Historiography Project - the American President Andrew Johnson - Essay Example

Introduction The American President Andrew Johnson was the first head of the to be impeached; his fortunes were secured by the margin of single vote in 1868. The President was impeached for misuse of authority and on the pretext of corruption charges. Andrew Johnson delivered informal speech on 1866, which has explicitly established the "subsequent impeachment effort against Johnson, which failed by one vote", the speech as delivered when Johnson was at the peak of his power, he "had successfully taken the reins of government after Lincolns assassination, had provided encouragement for the South to ratify the 13th Amendment", and was able to secure political fortune when the Congress sustained his arguments against the Freedmans Bureau Act, and then suddenly he plunged in the shadow of darkness. As per McPherson, Andrew Johnson was "untouchable because of his great power, nothing, in their perception, can toss him from their lofty eminence; except for pride, which affects the brain; it gives one a false sense of invincibility; it leads one even to think one is more than human". It is therefore suspected that Johnson was confident about his total victory, and ignored the "recipes for a thundering fall" (Walter, 1907). Discussion McPherson has mentioned that in the political era of Andrew Johnson "crowds of supporters would march to the home of their leaders and call them to the window for an impromptu address" (Matthew, 2007). Johnson has delivered such addresses on different occasions, such as when the Congress approved resolutions which supported the plan for reconstruction proposed by Johnson. Andrew forwarded the proposal for relaxation of terms for admission of Southern to the Union. The President forwarded the theory of the Union, which highlighted that the greatness of this country existed in its unity and oneness. McPherson confirmed that George Washington, Lincoln and Andrew Jackson supported the existence and rights of Union. It was Johnson who forwarded the concept of "lenient return to political standing for the South" (Richard, 1990). McPherson has agreed that "historiography of Andrew Johnson has not been kind to him; this was because most of it was written by Northerners, sympathizers with the more Radical Republicans". McPherson has revealed interesting observation with reference to the speeches of Johnson, "Johnsons language began in a rather conciliatory vein, and quickly turned to spite and vitriol". Anderson appreciated the sincerity and support of the Congress, the proposals forwarded by the President for the approval of Congress were graciously agreed upon after thorough debate and discussion on merit. Johnson has always been hopeful towards the approved resolution of reconstruction by the Congress, "he interpreted these Congressional resolutions as supporting his policy" (Walter, 1907). McPherson has quoted Johnson as saying that, "this policy has been one which was intended to restore the glorious Union, this seems to be a day peculiarly appropriate for such a manifestation; Washington, whose name this city bears, is embalmed in the hearts of all who love their Government". McPherson has identified that Anderson often referred to the policies and ideology of the president before him to further strengthen his stand, and to bring credibility to his claims. Johnson was inspired by Andrew Jackson, and regarded him as his political hero. Johnson was quoted as saying that "when treason and treachery and infidelity to the Government and the Constitution of the United States stalked forth, it was his power and influence that went forth and crushed it in its incipience". The President was of the strong opinion that government shall be autonomous, and constitution shall provide enough rights to the government to exercise good in the interests of the country, and warned that "there was a portion of our countrymen opposed to this, and they went to that extreme that they were willing to break up the Government to destroy this peculiar institution of the South". The President condemned their stand, and agreed to denounce "those who wanted to disrupt the Government, and portrayed their true character" (James, 1882). The President took positive approach on this matter, vindicated "the Union of these States and the Constitution of the country", he added that "he stood by the Government, was for the Union with slavery; and was for the Union without slavery. In either alternative he was for the Government and the Constitution". McPherson has identified several issues which were faced by Johnson, during his tenure as President of US. McPherson has been personally extremely critical of the policies and actions taken by he government under the instruction of the President, probably because both of these were slightly divergent. McPherson pointed out that "issues frequently overlooked or underplayed in the study of the Civil War and Reconstruction were the tremendous constitutional crisis that these events presented” (Richard, 1990). McPherson has identified that when the country seceded in 1860-61, the country was involved in legal impasse, "what was the legal status of the seceded states during the War? Or, once the war was over, how did one reintegrate these states into the Union? Did Lincoln have the legal authority to suspend habeas corpus? Did his appeals to the "inherent powers" of the Presidency have any real legal merit? Did Congress have the authority to eliminate slavery apart from a Constitutional Amendment? Once the 13th Amendment was ratified, did one need another Amendment if one wanted to get rid of some of the "badges and incidents" of slavery? Could one just do so under the "old" Constitution by enacting a statute? How far did the authority of the Federal Government really reach under the Constitution before the Civil War Amendments (13th-15th)?” (David, 1903), many such questions forwarded by McPherson were to be resolved during the regime of Johnson. As per McPherson, Johnson was well