The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction

by kcp52 (student)

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE RECONSTRUCTION

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction (OUTLINE)

Introduction
Thesis Statement: The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a political motion by Congress because many of the members of Congress disagreed with Johnson’s Reconstruction policies.
Andrew Johnson’s Reconstruction Policy and the Problems with it
The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

Reasons for Impeachment and reasons against the Impeachment
The four attempts of Impeachment

Conclusion
Annotated Bibliography

THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE RECONSTRUCTION

On April 15, 1865, after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln’s Vice President Andrew Johnson was sworn into office. This Civil War had just barely ended not too long ago and now Andrew Johnson as the new President was left with the aftermath of the war specifically the reconstruction of the southern states who were greatly impacted by the war. The policies of Reconstruction in Andrew Johnson were criticized by his opponents in Congress this disproval of Johnson and his policies eventually led the Congress to impeach him making Andrew Johnson the first president to be impeached. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a political motion by Congress because many of the members of Congress disagreed with Johnson’s Reconstruction policies and Johnson neglected Congress when he implemented his policies on reconstruction.

Andrew Johnson is considered to be part of a group Brooks D. Simpson calls “The Reconstruction Presidents” which range from Abraham Lincoln to Rutherford B. Hayes.[1] Each these presidents each approach the reconstruction of the southern states in a different way. Lincoln’s policy was to pardon those who took an oath that they would remain loyal to the Union and excepting emancipation, but high profile Confederates would not be pardoned. In return they would get back their property except for slaves and property that has already been distributed.[2] The policy of Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, greatly deferred from his policy of reconstruction. Andrew Johnson gives a glimpse into what his policy is when he declares the following words speaking of the Confederate leaders, “The tall puppies must be struck down, treason must be mad odious, and traitors must be punished and impoverished. Their great plantations must be seized and divided into small farms, and sold to honest, industrious men. ” Andrew Johnson continues his remarks by saying that the leaders on the rebellion, “the instigators, the conscious intelligent traitors, ought to be hung.”[3] These words portray the feeling of Andrew Johnson that the leaders of the secession should be punished for the crime of treason an idea that attracted many Radicals. But there were many Moderates and Democrats who opposed this plan. Johnson had a logical reason to his harsh policy and his reasoning is seen in a conversation had with Senator Wade in the Joint Committee on the Conduct of War. When Senator Wade called on Johnson in the committee and declared “Johnson, we have faith in you. By the gods, there will be no trouble no in running the government.” President Johnson then replied by saying, “I hold that…treason is a crime, and the crime must be punished.”[4] These words show that Johnson believed that the traitors should be punished and threatened to do so. Along with wanting to punish those who seceded from the Union Johnson also pleased the radicals because he wanted to abolish slavery and thought that it was evil but he did not support black equality.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Despite his threats to punish those who seceded Johnson behaved and believed almost exactly the way that Lincoln did. Just like Lincoln, Johnson believed that the southern were still part of the Union and thus were still states. Speaking of the states that seceded Johnson declared that “their breath of life is only suspended” and that he intended to bring them back into the Union as quickly as possible.[5] This attitude was the same that Lincoln had for the cause to fight the war and his also shown in the fact that Johnson avoided the term “Reconstruction” and instead used the word “Restoration”. [6] In Johnson’s mind he was just restoring the southern states to the Union not reconstructing them. Johnson also behaved like Lincoln because he believed that Reconstruction was “an executive’s responsibility” and he supported “a minimalist approach” and hoped that the traditional balance of power between the state and federal governments could be maintained.[7] Despite Johnson’s efforts to maintain total control of the reconstruction Congressional Republicans would not allow the president to have total control over it nor would they accept a quick and easy solution as Johnson wanted.

However well received his policy of Reconstruction was there were still many problems with reconstruction during the presidency of Andrew Johnson in both the theories used to accomplish reconstruction and with the policies that he enacted. There were five different theoretical positions on the reconstruction of the South. These five theories are the “Southern” theory, the “conquered provinces” theory, the presidential theory, the “state suicide” theory and the “fortified rights” theory. The foundation of all of theories concerning reconstruction was the Constitution.

