Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson | |
---|---|
![]() Theodore R. Davis' illustration of President Johnson's impeachment trial in the Senate, published in Harper's Weekly | |
Accused | Andrew Johnson, President of the United States |
Date | March 5, 1868– May 26, 1868 (2 months and 3 weeks) |
Outcome | Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, remained in office |
Charges | Eleven high crimes and misdemeanors |
Cause | Violating the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to replace Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War while Congress was not in session, and other abuses of presidential power |
| ||
---|---|---|
16th Vice President of the United States
17th President of the United States
Vice presidential and Presidential campaigns
Post-presidency
![]() |
||
The impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, the 17th president of the United States, began in the United States Senate on March 5, 1868, and concluded with his acquittal on May 26. This was the first impeachment trial of an U.S. president, and only the sixth federal impeachment trial in United States history.
Chiefly charging Johnson with violating the 1867 Tenure of Office Act by removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton from office, the United States House of Representatives had been impeached the president on February 24, 1868, and had adopted eleven articles of impeachment thereafter.
The trial resulted in acquittal, with the Senate voting identically on three of the eleven articles of impeachment, failing each time by a single vote to reach the supermajority needed to convict Johnson. On each of those three articles, thirty-five Republican senators voted to convict, while ten Republican senators and all nine Democratic senators voted to acquit. After those three votes all failed to result in a conviction, the Senate then adjourned the trial without voting on the remaining eight articles of impeachment.
Background
Andrew Johnson ascended to the United States presidency after the 1865 assassination of Republican president Abraham Lincoln. Johnson, a Southern Democrat, had been elected vice president in 1864 on a unity ticket with Lincoln.[1] As president, Johnson held open disagreements with the Republican majority of United States House and Senate (the two chambers of the United States Congress). In 1867, the Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act and enacted it by successfully overriding Johnson's veto. The law was written with the intent of both curbing Johnson's power and protecting United States Secretary of War Edwin Stanton from being removed from his office unilaterally by Johnson.[2][3]
Johnson's conflict with the Republican-controlled Congress led to a number of efforts being taken since 1866, particularly by Radical Republicans, to impeach Johnson. On January 7, 1867, the House of Representatives voted to launch of an impeachment inquiry run by the House Committee on the Judiciary, which resulted in a November 25, 1867 5–4 vote by the committee to recommend impeachment. However, on December 7, 1867, vote, the full House rejected impeachment by a 108–57 vote.[4][5][6][7] On January 22, 1868, the House approved by a vote of 103–37 a resolution launching a second impeachment inquiry run by House Select Committee on Reconstruction.[8]
On February 21, 1868, Johnson, in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, attempted to remove Secretary of War Stanton.[2] That day, a one sentence resolution to impeach Johnson, written by John Covode, was referred to the House Select Committee on Reconstruction.[9][10][11] On February 22, the House Select Committee on Reconstruction released a report which recommended Johnson be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and also reported an amended version of the impeachment resolution.[12][13] On February 24, the United States House of Representatives voted 126–47 to impeach Johnson for high crimes and misdemeanors", which were detailed in 11 articles of impeachment (the 11 articles were separately approved in votes held a week after impeachment was approved).[14][15] The primary charge against Johnson was that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act by removing Stanton from office.[14]
Johnson's was the first impeachment trial of a United States president.[16] It was also only the sixth federal impeachment trial in American history, after the impeachment trials of William Blount, John Pickering, Samuel Chase, James H. Peck, and West Hughes Humphreys.[17] In only two of the previous impeachment trials had the Senate voted to convict.[18]
In the United States' federal impeachment trials, if an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate, they are automatically removed from office. The Senate can, only after voting to convict, vote by a simple majority to additionally bar the convicted individual from holding federal office in the future.[19][20][21][22]
Officers of the trial
Salmon P. Chase as presiding officer
Per the Constitution of the United States' rules on impeachment trials of incumbent presidents, Chief Justice of the United States Salmon P. Chase presided over the trial.[23]
A difference in attitude towards whether impeachment was a political proceeding or a true court proceeding may be evidenced in the fact that the prosecution (seeing it as a political proceeding) referred to Chase as "Mr. President" (viewing him as presiding over the Senate), while the defense referred to him as "Mr. Chief Justice" (viewing the proceedings as a true courtroom).[24]
The extent of Chase's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings was a frequent point of contention. He initially maintained that deciding certain procedural questions on his own was his prerogative; but after the Senate challenged several of his rulings, Chase gave up on making rulings.[25]
Chase had his own personal objections to the impeachment itself. Chase was of the opinion that, in a presidential impeachment, the Senate truly sat as a court to try the president. Therefore, Chase believed that this meant any charge against a president in an impeachment needed to be legally sustained. He objected to the viewpoint common among Radical Republicans that an impeachment could be a merely political proceeding by a legislative body.[24]
While Chase had long been associated with more extremist elements of the Republican Party, Chase's conduct during the trial saw him receive condemnation from the Radical Republicans.[24]
