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 progressed, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and marring element opposing us. In alluding to that element, I 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 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 a 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 the 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 their constituents against him. But 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, factious 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, 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 for it. 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 offices, 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 s
aid Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
ARTICLE XI:
That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of 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 offices,” 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 therefore 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 2, 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.
APPENDIX 4
THE SENATE VOTES
YEAS (VOTING TO CONVICT)—35:
Henry Anthony (R-Rhode Island), Simon Cameron (R-Pennsylvania), Alexander Cattell (R-New Jersey), Zachariah Chandler (R-Michigan), Cornelius Cole (R-California), Roscoe Conkling (R-New York), John Conness (R-California), Henry Corbett (R-Oregon), Aaron Cragin (R-New Hampshire), Charles Drake (R-Missouri), George Edmunds (R-Vermont), Orris Ferry (R-Connecticut), Frederick Frelinghuysen (R-New Jersey), James Harlan (R-Iowa), Jacob Howard (R-Michigan), Timothy Howe (R-Wisconsin), Edwin Morgan (R-New York), Justin Morrill (R-Vermont), Lot Morrill (R-Maine), Oliver Morton (R-Indiana), James Nye (R-Nevada), James Patterson (R-New Hampshire), Samuel Pomeroy (R-Kansas), Alexander Ramsey (R-Minnesota), John Sherman (R-Ohio), William Sprague (R-Rhode Island), William Stewart (R-Nevada), Charles Sumner (R-Massachusetts), John Thayer (R-Nebraska), Thomas Tipton (R-Nebraska), Benjamin Wade (R-Ohio), Waitman Willey (R-West Virginia), George Williams (R-Oregon), Henry Wilson (R-Massachusetts), Richard Yates (R-Illinois).
NAYS (VOTING TO ACQUIT)—19:
James Bayard (D-Delaware), Charles Buckalew (D-Pennsylvania), Garrett Davis (D-Kentucky), James Dixon (R-Connecticut), James Doolittle (R-Wisconsin), William Fessenden (R-Maine), Joseph Fowler (R-Tennessee), James Grimes (R-Iowa), John Henderson (R-Missouri), Thomas Hendricks (D-Indiana), Reverdy Johnson (D-Maryland), Thomas McCreery (D-Kentucky), Daniel Norton (R-Minnesota), David Patterson (D-Tennessee), Edmund Ross (R-Kansas), Willard Saulsbury (D-Delaware), Lyman Trumbull (R-Illinois), Peter Van Winkle (R-West Virginia), George Vickers (D-Maryland).
NOTES
Citations in the notes to published collections of original papers are as follows:
Grant Papers: John Y. Simon, ed., The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press (1967–2005).
Johnson Papers: LeRoy P. Graf and Ralph W. Haskins, eds., The Papers of Andrew Johnson, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press (1967–2000).
Stevens Papers: Beverly Wilson Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa, eds., The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press (1998).
The following manuscript collections are found in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.:
Nathaniel Banks
Edmund G. Ross
Benjamin F. Butler
William Henry Seward
Ream-Hoxie
John Sherman
Thomas Ewing Family
Thaddeus Stevens
Andrew Johnson
Benjamin Wade
Logan Family
Elihu Washburne
Manton Marble
Thurlow Weed
Edward McPherson
James Russell Young
Whitelaw Reid
Other original manuscript collections and their locations:
Alonzo Adams Papers, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, California Samuel L. M. Barlow Papers, Huntington Library, San Marino, California John Armor Bingham Papers, Morgan Library, New York, New York Cooper Family Papers, Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville, Tennessee
James F. Joy Collection, Detroit Public Library, Detroit, Michigan Samuel Pomeroy Papers, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
The invaluable diary of Colonel William Moore was kept in his personal shorthand, which is difficult to translate. Because different parts of the diary have been translated at different times, the diary is cited in three different forms:
“Moore Diary/AHR” refers to extracts that were translated by Colonel Moore himself and published as “Notes of Colonel W. G. Moore, Private Secretary to President Johnson, 1866–1868,” American Historical Review, 19, 98 (1913).
“Moore Diary/AJ” refers to those entries from July 8, 1866, through March 20, 1868, that were kept by Moore in a “small diary,” and are available in the Johnson Papers in the Library of Congress, on Reel 50.
“Moore Diary/Large Diary” refers to a second volume of shorthand notes with entries from March 21, 1868, through January 24, 1871, also available on microfilm Reel 50 in the Johnson Papers in the Library of Congress.
Finally, I have shortened the names of the following sources, as indicated:
House Committee on the Judiciary, “Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson: Various Papers,” National Archives File 40B-A1: Archives, Impeachment: Various House Papers.
HR 40B-A1—“House Committee on the Judiciary, Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, 40th Cong., “Various Papers,” Committee’s Journal of Managers (“Managers’ Journal”): Archives, Managers’ Journal.
Raising of Money to Be Used in Impeachment, House Report No. 75, 40th Cong., 2d sess. (July 3, 1868): Impeachment Money.
Impeachment Managers’ Investigation, H.R. Rep. No. 44, 40th Cong., 2d sess. (May 25, 1868): Impeachment Investigation.
The impeachment trial record, in Congressional Globe, Supplement, 40th Cong., 2d sess. (1868): Globe Supp.
PREFACE
[T]his was no ordinary political crisis: Adam Badeau, Grant in Peace, Hartford, CT: S. S. Scranton & Co. (1887), p. 86.
1. BAD BEGINNINGS
This Johnson: Michael Burlingame, ed., Walter B. Stevens, A Reporter’s Lincoln, Omaha: University of Nebraska Press (1998), p. 156.
Or it might have been: Benjamin C. Truman, “Anecdotes of Andrew Johnson,” Century 85:438 (1913).
On August 23: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals, New York: Simon & Schuster (2005), p. 648. Lincoln could not afford to underestimate the Democrats. Traditionally identified with the South, the Democrats had won twelve out of sixteen presidential elections since 1800. In contrast, Lincoln’s Republican Party, only eight
years old, was an amalgamation of Whigs, Know-Nothings, and antislavery Democrats. Also, there was no presumption in 1864 that a president was entitled to a second term. Not since Andrew Jackson in 1832 had a president won reelection.
Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy Page 38
