Book Review: Impeached - The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy
Author David Stewart is a lawyer who defended a Mississippi judge at the judge's 1998 impeachment trial in the US Senate and he is therefore someone with more than a passing interest on the subject of impeachment. In his 2009 book Impeached: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Fight For Lincoln's Legacy, he addresses all the aspects of the controversial proceedings taken to remove Andrew Johnson, the 17th President of the United States, from office: legal, political, historical, social and the legacy left by the effort to remove Johnson from office, an effort that failed by only one vote.
Stewart explains the root causes of Johnson's unpopularity: his failure to protect southern freedmen in the aftermath of a bloody civil war. Drawing the ire of "radical Republicans", initial efforts to commence impeachment proceedings fail mainly due to the lack of conduct resembling the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required by the US constitution to remove a president from office. Congress's grievances with Johnson are political ones for which the only remedy seems to be the ballot box. When Johnson attempted to buck legislation designed to hamstring his ability to fire cabinet members by replacing the formidable War Secretary Edwin Stanton with the comical General Lorenzo Thomas, Congress felt it had its grounds for impeachment and the battle was on.
The author gives the reader a blow by blow account of the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, both in the senate, and behind the scenes. He is thorough in telling us about the good, the bad and the boring, the latter in the way of lengthy speeches by egotistical politicians. A wonderful quote by then Congressman (and future president) James Garfield describes the proceedings thusly:
"We have been knee deep in words, words, words... there are fierce impeachers here who, if given the alternative of conviction of the president coupled with their silence, and an unlimited opportunity to talk coupled with his certain acquittal... would instantly decide to speak."
But what is most fascinating is the author's description of the efforts which took place behind the scenes to buy the votes of various senators in order to achieve the desired result. He presents a very strong circumstantial case in support of his contention that senators who bucked their party to vote against conviction did so not from any noble or principled position, but because of extensive bribery and corruption. He is convincing in his description of the players, their secret discussions and their efforts to cover their tracks. In the language of Watergate, he "follows the money" and there was a lot of it to follow.
Stewart is not shy about giving us his opinions about this whole business. He tells us that, even today, nobody really knows what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, but whatever they are, the aren't found in the articles of impeachment preferred against Andrew Johnson. He concedes that Johnson was a terrible president who undermined the gains won in the civil war for freedmen and who scuttled Abraham Lincoln's plans for reconstruction. He lays waste to the notion, promoted by John F. Kennedy in his book "Profiles in Courage", that certain senators who voted against impeachment did so out of a sense of justice. He exposes their real motives: cold hard cash. All good trial lawyers are able to tie their case together in a strong summation and it is here that Stewart excels. He makes the case both for and against Johnson. Johnson was a terrible president who didn't deserve impeachment. He sums up the legacy of this regrettable chapter of American history, and of the instrument of impeachment itself. He reflects on how all of this affected subsequent presidencies. He points out erroneous historical conclusions reached by men like Kennedy and Woodrow Wilson, rubbing their noses in their erroneous conclusions about Johnson's nobility and their cavalier dismissal of the importance of the rights of freedmen. He cites the entire episode as another example of how a great nation can survive historical crisis in spite of leadership that is all too human.
The last paragraph of the book tells us the moral of the story:
"Americans, perhaps all people, expect historical crises to be met by heroes - Washingtons, Franklins, Lincolns, and Roosevelts. A nation learns a great deal more about itself and its system of government when a crisis has to be met by people of lesser talents. In the impeachment crisis of 1868, none of the country's leaders was great, a few were good, all were angry, and far too many were despicable. Still, we survived."
Stewart explains the root causes of Johnson's unpopularity: his failure to protect southern freedmen in the aftermath of a bloody civil war. Drawing the ire of "radical Republicans", initial efforts to commence impeachment proceedings fail mainly due to the lack of conduct resembling the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required by the US constitution to remove a president from office. Congress's grievances with Johnson are political ones for which the only remedy seems to be the ballot box. When Johnson attempted to buck legislation designed to hamstring his ability to fire cabinet members by replacing the formidable War Secretary Edwin Stanton with the comical General Lorenzo Thomas, Congress felt it had its grounds for impeachment and the battle was on.
The author gives the reader a blow by blow account of the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, both in the senate, and behind the scenes. He is thorough in telling us about the good, the bad and the boring, the latter in the way of lengthy speeches by egotistical politicians. A wonderful quote by then Congressman (and future president) James Garfield describes the proceedings thusly:
"We have been knee deep in words, words, words... there are fierce impeachers here who, if given the alternative of conviction of the president coupled with their silence, and an unlimited opportunity to talk coupled with his certain acquittal... would instantly decide to speak."
But what is most fascinating is the author's description of the efforts which took place behind the scenes to buy the votes of various senators in order to achieve the desired result. He presents a very strong circumstantial case in support of his contention that senators who bucked their party to vote against conviction did so not from any noble or principled position, but because of extensive bribery and corruption. He is convincing in his description of the players, their secret discussions and their efforts to cover their tracks. In the language of Watergate, he "follows the money" and there was a lot of it to follow.
Stewart is not shy about giving us his opinions about this whole business. He tells us that, even today, nobody really knows what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, but whatever they are, the aren't found in the articles of impeachment preferred against Andrew Johnson. He concedes that Johnson was a terrible president who undermined the gains won in the civil war for freedmen and who scuttled Abraham Lincoln's plans for reconstruction. He lays waste to the notion, promoted by John F. Kennedy in his book "Profiles in Courage", that certain senators who voted against impeachment did so out of a sense of justice. He exposes their real motives: cold hard cash. All good trial lawyers are able to tie their case together in a strong summation and it is here that Stewart excels. He makes the case both for and against Johnson. Johnson was a terrible president who didn't deserve impeachment. He sums up the legacy of this regrettable chapter of American history, and of the instrument of impeachment itself. He reflects on how all of this affected subsequent presidencies. He points out erroneous historical conclusions reached by men like Kennedy and Woodrow Wilson, rubbing their noses in their erroneous conclusions about Johnson's nobility and their cavalier dismissal of the importance of the rights of freedmen. He cites the entire episode as another example of how a great nation can survive historical crisis in spite of leadership that is all too human.
The last paragraph of the book tells us the moral of the story:
"Americans, perhaps all people, expect historical crises to be met by heroes - Washingtons, Franklins, Lincolns, and Roosevelts. A nation learns a great deal more about itself and its system of government when a crisis has to be met by people of lesser talents. In the impeachment crisis of 1868, none of the country's leaders was great, a few were good, all were angry, and far too many were despicable. Still, we survived."