House managers
The House of Representatives appointed seven members to serve as House impeachment managers, equivalent to prosecutors. These seven members were John Bingham, George S. Boutwell, Benjamin Butler, John A. Logan, Thaddeus Stevens, Thomas Williams and James F. Wilson.[26][27]
It was at the request of the impeachment managers that a further two articles of impeachment were adopted on May 3, the day after the committee was appointed, and the day after the initial nine articles of impeachment were adopted.[12][14]
Bingham served as chairman of the House Committee of Impeachment Managers.[28][29] He had past experience serving in such a role, having previously served as the chairman of impeachment managers for the impeachment of West Hughes Humphreys.[29] Boutwell had originally been chosen as the chairman of impeachment managers for Johnson's impeachment trial, but, before the trial, resigned this position in favor of having Bingham serve in it.[29] At the selection of managers, Speaker Schuyler Colfax had decided that the committee itself would choose who would serve as its chairman, rather than the full House deciding.[12]
House managers | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chairman of the House Committee of Impeachment Managers John Bingham (Republican, Ohio) |
George S. Boutwell (Republican, Massachusetts) |
Benjamin Butler (Republican, Massachusetts) |
John A. Logan (Republican, Illinois) | ||||
Thaddeus Stevens (Republican, Pennsylvania) |
Thomas Williams (Republican, Pennsylvania) |
James F. Wilson (Republican, Iowa) |
|||||
Selection
The seven individuals to serve as impeachment managers had been selected by the House by ballot on March 2, 1868, after the initial nine articles of impeachment had been passed.[12]
The House Republican caucus had met March 1, 1868 (the previous night) to hold an internal vote on who they would support to be impeachment managers. Barred from attending were independent Republican Samuel Fenton Cary and "Conservative Republican" Thomas E. Stewart,[30] both of whom had voted against impeachment (unlike the rest of the Republican caucus).[14] With 79 members present, the House Republican caucus held a vote, with the rules stating that those receiving the highest number of votes would be chosen, and that no person would be chosen unless they had received a minimum of 40 votes in their favor. The first ballot saw Boutwell receive 75 votes, Bingham 74 votes, Wilson 71 votes, Williams 66 votes, Butler 48 votes, and Logan 40, thus electing the six as having the support of the Republican caucus. Stevens and Thomas Jenckes had each received 37 votes on the first ballot, while several other congressmen received between two and ten votes. On the second ballot, Stevens received 41 votes, securing him the House Republican caucus' support backing to be an impeachment manager.[31]
For the March 2, 1868 official vote on impeachment managers, Speaker Colfax had attempted to include several members of the Democratic Party among those to act as tellers to count the ballots on this vote, but all approached declined, leaving only members of the Republican Party as tellers.[12] It was indicated that Democrats did not wish to participate in the selection of impeachment managers.[12] After the tellers were named, Luke P. Poland nominated John Bingham, George S. Boutwell, Benjamin Butler, John A. Logan, Thaddeus Stevens, Thomas Williams, and James F. Wilson to serve as impeachment managers.[12]
-
118 House members cast votes on who should serve as impeachment managers. The seven selected were those who received the most votes in favor of them as managers.[12]
Vote on impeachment managers[12][32] Party Candidate Votes % Republican John Bingham 114 14.25 Republican George S. Boutwell 113 14.13 Republican James F. Wilson 112 14.00 Republican Benjamin Butler 108 13.50 Republican Thomas Williams 107 13.38 Republican John A. Logan 106 13.25 Republican Thaddeus Stevens 105 13.13 Republican Thomas Jenckes 22 2.75 Republican Luke P. Poland 3 0.38 Republican Glenni William Scofield 3 0.38 Republican Godlove Stein Orth 2 0.25 Republican John F. Benjamin 1 0.13 Republican Austin Blair 1 0.13 Republican John C. Churchill 1 0.13 Republican John A. Peters 1 0.13 Republican Charles Upson 1 0.13 Total votes 800 100
Johnson's counsel
The president's defense team was made up of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, William M. Evarts, William S. Groesbeck, Thomas Amos Rogers Nelson, and Henry Stanbery.[16][33] Stanbery had resigned as United States attorney general on March 12, 1868, in order to devote all of this time to serving on Johnson's defense team.[16][34] The members of Johnson's defense team were all well-known and well-esteemed as lawyers.[16]
Originally also to be part of the defense team was Jeremiah S. Black.[35] Black was originally to act as Johnson's chief counsel for the trial, but he withdrew due to differences with Johnson.[18][36]
President's counsel | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benjamin Robbins Curtis (former associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) |
William M. Evarts | William S. Groesbeck (former member of the United States House of Representatives) |
Thomas Amos Rogers Nelson (former member of the United States House of Representatives) |
Henry Stanbery (former United States attorney general) | ||
Pretrial
Senate informed of impeachment (February 25)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220617052525im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Bingham-Stevens.jpg/190px-Bingham-Stevens.jpg)
On the morning of February 25, 1868, the Senate was informed by John Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens that Johnson had been impeached and that articles of impeachment would be created.[16][37][38]
Bingham and Stevens delivered a message reading,
By order of the House of Representatives we appear at the bar of the Senate, and in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all the people of the United States, we do impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office; and we do further inform the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same; and in their name we do demand that the Senate take order for the appearance of the said Andrew Johnson to answer to said impeachment.[38]
