Why was Andrew Johnson impeached - Essay Example

?Why was Andrew Johnson impeached? The impeachment of Andrew Johnson is one of the memorable incidents in the political history of the United s.Andrew Johnson was the 17th president of the United States of America and his impeachment was the first to happen to a president of the United States of America. The paper describes the reasons of such impeachment which happened with Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson was sworn in as the president of the United States following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Andrew Johnson served his period in an era when America was facing the reconstruction. The reconstruction policies adopted by him failed to create a mark and were brought under the political resistance of the Republicans which finally led to his impeachment. As reasons for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the Republicans cited eleven charges against him but none of the charges were based on the violation of any laws or neither was he charged with criminal offences. Johnson’s policy of reconstruction was questioned by the Federalists and his policies regarding obstructing the working of the US Congress was also brought as the reason of the impeachment by the Federalist. The impeachment trial took place in the year 1868 (Famous American trials, n. d). However after his impeachment the Congress spread rapidly. The impeachment of the American President thus becomes debatable in the context whether the actual reason of his impeachment was aimed at glorifying the Congress or whether he had violated the Tenure of the office act in true sense. This paper argues in favor of the motivation of the Congress in the impeachment process and also looks after the charges brought against him in context of the violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Motives of Congress behind the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson: Study of history suggests that the act of impeachment of the Political parties is carried out for seeking political gain. Parties use the powers to enforce their cause and it leads to disturbance and conflict between each other. The two party systems in the United States make the process of impeachment a symbolic power struggle between that of the Congress and the President of the United States. The overall nature of the political impeachment may not yield well for the benefit of the nation. Generally in case of impeachment criminal charges are held against the convict, but the case with Andrew Johnson was different .The Congress did not charged any particular sort of criminal offences against the ruling president of America. However it was mentioned in the section 4, of the Article 11 that the crimes of impeachment were based on the treason, bribery or association with other high crimes or transgression. However they alleged the president as a person being criminal and committing a lot of misconduct. Thus the presence of intense partisan politics cannot be ignored in the case of Andrew Johnson. The motives of the Congress were instrumental in deciding the impeachment of Andrew Jonson. It was because of the stubbornness of Johnson which made him unpopular among the radical Congress. Congress had the aim of being popular all over the country and wanted the suffrage of the American which was highly opposed by Johnson which led to his downfall (Political parties and impeachment, n. d). Johnson never tried to enter into an agreement with the Congress and was strict on his decisions which strengthened the opposition of the Congress against him. Lot before the impeachment of Johnson took place, Congress decided to remove Johnson from his position as they were of the view that the reconstruction policy of America undertaken by them will receive severe opposition under Johnson. After the civil war was over, Congress wanted to transform the south in a massive manner. They wanted to revive the economic condition over there and wanted a permanent solution to the class system which was prevalent over there. The Congress was also of the view of providing the freed slaves of the south with a full citizenship of America along with the voting rights. The radical Congress believed that though the civil war has come to an end but still there was discrepancy in the society of south. They claimed that the age old slavery system was still prevalent under disguise. Repression in labor laws was also observed in the area penalizing black codes were passed which aimed at the freed slaves residing over there. The African Americans residing in Mississippi were severely discriminated and tortured. They were arrested on a regular basis without any strong reasons and were often hired in the market as forms of cheap labor. They were not allowed to study and mingle with the whites and were provided separate schools. The African Americans were also prohibited from participation in large gatherings and was debarred from the legal system with restriction of serving on juries. In such turbulent conditions, Congress wanted equality among the people to reside in the areas and wanted the eradication of the black codes. Congress knew that their success in this venture will gain mass popularity among the people and it will add huge benefits in their favor. Based on such intentions Congress enacted the civil rights in 1866 which empowered the African Americans in the region with lot more freedom and legal rights. However the President Johnson was not in favor of such acts as he felt that the introduction of such acts would result in discord among the various races in the south and would also cause the invasion of the rights of the states Johnson eventually destroyed his own support on a tour of the northern states where he made vitriolic speeches which stirred the whole of the America. Johnson also vetoed for the legislation which was extending the rights and financial support to the people who were formerly declared as slaves in the southern