The “Southern” theory was based off the basis of the secession of the South which was “state sovereignty” and that now that the North has suppressed the rebellion everyone must submitted to the authority of the Constitution.[8] This theory stated that now that the war had ended all affairs should go back to the way they were before the war and that even though individuals might be guilty of treason against the United States, but the states themselves, as governmental and territorial individuals, had all the same rights and duties as they had before. The only thing that remained was to adjust certain “unreal” conditions that resulted from the “imaginary separation”.[9] The plan was that the officers of the states would take oaths to support the Constitution, arrangements would be made for the states to send representatives back to congress and federal agencies would be re-established as quickly as possible. It proposed to let the armies disperse with all of their equipment. It also guaranteed a general amnesty such as the state governments would be recognized by the President, the people would get there political and property rights back, except for slaves, and no citizen “would be molested by reason of the late war, so long as they lived in peace and obeyed the laws.”[10] The most famous person associated with this theory was General Sherman, but both Sherman and Johnson both agreed that Reconstruction using this theory was not possible.

Another theory that was proposed by Thaddeus Stevens is known as the “conquered provinces” theory. This theory stemmed from the idea that the Constitution had no application to the events of 1861-65 and “the acts of the Southern states had so shattered the Constitution that they could no longer claim any rights under it.”[11] Stevens argued that the war was not a rebellion, but that the war was a direct attacked on the North and thus the states should be treated as conquered provinces. He argued that the lives and property of the people of the South were at the mercy of the North who could do whatever they wanted to do.[12] Through this theory the Southern social system would be remodeled and as territories the government of the states would be supervised by Congress and would have to apply for readmission to the Union as news states. Both the “Southern” theory and the “conquered provinces theory” were thought to be too radical and were thus rejected.

The presidential theory claimed that the states had never left the Union and that when restoration was complete they would be states just like they were before the war. Johnson claimed that the officers of the states in exercising power under a right that never existed—the ‘right’ of secession—had been “treasonable and insurrectionary”.[13] Johnson claimed that under the pardoning power the President could assume authority in the rebalancing of things. Under the presidential theory the President was the only person in charge of reconstruction. This theory caused a bitter struggle between the executive and the legislative branches of government.

The “state suicide” theory was the opposite of the presidential theory in the sense that instead of the President having control over reconstruction, Congress had control over it. This theory was perpetuated by Charles Summer who said that the rebellious states had through their inhabitants committed and act of suicide.[14] Under this theory Congress would proceed to establish republican forms of governments in the states and the states could only be readmitted when they met the conditions that Congress found compatible with a republican form of government, which included black suffrage.[15] This theory was the closest to what most people wanted at the time.

The final theory, the “fortified rights” theory, was presented to the House of Representatives by Samuel Shellabarger. Shellabarger declared that the rebellious states must be considered a “body politic” with powers of government and could not be considered in the same relation to the federal government as before.[16] Under this theory the government had and obligation to guarantee each state a republican form of government. This theory along with the “state suicide” theory was theory that was accepted and enacted.

Not only was reconstruction a problem in theory but it was also a problem in policy. These problems were there were ambiguities in wartime reconstruction, the problem that Johnson emerged from a military governor to President, and Johnson’s use of the pardoning power. Another problem with policy was that the reconstruction was a problem of both individuals and institutions.

Despite the good that came out of Johnson’s policy his opponents were displeased with the way he handled reconstruction their displeasure eventually led to them to try and impeach Johnson four times, with the fourth time being successful. One reason congress wanted to impeach Johnson was because he had violated the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 which stated that “all federal officials whose appointment required Senate confirmation could not be removed without the consent of the Senate.”[17] The way he violated this act was by replacing his secretary of war Andrew Stanton when the Senate was not in session. Another reason for his impeachment was because he vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Bill which were both passed despite his veto. There was also the problem that Johnson implemented his policy of reconstruction without the consent of the congress. Senator John Shermansaid these words concerning the impeachment of Andrew Johnson,