The Senate referred the message to a select committee, which then made a report the next day. After this report on February 26, the Senate adopted an order that they were ready to receive the articles of impeachment.[38]
Development of rules (February 25–March 2)
The Senate proceeded to develop a set of rules for the trial and its officers.[23] On February 25, they appointed a select committee to develop the rules to be used.[24][17] On February 28, the rules of procedure in impeachment trials was reported in the Senate.[16] The Senate adopted the new rules for impeachment on March 2, 1868.[16]
The first two impeachment trials in United States history (those of William Blount and John Pickering) had each had their own individual set of rules. While the nineteen impeachment rules established for the trial of Samuel Chase appear also to have been used for the trials of James H. Peck and West Hughes Humphreys. However, the select committee established to create the rules for Johnson's impeachment trial sought to establish permeant rules, declaring it to be, "proper to report general rules for the trial of all impeachments". Indeed, the rules adopted in 1868 have, with very few changes, remained the rules for impeachment trials ever since.[17] The select committee came forward with a recommendation of twenty-five rules, many of which were the same as the rules adopted for Chase's trial, and some others which codified practices from the other previous trials.[17] The twenty-five rules were quickly debated and adopted.[16] During the trial, disputes arose about the interpretations of the rules, and this lead the Senate to agree to three changes to the rules to better clarify their intent.[17]
The extent of Chief Justice Chase's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings was a frequent point of contention during the rules debate and, later, during the trial.[25]
Chief Justice Chase had voiced objection to the Senate drafting their rules prior to being convened as a court of impeachment.[24]
Articles of impeachment presented to Senate (March 4)
On March 4, 1868, amid tremendous public attention and press coverage, the eleven articles of impeachment were presented to the Senate.[16][23] At 1pm, Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate George T. Brown announced the presence of the impeachment managers at the door of the Senate chamber. The Benjamin Wade, the president pro tempore of the Senate, then requested the managers take the seats assigned to them within the Senate's bar. Then Wade had the sergeant at arms make the proclacmation,
Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States."[38]
Then, Bingham read the articles of impeachment.[38] The first eight of the articles of impeachment adopted in the House related to Johnson violating the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to dismiss Secretary of War Stanton.[14] Specifically, the second and the third article (which would ultimately be two of the three articles to be voted on at the end of the trial)[39]) respectively charged that Johnson had sent "a letter of authority" to Lorenzo Thomas regarding his appointment to be acting secretary of war and that Johnson had appointed Thomas to be secretary of war, both when there was, in fact, no legal vacancy, because Secretary Stanton had been removed in violation of the Tenure of Office Act.[15] The ninth accused Johnson of violating the Command of Army Act by pressuring General William H. Emory to ignore Acting Secretary of War Ulysses S. Grant and to instead take orders directly from Johnson. The tenth article charged Johnson with attempting, "to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States", but did not cite a clear violation of the law.[14] The eleventh article (which would be one of three ultimately voted on at the end of the trial) accused Johnson of violating his oath of office to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" by declaring that the 39th United States Congress was unconstitutional because it only represented some of the United States (with unreconstructed states being excluded) and therefore lacked legislative powers or the power to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[16][40]
After the articles of impeachment were read, a resolution was adopted resolving to have the Senate meet at 1pm the next day to begin the trial, with the swearing-in of senators as jurors to be administered at that time by the chief justice. It also resolved that, at that once senators were seated as jurors, the Senate would receive the impeachment managers.[38] The adoption of this resolution was followed by the adoption of a further resolution which, among other specifications, ordered that the Senate provide notice to the chief justice and request his attendance as presiding officer.[38]
Convening of Senate as court of impeachment
The Senate reconvened on March 5, 1868 (the day after the articles of impeachment were delivered) at 1pm as a court of impeachment, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding, which marked the beginning the trial.[16][23]
Oaths (March 5 and 6)
Second illustration:Chief Justice Chase administering the juror's oath to Benjamin Wade on March 6
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Nelson administered the oath that Chief Justice Chase took for presiding over the trial.[41]
When it came time for senators to take the juror's oath, Thomas A. Hendricks questioned Benjamin Wade's impartiality and suggested that Wade abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. As there was no constitutional provision at the time for filling an intra-term vacancy in the vice presidency (accomplished a century later by the Twenty-fifth Amendment), the office had been vacant since Johnson succeeded to the presidency. Therefore, Wade, as president pro tempore of the Senate, would, under the Presidential Succession Act then in force and effect, become president if Johnson were removed from office. Reviled by the Radical Republican majority, Hendricks withdrew his objection a day later and left the matter to Wade's own conscience, and Wade ultimately voted for conviction.[42][43] The oaths were administered to the Senators by Chief Justice Chase on March 5 and 6.[15]
Delivery of summons to Johnson (March 7)
Second image: Illustration of Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate George T. Brown delivering the Senate's summons to Andrew Johnson at the White House on March 7, 1868