region. . Facing such obstructions from the president, a power struggle between the two sides initiated (Berger, 1974, p.269). However Congress was resolute to carry on with their activity in the south and they over vetoed the claims of the Johnson and was successful in implementing the acts of Military reconstruction, Command of the Army and the tenure of office acts much to the dislike of President Johnson. The passage of such acts declared the direct confrontation of the Congress and the President as the Congress was determined to achieve its aim associated with such movement. Such acts also resulted in the limitation of power of the president in matters relating to the control over south and Congress was also allowed to operate freely in their process of reconstruction (History place, 2000). Such acts and laws made the situation of Johnson much more discomfort able. Johnson’s unwillingness to enter into a mutual understanding can be cited to the reason that he had his own differences with the black and did not wanted to bestow them with a series of opportunities. He continued with his own philosophy of work and the measures he incorporated led to his trial in the court and he was finally impeached. Johnson also carried out his campaign of disrupting the Congress by his provocative speeches which further harmed the cause of the Congress and further aggravated the overall situation between them. (Hearn, 2000, p.159) However the series of incidents made the views of the Congress very clear. Their primary reason for opposition to the president also became transparent after the impeachment of Johnson was successful. Soon after the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Congress was successful in becoming a strong political force and it was able to influence a significant number of people in their support. The final outcome of the Congress creates suspicion in the minds of many whether the motives of Congress played a major hand in the impeachment of the President Andrew Johnson. Tenure of office act The motives of the Congress have been identified in the context of the impeachment of the American President Andrew Johnson. Though the Congress was instrumental in the process, their hatred against the President was documented as the violation of the Tenure of the office act in a legal format. Congress held the president guilty for the violation of the Act which was implemented under their supervision and resisted by the president Johnson. The tenure of the office act signified that the Federal officials who have been appointed under the confirmation of the senate cannot be removed without the consent of the body of the senate. The act also mentioned that however in the absence of the senate, the president had the power to suspend the official. The senate would also have the right to reconvene and refuse the removal and under such stances by the senate, the dismissed official can rejoin (Chadsey, n. d, p.134). However the Act of tenure failed to clarify whether it was also applicable for the officials appointed during the era of the previous president. With such laws framed Andrew Johnson removed the secretary of war Edwin Stanton, who was appointed during the time of President Lincoln. Johnson removed Stanton from the post because of the difference of the view he had with that of the president and other officials. Johnson was also suspicious about Stanton for carrying out conspiracy against him with the support from the radical Congress. Johnson appointed Ulysses Grant as the new secretary of war in the place of Edwin Stanton at a time when the senate was absent. With the joining of the Congress in the later part of the year, they claimed that the removal of Stanton was not justified and demanded the reappointment of Stanton. However the President declared the claims of the tenure of office act to be unconstitutional and also claimed it to be an encroachment on the exercising powers of the executive. The President did not pay any heed to the claims of the Congress and demanded a judicial review of the act. In order to strengthen his viewpoint he appointed General Thomas as the new secretary to the war (The Tenure of the office act, n. d). The strategy of further appointing Thomas as the new Secretary of war, ignited the Congress and they voted for the impeachment of the President citing false ground of high crimes and misbehavior. The House of Representatives charged Andrew Johnson with 11 articles regarding the violation of the office of the Tenure act. Some of the charges brought against him include illegal dismissing of Stanton from the office irrespective of the decision of the senate to reinstate him. As the removal of Stanton was declared invalid, Johnson was also charged of anointing Thomas in the office irrespective of no vacancy.The articles also charged him for appointing Thomas without the consent of the senate. Unlawful methods of curtailing the execution of the Tenure of office act also made him a conspirer. Johnson was also held with false charges of attempting to seize the property of the government in the war department. He along with Thomas was also held guilty for having intention to control the expenditure of money sanctioned for the military service and the war department of the United States. Johnson was also accused for his intention to disrespect the Congress and also influence the citizens of America against the Congress. The charge of high crimes and misbehavior held against Johnson appeared to be pivotal as the constitution of America did not provided specific definitions to the terms (Stewart, 2010). The Congress wittily applied those two charges with a view of impeaching him with crime of such natures. Based on the allegations against Johnson, his trial procedure started and the Senate was given the charge of making the final decision. The president managed to acquit himself from such allegations as the voting results reflected that the stipulated two third majorities of votes required for conviction in