Instead of cooperating with Congress, by execution of laws passed by it, he has thwarted and delayed their execution, and sought to bring the laws and the legislative power into contempt. Armed by the Constitution and the laws, with vast powers, he has neglected to protect loyal people in the rebel States, so that assassination is organized all over those States, as a political power to murder, banish and maltreat loyal people, and to destroy their property. All these he might have ascribed to alleged want of power, or to difference of opinion in questions of policy, and for these reasons no such charges were exhibited against him, though they affected the peace and safety of the nation. When he adds to those political offenses the willful violations of of a law by the appointment of a high officer during the session of the Senate, and without its consent, and with the palpable purpose to gain possession of the Department of War, for an indefinite time, a case is made not only within the express language of the law a high misdemeanor, but one which includes all the elements of a crime, to wit: a violation of express law, willfully and deliberately done with the intent to subvert the constitutional power of the Senate, and having the evil effect of placing in the hands of the President unlimited power over all the officers of the Government.

This I understand to be the substance of the eleventh article. It contains many allegations which I regard in the nature of the inducement, but it includes within it the charge of the willful violation of law more specifically set out in the second, third, seventh, and eighth articles, and I shall therefore vote for it.[18]

From these words we can understand that the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was not only a political move but that Congress believed that he had violated the eleventh article of the Constitution.

In conclusion impeachment of Andrew Johnson was and political move by congress because Johnson chose to ignore Congress and assumed full responsibility for the reconstruction. There are five main theories of reconstruction that were presented and what resulted for the policy of reconstruction was a combination of them both. There were many problems with Johnson’s policy of reconstruction that caused tension between Congress and the President. This tension grew when Johnson decided to ignore Congress, the Tenor of Office Act, and violate the eleventh article of the Constitution. These tensions eventually led to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson four times with the fourth getting Johnson impeached.

Annotated Bibliography

Lomask, Milton. Andrew Johnson: President on Trial. New York: Octagon Books, 1973.

This book is an excellent biography of Andrew Johnson and contains an account of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson along with the impact it had on the nation.

Castel, Albert. The Presidency of Andrew Johnson. Edited by Donald R. McCoy, Clifford S. Griffen, and Homer E. Socolofsky. American Presidency Series. Lawrence: The Regents Press of Kansas, 1979.

This book is another excellent biography of Andrew Johnson.

Schroeder-Lein, Glenn R., and Richard Zuckzek. Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2001.

This is an excellent source for a brief overview of the presidency of Andrew Johnson.

Simspon, Brooks D. The Reconstruction Presidents. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998.

This book goes through the presidency of all the presidents who were involved in the Reconstruction from Abraham Lincoln to Rutherford B. Hayes.

McKitrick, Eric L. Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.

This is an excellent source on Andrew and his policies during Reconstruction

Linder, Douglas O. “The Andrew Johnson Impeachment Trial.” Famous American Trials. (accessed Jun 10, 2012).

Hosted by the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law and written by a member of their staff this website is an excellent source on primary documents and secondary document on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

[1] Brooks D. Simpson, The Reconstruction Presidents (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998). Browsing the table of contents of this book we can see who Simpson considers to be the Reconstruction presidents.

[2] Ibid, 39-40.

[3] Simpson, The Reconstruction Presidents, 68.

[4] Albert Castel, The Presidency of Andrew Johnson, Edited by Donald R. McCoy, Clifford S. Griffen, and Homer E. Socolofsky, American Presidency Series (Lawrence: The Regents Press of Kansas, 1979), 20.

[5] Brooks D. Simpson, The Reconstruction Presidents (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998), 69.

[6] Glenn R. Schroeder-Lein, and Richard Zuckzek, Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2001) 238.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Eric L. McKitrick, Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), 97.

[9] McKitrick, Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction, 97.

[10] Ibid., 98.

[11] Ibid., 99.

[12] Ibid.,100.

[13] McKitrick, Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction, 102

[14] Ibid.,110.

[15] Ibid., 110-11.

[16] Ibid., 114.

[17] Douglas O. Linder, “The Andrew Johnson Impeachment Trial,” Famous American Trials, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/impeachmt.htm (accessed Jun 10, 2012).

[18] Ibid. “Opinions of Senators on the Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson”.