Third image: Chief Justice Chase's writ of summons to Johnson
On March 7, 1868, Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate George T. Brown traveled from the United States Capitol to the White House in order to present Johnson with a summons to the trial.[16][44] In addition to the Senate's summons, a writ of summons was sent by Chief Justice Chase to President Johnson on March 7, 1868, notifying him of the pending impeachment trial, giving him both the date of the trial and summarizing the reason he was accused of being, "unmindful[ness] of the high duties of his office".[45]
On the advice of counsel, Johnson opted against appearing at the trial.[16][23] Johnson did, however, grant a number of news media interviews during the course of the trial.[16]
Testimony and deliberations
The trial was conducted mostly in open session, and the Senate chamber galleries were filled to capacity throughout. Public interest was so great that the Senate issued admission passes for the first time in its history. For each day of the trial, 1,000 color coded tickets were printed, granting admittance for a single day.[16][23][46] A Senate order outlining the rules regarding tickets to the impeachment trial was adopted on March 10.[38] Under there rules, forty of each day's tickets went to the diplomatic corps twenty to the secretary to the president of the United States for use by of the president, four to each senator, four to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, two to each member of the House, two to each associate justice of the Supreme Court, two to the chief and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, two to each judge of the Court of Claims, two to each officer of the Cabinet, two to the general commanding the United States Army, and sixty to be issued by the president pro tempore of the senate to reporters of the news media. The remainder of tickets were distributed among the senators in proportion to the number of seats their state held in the House of Representatives.[16][38] Members of Congress were inundated with hundreds of requests for the tickets they received.[16]
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220617052525im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Benjamin_R._Curtis%2C_Esq.%2C_of_Counsel_for_the_President%2C_Reading_the_Answer_to_the_Articles_of_Impeachment%2C_on_Monday%2C_March_23d%2C_1868_%281%29.jpg/220px-Benjamin_R._Curtis%2C_Esq.%2C_of_Counsel_for_the_President%2C_Reading_the_Answer_to_the_Articles_of_Impeachment%2C_on_Monday%2C_March_23d%2C_1868_%281%29.jpg)
On the first day, Johnson's defense committee asked for 40 days to collect evidence and witnesses since the prosecution had had a longer amount of time to do so, but only 10 days were granted. The proceedings began on March 23. Senator Garrett Davis argued that because not all states were represented in the Senate the trial could not be held and that it should therefore be adjourned. The motion was voted down. After the charges against the president were made, Henry Stanbery asked for another 30 days to assemble evidence and summon witnesses, saying that in the 10 days previously granted there had only been enough time to prepare the president's reply. John A. Logan argued that the trial should begin immediately and that Stanbery was only trying to stall for time. The request was turned down in a vote 41 to 12. However, the Senate voted the next day to give the defense six more days to prepare evidence, which was accepted.[47]
During the trial, forty-one witnesses testified (twenty-five called by the prosecution and sixteen called by the defense),[16] providing live testimony.[48] However, one of the witnesses called by both the defense and prosecution, William G. Moore (secretary to the president[49]), was the same individual, so there were only forty unique witnesses.[50]
Prosecution's presentation (March 30–April 9)
List of witnesses called during the prosecution's presentation (in order first called)[50]
- William J. McDonald (March 31)
- John W. Jones (March 31)
- Charles E. Creecy (March 31 and April 4)
- Burt Van Horn (March 31)
- James K. Moorhead (March 31)
- Walter A. Burleigh (March 31)
- Samuel Wilkeson (April 1)
- George W. Karsner (April 1 and 2)
- Thomas W. Ferry (April 2)
- William H. Emory (April 2)
- George W. Wallace (April 2)
- William E. Chandler (April 2)
- Charles A. Tinker (April 2 and 3)
- James B. Sheridan (April 3)
- James O. Clephane (April 3)
- Francis H. Smith (April 3)
- William G. Moore (April 3)
- William N. Hudson (April 3)
- Daniel C. McEwen (April 3)
- Everett D. Stark (April 3)
- L. L. Walbridge (April 4)
- Joseph A. Dare (April 4)
- Robert S. Chew (April 4)
- M.H. Wood (April 9)
- Foster Blodgett (April 9)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220617052525im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Gen._Benjamin_F._Butler%2C_Delivering_the_Opening_Speech%2C_As_One_of_the_Managers_of_Impeachment%2C_At_the_Impeachment_Trial%2C_In_the_Senate_Chamber%2C_Washington%2C_D.C._%281%29.png/220px-thumbnail.png)
The prosecution presented their case between March 30 and April 9.[16] When the trial commenced on March 30,[51] House manager Benjamin Butler opened for the prosecution with a three-hour speech.[52][40] The speech reviewed historical impeachment trials, dating from King John of England.[52] In this speech, he directly refuted arguments that the Tenure of Office Act was not applicable to Johnson's dismissal of Stanton.[40] In this speech, he also read excerpts of Johnson's speeches from his infamous Swing Around the Circle. These remarks were the basis of the tenth article of impeachment.[40] He also made derisive remarks against Johnson, such as referring to him as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an Assassin" in reference to the fact that Johnson was not elected president, but rather, had ascended to the presidency after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[40]
In the days following the start of the trial, Butler spoke out against Johnson's violations of the Tenure of Office Act and further charged that the president had issued orders directly to Army officers without sending them through General Grant. The prosecution called twenty-five witnesses in the course of the proceedings until April 9, when they rested their case.[16][52]
