Brief History of the Case
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.
Chronology
| Mar 27, 1867 | Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act. |
| Feb 21, 1868 | President Johnson ordered Secretary of War Edwin
M. Stanton removed from office. |
| Feb 22, 1868 | The House Committee on Reconstruction reported
resolution of impeachment against Johnson. |
| Feb 24, 1868 | House voted 126 to 47 to impeach Johnson of high
crimes and misdemeanors. |
| Feb 25, 1868 | House informed Senate of impeachment vote. |
| Feb 28, 1868 | Rules of procedure in impeachment trials
reported in the Senate. |
| Mar 2, 1868 | House approved articles of impeachment. House
managers appointed. |
| Mar 2, 1868 | Senate adopted updated rules of impeachment. |
| Mar 4, 1868 | House presented articles of impeachment to the
Senate. |
| Mar 5, 1868 | With Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding,
Senate trial began at 1:00p.m. |
| Mar 7, 1868 | Sergeant-at-arms presented summons to President
Johnson, who chose not to appear at trial. |
| Mar 30-Apr 9, 1968 | Prosecution presented its case. |
| Apr 15-20, 1868 | Defense presented its case. |
| May 7, 1868 | Senate deliberated in closed session on articles
of impeachment. |
| May 16, 1868 | Senate voted 35 to 19 to acquit on article 11. |
| May 26, 1868 | Senate voted 35 to 19 to acquit on articles 2
and 3. |
| May 26, 1868 | Senate acquitted Johnson and adjourned as court
of impeachment. |
Votes
Article 2: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty
Article 3: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty
Article 11: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty
House Managers
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
Defense Team
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
Procedural Issues and Precedents
- First presidential impeachment
- Impeachment resolution passed prior to formal presentation of
articles of impeachment.
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:?
"Go on; perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject
of New Orleans you might understand more about it than
you do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause
of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so
prompt in calling out “New Orleans.” If you will take up
the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source
and its immediate cause, you will find out who was
responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you
will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back
to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at
New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take
up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand
that they knew that a convention was to be called which
was extinct by its powers having expired; that it was
said that the intention was that a new government was to
be organized, and on the organization of that government
the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the
population, called the colored population, and who had
been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise
white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you
ought to understand what you are talking about. When you
read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts
on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat,
you will find that speeches were made incendiary in
their character, exciting that portion of the
population, the black population, to arm themselves and
prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find
that convention did assemble in violation of law, and
the intention of that convention was to supersede the
organized authorities in the State of Louisiana, which
had been organized by the government of the United
States, and every man engaged in that rebellion, in the
convention, with the intention of superseding and
upturning the civil government which had been recognized
by the Government of the United States, I say that he
was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States,
and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced,
having its origin in the Radical Congress. So much for
the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the
origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of
blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are
responsible. I could test this thing a little closer,
but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk
about the causes and consequences that resulted from
proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have been
introduced here and you have provoked questions of this
kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a
few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical
Congress in connection with New Orleans and the
extension of the elective franchise. I know that I have
been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance
of me here, as elsewhere, that I have attempted to
exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were
intended to be forced upon the government; that I had
exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party
that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I
exercised the veto power in attempting, and did arrest
for a time, that which was called a “Freedmen’s Bureau”
bill. Yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been
traduced; I have been slandered; I have been maligned; I
have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my
countrymen, here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in
epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out
traitor, but when he is called upon to give arguments
and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas
Iscariot? Judas! There was a Judas, and he was one of
the twelve Apostles. O, yes, the twelve Apostles had a
Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he
had twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas who has
been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it
Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles
Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare
themselves with the Savior, and everybody that differs
with them in opinion, and tries to stay and arrest their
diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as a
Judas. Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me
in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to
give the people a fair chance, soldiers and citizens, to
participate in these office, God be willing, I will kick
them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can.
Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said
is what I intended to say; I was not provoked into this,
and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the
jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be
bullied by enemies, nor overawed by my friends. But, God
willing, with your help, I will veto their measures
whenever any of them come to me."
"Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues,
highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and
unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by
means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high
office of the President of the United States into contempt,
ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good
citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of
a high misdemeanor in office.
ARTICLE 11.
That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and his
oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and
laws of the United States, did, heretofore, to wit: On the
18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, and in
the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and
affirm in substance, that the Thirty-ninth Congress of the
United States was not a Congress of the United States
authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power
under the same, but on the contrary, was a Congress of only
part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny,
that the legislation of said Congress was valid or
obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so
far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby
denying the power of the said Thirty-ninth Congress to
propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
And in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew
Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit:
On the 21st day of February 1868, at the city of Washington,
D.C., did, unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements
of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of
an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain
civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising
and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means
by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith
resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the
Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate
to concur in the suspension theretofore made by the said
Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of
Secretary for the Department of War; and also by further
unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise
and contrive means then and there to prevent the execution
of an act entitled “An act making appropriations for the
support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1868,
and for other purposes,” approved March 20, 1867. And also to
prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act to provide
for the more efficient government of the Rebel States,”
passed March 2, 1867. Whereby the said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, did then, to wit, on the
21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington,
commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
