s, favored the Radical Republicans, seeing them as politicians ready to do anything to preserve the presidency in the face of the necessity of southern restoration (Benedict 21). However, other historians, such as Brant and Berger, wrote that the impeachment was the most insidious assault on constitutional government in the nations history, the culmination of a sustained effort to make [the President] subservient to Congress (Stathis 29). [The paper goes on to explain the views of more recent historians and to conclude.]

Student Student 5 Works Cited Benedict, Michael Les. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson. New York: Norton & Company, 1973. Print. In this book, the author argues that the impeachment was justified. In addition to providing an argument by a historian, the author also lists numerous other sources, including ones by historians with opposing opinions, and describes the historiography of the Reconstruction period. Donald, David. Why They Impeached Andrew Johnson. American Heritage Magazine Dec. 1956: n. pag. Web. 6 Jan. 2010. <http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1956/1/1956_1_20.shtml>. This article extolled the views of historian David Donald on Johnsons impeachment.

[The paper includes many more citations.]