The disrespectful character of remarks Butler would make about Johnson during the trial may have hurt the prosecution's case with senators who were on the fence. Additionally, Butler is argued to have made a number of strategic errors in his presentation.[40] After their presentation, Butler and his fellow House managers publicly expressed confidence that their presentation was successful. On May 4, Butler spoke before a Republican crowd, and declared, "the removal of the great obstruction is certain." However, privately, they were less optimistic about it.[40]
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220617052525im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Swearing_in_a_Witness_at_the_Impeachment_Trial%E2%80%94Colonel_Forney%2C_Secretary_of_the_Senate%2C_Administering_the_Oath_to_Gen._W.H._Emory%2C_as_a_Witness_of_the_Managers%2C_Thursday%2C_2nd_Inst_%281%29.jpg/220px-thumbnail.jpg)
A key argument made by the prosecution was an assertion that Johnson had explicitly violated the Tenure of Office Act by dismissing Stanton without the Senate's consent.[51] Another key argument made the prosecution was an assertion that the president had a duty to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress, regardless of whether the President believes the laws to be constitutional. They argued this was the case because, if a president was not obliged to do so, they could routinely go against the will of Congress (which they argued, in turn, represented the will of the American people, as their elected representatives).[51]
While the central focus of the trial was related to Johnson's alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act, other issues were brought up as well.[51] For instance, House managers characterized Johnson as representing a return of "slave power" to the country.[51]
Defense's presentation (April 9–20)
List of witnesses called during the defense's presentation (in order first called)[50]
- Lorenzo Thomas (April 10)
- William Tecumseh Sherman (April 11 and 13)
- R.J. Meigs (April 13)
- DeWitt C. Clarke (April 15)
- William G. Moore (April 15)
- Walter Smith Cox (April 16)
- Richard T. Merrick (April 16)
- Edward O. Perrin (April 16)
- William W. Armstrong (April 17)
- Barton Able (April 17)
- George Knapp (April 17)
- Henry F. Zeider (April 17)
- Frederick W. Seward (April 17)
- Gideon Welles (April 17 and 18)
- Edgar T. Welles (April 18)
- Alexander W. Randall (April 18)
The defense's presentation took place between April 9[50] and 20.[16] The defense sought to raise doubt in the minds of senators' minds about Johnson's intent, and sought to question the criminality of the alleged impeachable offenses.[16]
One of the key points argued by the defense was that the language in the Tenure of Office Act was not clear, leaving vagueness as to whether the legislation itself was even applicable to the situation involving Stanton. The defense argued that Johnson had not violated the Tenure of Office Act because President Lincoln did not reappoint Stanton as Secretary of War at the beginning of his second term in 1865 and that he was, therefore, a leftover appointment from the 1860 cabinet, which, they argued, removed his protection by the Tenure of Office Act.[16][51][52]
Another key point argued by the defense was an assertion that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional, since, they argued, it interfered with the President's constitutional authority to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." They argued that a President could not carry out laws when they could not trust their own Cabinet advisors.[51] They argued that, even if the act were constitutional, presidents should not be convicted and removed from office for misconstruing their constitutional rights. They argued that if Johnson had misjudged the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act, that misjudgment should not result in his removal of office.[16]
Another key argument was that Johnson's intent in firing Stanton had been to test the very constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act before the Supreme Court, which they asserted that he had a right to do.[16]
Another argument made by the defense was that Johnson was only acting, by necessity, to keep a staffed an operational war department by appointing Lorenzo Thomas an interim officer. They argued that this had resulted in no public injury that would necessitate Johnson's removal from office.[16]
Another key point argued by the defense was an assertion that presidents should not be removed from office for political misdeeds through impeachment, but, rather, through elections. The defense argued that the Republican Party was abusing impeachment as a political tool.[51]
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220617052525im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/GenLThomas.jpg/184px-GenLThomas.jpg)
Defense counsel Benjamin Robbins Curtis called attention to the fact that after the House passed the Tenure of Office Act, the Senate had amended it, meaning that it had to return it to a Senate-House conference committee to resolve the differences. He followed up by quoting the minutes of those meetings, which revealed that while the House members made no notes about the fact, their sole purpose was to keep Stanton in office, and the Senate had disagreed.[52]
The defense then called their first witness, Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas. He did not provide adequate information in the defense's cause and Butler made attempts to use his information to the prosecution's advantage.[52]
The next witness was General William Tecumseh Sherman, who testified that President Johnson had offered to appoint Sherman to succeed Stanton as secretary of war in order to ensure that the department was effectively administered. This testimony damaged the prosecution, which expected Sherman to testify that Johnson offered to appoint Sherman for the purpose of obstructing the operation or overthrow, of the government. Sherman essentially affirmed that Johnson only wanted him to manage the department and not to execute directions to the military that would be contrary to the will of Congress.[52]
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220617052525im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Gideon_Welles_cph.3b20114.jpg/200px-Gideon_Welles_cph.3b20114.jpg)