aware of the situation, and the legal challenges and explanations which required further clarification or consensus. The President was highly critical of the fact that attempts and proposal being drafted, "we find that by an irresponsible central directory nearly all the powers of Congress are assumed, without even consulting the legislative and executive departments of the Government" (James, 1882). McPherson has at one point in time revealed that President Anderson was accused for his unlawful act, and was asked to ensure that the laws shall be faithfully executed. During his presidency, he tried to obstruct the execution of law specific to the tenure limits of the civil offices. The President then devised unlawful approach, and attempt to contrive. The intent of this exercise was to "prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War". The secretary was initially suspended by the President, however the Congress objected and the secretary was able to retain his position. This was not the only time when the authority and decision of the President was ruled out by the law; afterwards the President prevented the execution of the law pertaining to the provisions for efficient government of the rebel states. Upon his objection, and his failure to provide justification, the Supreme Court accused was President of the misdemeanour in office. McPherson has been extremely critical of the President at this point in time, and believed that it Presidents lust for power and his style of dictatorship resulted in the emergence of such situation of shame and pity for the President. McPherson has expressed his likelihood towards Anderson at one stage when the President commented with reference to Southern readmission that the armies shall be disbanded, and the supremacy of the constitution of the country shall be maintained and respected. The President was firm believer of the supremacy of law, and he regarded the obedience to the law was fundamental. During his era, the South was responsible for plunging the entire country into civil war. The President founded his opinion based upon realistic approach, this act was strongly favored by McPherson. President Anderson condemned all such measures of past when "southern loyalists who were made politically and civilly incompetent, with penalties of death or imprisonment to their leaders, with reparations or some kind of payment to the Union for the losses they suffered". President Anderson considered them to be equal part of the country, and was their staunch supporter, and struggled for their fundamental rights. McPherson has mentioned that the President adopted designed approach to draw the South, instead of discussing and condemning the struggle of South, the President rather focused much upon the tribulations he and his countrymen had to face, only because the South opted for Civil War. The presidency of Anderson has experienced turmoil, however there are instance when he was proud of his presidency. McPherson and other critics have referred to the distinct impression left the Anderson when he forgave the South. The readmission of the South was political success of McPherson, however his political vanity then caused his downfall, which was so rapid that his achieved success could not counter his condemnable actions. Conclusion McPherson has categorically stated that all these conditions and stand were responsible for the impeachment of the President, if not the punishment. As per the court of law, the President was found "unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed"(Matthew, 2007). The President was accused for unlawful acts, which were against the constitution and laws of the country. McPherson has summarised the details account of the impeachment of the President, and has focused upon the allegations against the President individually. The President Johnson was accused for "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". The President was accused for development of unlawful accomplices with "Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, unlawfully 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" (James, 1882). McPherson was pointed out that the President was accused for doubting the supremacy of the Congress, and challenged its integrity. As per the law, the objections framed against the President were because he was found "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, at the city of Washington, and 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, and intending to deny, he power of the said thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and, in pursuance of said declaration" (Walter, 1907). McPherson was discussed with great respect and knowledge the accusation that the President was political traitor, who lacked courage and respect to act and exercise his power with wisdom. The opponents of the President were "energized, and re-energized" to combat the role and influence of the President. Never in the past President was victim of strong criticism, his failure to act and acknowledge the reality resulted in his failure. The traces of ignorance and political vanity curtailed his political career as leader and statesman. The economic accomplishment of the President were not significant, therefore his ability to deliver his public from economic and social perspective was limited. The fall of his presidency was due to his limited vision and political vanity irrespective of how personnel traits. References 1. Walter Lynwood Fleming. 1907. Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational & Industrial, 1865 to the Present Time. Prentice Hall. 2. David G. Schultenover. 1903. A View from Rome: On the Eve of the Modernist Crisis. Fordham Univ Press. 3. James Abram Garfield, Burke Aaron Hinsdale. 1882. The Works of James Abram Garfield. University of Michigan. 4. Richard E. Neustadt. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. Maxwell Macmillan. 5. Matthew Avery Sutton. 2007. Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America. Harvard University Press. Read More