the trial of impeachment felt short by a single vote. The single vote changed the fate of the president and he survived one of the historic tragedies which could have happened with him Analyzing the true reason of impeachment: The true reason for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was more than his violation of the Tenure of act. It was just a smaller picture of the series of the events which was occurring in the backdrop. It was more of a political impeachment and a political battle was fought between the radical Congress and the President. The main reason for the impeachment was the reconstruction process which was conducted by the Congress and was severely obstructed by the Presidents. The aims of the reconstruction process would have brought the Congress into limelight and they wanted to continue with their good wok. The resistance provided to their work was not accepted by the Congress gleefully, and they tried to form a strategy in order to impeach the president and clear their way. Some historians do believe that the Tenure of Office act was framed by the radical Congress with an aim to impeach Andrew Johnson. The secretary of war, Edwin Stanton was in close adherence to the radicals and the Congress knew that Johnson was in the verge of firing him. Stanton supported the act of conspiracy carried out by the radicals. The tenure of office act was passed to safeguard Stanton. However Johnson’s refusal to bring back Stanton in the office opened the way for the Congress to carry on their desired impeachment against the President (Mindsparks, n. d, p.8). In order to strengthen their notion false charges were imposed against him. The law of impeachment also did not held any convict to be guilty without any criminal offenses charged against him. The Congress also used the clever use of terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” against Johnson as it was not well defined in the books of United States law. The proportion of charges held against him confirms upon the fact that the radical Congress eagerly wanted the impeachment of the president. The Tenure of office act which the radicals used as a tool in carrying out the procedure of impeachment was also later withdrawn by the Congress after the trial of impeachment which clearly suggested the reason of framing such laws. The Supreme Court of the United States later declared that Johnson being the president of the State had the power to remove any one from the office, who hinders his work and he had appropriately utilized the power of his position in the case. Much later in the year 1925 the Supreme Court also ruled that the tenure of the office act was not framed according to the regulation of the constitution and declared it to be invalid (U.S .Supreme Court, n. d). Such declaration by the US Supreme Court further strengthened the belief among the supporters of Johnson that all the charges brought against him were false and it was purely the conspiracy of the radical Congress which lead to his impeachment and that the President cannot be accused under any terms of the impeachment trial which he had to face. Conclusion: The Impeachment of the American President Andrew Johnson is an important event in the American History. It has been an important matter of study as the true reasons for his impeachments are highlighted. It has been accepted by the historians that it was an insensible act on the behalf of the American President to oppose to the act of the reconstruction process undertaken by the Congress as his support would have gained momentum in removing the racial discrimination from the society of America. However the path of impeachment as chosen by the Congress also could not be justified as most of the charges appeared to be false. Later the declaration of the Tenure of office act as invalid by the Supreme Court of America provides no justification for his impeachment. The paper clearly highlights the motives of the Congress in the impeachment and also discusses in detail regarding the motive of the framing of the act of tenure as it was used solely for the purpose of impeaching the President. It has been identified in the paper that the real reason for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was the motives of Congress to gain power and it was purely based on fulfillment of political ideas and the charges of violation of law was proved to be irrelevant. In studying the reasons of impeachment it has been brought into notice that the political powers exercise their position in a wrong manner and carries out opposition against the top privileged citizens of the country. Such motives and false allegations are shameful acts for any political parties belonging to any nation. References 1. Berger, R, (1974), Impeachment: the constitutional problems, Harvard: Harvard University Press 2. Chadsey, C, E, (n. d), the Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction, Elibron.com 3. Mindsparks, (n. d), the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Maryland: Social Studies 4. Stewart, D. O, (2010), Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy, New York City: Simon and Schuster 5. The Tenure of the office act, (n. d), umkc, available at: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/imp_tenure.html (accessed on November 30, 2011) 6. Hearn, C, G, (2000), the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, North Carolina: McFarland 7. History place, (2000), historyplace, available at: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/johnson.htm (accessed on November 30, 2011) 8. Political parties and impeachment, (n. d), somacon, available at: http://www.somacon.com/p120.php (accessed on November 30, 2011) 9. Famous American trials, (n. d), umkc, available at: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/impeachmt.htm (accessed on November 30, 2011) U.S .Supreme Court, (n. d), Findlaw, available at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=272&invol=52 (accessed on November 30, 2011) Read More