As a witness for the defense, Gideon Welles testified that Johnson's Cabinet had advised the president that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional, and both Secretaries William Seward and Edwin Stanton had agreed to create a draft of a veto message. Curtis argued that this was relevant since one of the articles of impeachment charged Johnson with "intending" to violate the Constitution, and Welles testimony portrayed Johnson as having believed that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. Originally, over the objections of the House Managers, Chief Justice Chase ruled that this testimony was admissible evidence. However, the Senate itself voted to overrule Chase's ruling by a vote of 29–20, thereby deeming it inadmissible as evidence.[53]
During the trial, Chief Justice Chase ruled that Johnson's counsel should be permitted to present evidence that Thomas' appointment to replace Stanton was intended to provide a test case to challenge the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act, but the Senate reversed the ruling.[54]
Final arguments (April 22–May 6)
Final arguments took place from April 22 through May 6. The House managers spoke for six days, while the president's counsel spoke for five.[53]
Prosecution's final arguments
The prosecution's closing arguments included charged speech.[53] Thaddeus Stevens painted Johnson as a, "wretched man". John Bingham painted there to be a fundamental need for the, "legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President," warning that a failure for this to occur (if the Senate acquitted the president), future historians would regard the impeachment proceedings to have been the moment that, "the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the Earth." Bingham's remarks brought immense applause from the crowd in the Senate gallery.[53]
When one of the managers wanted to examine a witness during the final arguments, the chief justice opined, in response to an objection by a senator, that the Senate would first need to provide an order before such evidence could be allowed to be presented during the final argument. Such an order was thereafter obtained to allow testimony of a witness during the prosecution's final argument.[38]
Defense's final arguments
In his remarks, Groesbeck offered a lively defense of Johnson's perspective of Reconstruction.[53] William Everts argued in his closing argument that violating the Tenure of Office Act did not meet the level of being an impeachable offense.[53]
Closed-door deliberations (May 6–12)
Unlike the rest of the trial, which was conducted in open session before packed galleries, deliberations were held in closed session.[16] On May 6, George F. Edmunds motioned that the doors be closed, and the Senate voted in the affirmative.[50] The Senate deliberated in closed session on May 6, 7, 11, and 12.[16][50][40]
Verdict
The Senate was composed of 54 members representing 27 states (10 former Confederate states had not yet been readmitted to representation in the Senate) at the time of the trial. At its conclusion, senators voted on three of the articles of impeachment. On each occasion the vote was 35–19, with 35 senators voting guilty and 19 not guilty. As the constitutional threshold for a conviction in an impeachment trial is a two-thirds majority guilty vote, 36 votes in this instance, Johnson was not convicted. He remained in office through the end of his term on March 4, 1869, though as a lame duck without influence on public policy.[55]
Seven Republican senators were concerned that the proceedings had been manipulated to give a one-sided presentation of the evidence. Senators William P. Fessenden, Joseph S. Fowler, James W. Grimes, John B. Henderson, Lyman Trumbull, Peter G. Van Winkle,[56] and Edmund G. Ross, who provided the decisive vote,[57] defied their party by voting against conviction. In addition to the aforementioned seven, three more Republicans James Dixon, James Rood Doolittle, Daniel Sheldon Norton, and all nine Democratic senators voted “not guilty”.[58]
Vote on eleventh article (May 16)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220617052525im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Vote_on_the_Impeachment_of_President_Johnson%2C_1868_%281%29.jpg/220px-Vote_on_the_Impeachment_of_President_Johnson%2C_1868_%281%29.jpg)
On May 16, the Senate convened to vote on its verdict. A motion was made, and successfully adopted, to vote first on the eleventh article of impeachment. The eleventh article was widely viewed as being the article most likely to result in a vote to convict.[40]
Prior to the vote, Samuel C. Pomeroy, the senior senator from Kansas, told the junior Kansas Senator Ross that if Ross voted for acquittal that Ross would become the subject of an investigation for bribery.[59] Ross was seen as a critical vote, and had been silent about his stance on impeachment throughout the trial and deliberations.[40]
Ten day hiatus
After the vote on the eleventh article resulted in acquittal, in hopes of persuading at least one senator who voted "not guilty" to vote "guilty" on the remaining articles, the Senate voted 32–21 to adjourn for 10 days before continuing voting on the other articles.[50][52] During the hiatus, under Benjamin Butler's leadership, the House put through a resolution to investigate alleged "improper or corrupt means used to influence the determination of the Senate".[52]
Votes on second and third articles and adjournment (May 26)
On May 26, the Senate reconvened the trial, and voted on the second and third articles, again failing to convict Johnson by the same margin as their votes for the eleventh article, despite the Radical Republican leadership's heavy-handed efforts to change the outcome.[52][39] After this, Senator George Henry Williams motioned to adjourn sine die (meaning without a specific date to resume), which the Senate approved 33–17. Since the Senate never resumed the trial, this ultimately ended the trial without a vote on any further articles.[39][60][58]
Summary of votes
Votes on conviction
Articles of Impeachment, U.S. Senate judgment (36 "guilty" votes necessary for a conviction) | |||
---|---|---|---|
May 16, 1868 Article XI |
Party | Total votes | |
Democratic | Republican | ||
Yea (guilty) | 0 | 35 | 35 |
Nay (not guilty) ![]() |
9 | 10 | 19 |
May 26, 1868 Article II |
Party | Total votes | |
Democratic | Republican | ||
Yea (guilty) | 0 | 35 | 35 |
Nay (not guilty) ![]() |
9 | 10 | 19 |
May 26, 1868 Article III |
Party | Total votes | |
Democratic | Republican | ||
Yea (guilty) | 0 | 35 | 35 |
Nay (Not guilty) ![]() |
9 | 10 | 19 |
Vote on adjourning sine die
Aftermath
None of the Republican senators who voted for acquittal ever again served in an elected office.[63] Although they were under intense pressure to change their votes to conviction during the trial, afterward public opinion rapidly shifted around to their viewpoint. Some senators who voted for conviction, such as John Sherman and even Charles Sumner, later changed their minds.[64][65][66]
Some Radical Republicans, looking for a scapegoat on their failure to secure the conviction of Johnson, blamed Chief Justice Chase, accusing him of having swayed the decisions of the senators against conviction.[24]
After the trial, Benjamin Butler conducted hearings on the widespread reports that Republican senators had been bribed to vote for Johnson's acquittal. In Butler's hearings, and in subsequent inquiries, there was increasing evidence that some acquittal votes were acquired by promises of patronage jobs and cash bribes. Political deals were struck as well. James W. Grimes received assurances that acquittal would not be followed by presidential reprisals; Johnson agreed to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, and to appoint General John Schofield to succeed Stanton. Nonetheless, the investigations never resulted in charges, much less convictions, against anyone.[52] Moreover, there is evidence that the prosecution also attempted to bribe the senators voting for acquittal to switch their votes to conviction. Maine Senator Fessenden was offered the ministership to Great Britain. Prosecutor Butler said, "Tell [Kansas Senator Ross] that if he wants money there is a bushel of it here to be had."[67] Butler's investigation also boomeranged when it was discovered that Kansas Senator Pomeroy, who voted for conviction, had written a letter to Johnson's postmaster general seeking a $40,000 bribe for Pomeroy's acquittal vote along with three or four others in his caucus.[68] Butler was himself told by Wade that Wade would appoint Butler as secretary of state when Wade assumed the presidency after a Johnson conviction.[69]
The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative-executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which future-President Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1880s as "Congressional Government".[55]
As the select committee that wrote them intended, the impeachment trial rules outlined for Johnson's impeachment indeed have been permanent, used in all subsequent federal impeachment trials with very few alterations. The impeachment rules were not changed again after the Johnson trial until the 1935 trial of Harold Louderback saw a single rule change. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration looked at possibly again changing the rules in advance of the anticipated impeachment trial that might have followed the impeachment process against Richard Nixon, but after to the resignation of Richard Nixon, this was momentarily abandoned. The rules changes were not adopted until the Senate acted upon a further recommendation to adopt them in 1986. No further changes have been made to the rules outlined for the Johnson trial.[17]
Later review of Johnson's impeachment trial
In 1887, the Tenure of Office Act was repealed by Congress, and subsequent rulings by the United States Supreme Court seemed to support Johnson's position that he was entitled to fire Stanton without congressional approval. The Supreme Court's ruling on a similar piece of later legislation in Myers v. United States (1926) affirmed the ability of the president to remove a postmaster without congressional approval, and stated in its majority opinion "that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867...was invalid".[70]
Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, one of the 10 Republican senators whose refusal to vote for conviction prevented Johnson's removal from office, noted, in the speech he gave explaining his vote for acquittal, that had Johnson been convicted, the main source of the president's political power—the freedom to disagree with the Congress without consequences—would have been destroyed, and the Constitution's system of checks and balances along with it:[71]
Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes, as several of those now alleged against the President were decided to be by the House of Representatives only a few months since, and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important, particularly if of a political character. Blinded by partisan zeal, with such an example before them, they will not scruple to remove out of the way any obstacle to the accomplishment of their purposes, and what then becomes of the checks and balances of the Constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone.
An opinion that Senator Ross was mercilessly persecuted for his courageous vote to sustain the independence of the presidency as a branch of the federal government is the subject of an entire chapter in John F. Kennedy's book, Profiles in Courage.[72] That opinion has been rejected by some scholars, such as Ralph Roske, and endorsed by others, such as Avery Craven.[64][73]
In his book Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy, David O. Stewart contends that Ross' vote against impeachment was bought by supporters of the president, who he believes had raised a $150,000 "Acquittal Fund" and had approached Republican senators offering bribes. Perry Fuller, a political fixer and key funder of Ross' Senate campaign, had spent the night prior to Ross' first vote against conviction with him. Stewart states that Ross had, up until the day of the vote, indicated he intended to vote for conviction. Stewart contends that Fuller was rewarded for persuading Ross. Johnson attempted to appoint Fuller head of commissioner of Internal Revenue, and when the Senate refused to confirm fuller, Johnson appointed him tax collector for the Port of New Orleans.[74] Stewart has contrasted his view of Johnson with Kenendy's, declaring, "Edmund G. Ross was a profile in impeachment corruption, not courage".[75]
References
- ^ "Andrew Johnson". The White House. Retrieved May 19, 2022.
- ^ a b Trefousse, Hans L. (1989). Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 306. ISBN 978-0-393-31742-8.
- ^ "Impeachment: Andrew Johnson". The History Place. Archived from the original on November 9, 2019. Retrieved December 24, 2019.
- ^ "Building the Case for Impeachment, December 1866 to June 1867 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
- ^ "Impeachment Efforts Against President Andrew Johnson | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
- ^ "Impeachment Rejected, November to December 1867 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
- ^ "The Case for Impeachment, December 1867 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
- ^ "Journal of the United States House of Representatives (40th Congress, second session) pages 259–262". voteview.com. United States House of Representatives. 1868. Retrieved March 16, 2022.
- ^ "Avalon Project : History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson - Chapter VI. Impeachment Agreed To By The House". avalon.law.yale.edu. The Avalon Project (Yale Law School Lilian Goldman Law Library). Retrieved March 13, 2021.
- ^ "The House Impeaches Andrew Johnson | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
- ^ "Impeachment of Andrew Johnson | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Hinds, Asher C. (March 4, 1907). HINDS’ PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING REFERENCES TO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS, AND DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (PDF). United States Congress. pp. 845–846, 856–858. Retrieved March 24, 2022.
- ^ "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875". memory.loc.gov. Library of Congress. Retrieved March 28, 2022.
- ^ a b c d e f "Johnson Impeached, Frebruary to March 1868". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian and the Clerk of the House's Office of Art and Archives. Retrieved January 13, 2021.
- ^ a b c
This article incorporates public domain material from the Congressional Research Service document: Stephen W. Stathis and David C. Huckabee. "Congressional Resolutions on Presidential Impeachment: A Historical Overview" (PDF). Retrieved December 31, 2019.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab "U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson, 1868". www.senate.gov. United States Senate. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
- ^ a b c d e f "The Impeachment Process in the Senate". crsreports.congress.gov. Congressional Research Service. January 27, 2021. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
- ^ a b Wineapple, Brenda (2019). The impeachers : The Trial of Andrew Johnson and The Dream of a Just Nation (First ed.). New York. pp. 180, 280–282. ISBN 9780812998368.
- ^ "Impeachment". HISTORY. June 8, 2017. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
- ^ "U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States". U.S. Senate. March 4, 1789. Archived from the original on February 10, 2014.
- ^ Millhiser, Ian (January 8, 2021). "How Congress can permanently disqualify Trump from office after impeachment". Vox. Retrieved January 15, 2021.
- ^ "Judgment - Removal and Disqualification". Justia. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
- ^ a b c d e f "The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868) President of the United States". Washington, D.C.: Historical Office, United States Senate. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved April 13, 2018.
- ^ a b c d e f Perdue, M. Kathleen (1964). "Salmon P. Chase and the Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson". The Historian. 27 (1): 75–92. ISSN 0018-2370. Retrieved March 30, 2022.
- ^ a b Gerhardt, Michael J. "Essays on Article I: Trial of Impeachment". Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
- ^ "List of Individuals Impeached by the House of Representatives". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian and the Clerk of the House's Office of Art and Archives. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
- ^ "President Andrew Johnson Impeachment Trial: 1868 - Senate Tries President Johnson". law.jrank.org. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
- ^ "The House Committee of Impeachment Managers in the Senate Chamber, Washington, D.C. | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved November 18, 2021.
- ^ a b c "THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS". www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com. Harper's Weekly. March 21, 1868. Retrieved November 18, 2021.
- ^ "Republican Caucus". Chicago Tribune. March 2, 1868. Retrieved March 28, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ "Impeachment Managers". Boston Evening Transcript. March 2, 1868. Retrieved March 28, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ "40th Congress (1867-1869) > Representatives". voteview.com. Retrieved March 16, 2022.
- ^ "History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson - Chapter VIII. Organization Of The Court Argument Of Counsel". avalon.law.yale.edu. Yale (Avalon Project).
- ^ Zuczek, Richard, ed. (2006). Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era. Vol. 2. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 599–600. ISBN 978-0-3133-3075-9 – via Google Books.
- ^ Brigance, William Norwood (1932). "Jeremiah Black and Andrew Johnson" (PDF). The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 19 (2): 205–218. doi:10.2307/1891453. ISSN 0161-391X. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
- ^ "Jeremiah S. Black (1857–1860) | Miller Center". millercenter.org. October 4, 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
- ^ "Journal of the United States House of Representatives (40th Congress, second session) page 405". voteview.com. United States House of Representatives. 1868. Retrieved March 16, 2022.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Riddick, Floyd M.; Dove, Robert B. (August 15, 1986). Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States Senate (PDF). United States Senate. pp. 12–13, 19–20, 26–27, 53–54. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 16, 2000.
- ^ a b c "The Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j "The Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson: An Account". www.famous-trials.com. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
- ^ "Oath to Rules of Impeachment". www.andrewjohnson.com. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
- ^ Hearn, Chester G. (2000). The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. ISBN 0-7864-0863-4.
- ^ Foner, Eric (1988). Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. HarperCollins. p. 336. ISBN 978-0062035868.
- ^ "George T. Brown, Sergeant at Arms, 1861–1869". www.senate.gov. United States Senate. Retrieved March 31, 2022.
- ^ "Writ of Summons by Chief Justice Samuel P. Chase". digitalexhibits.libraries.wsu.edu. Washington State University/National Archives. Retrieved March 28, 2022.
- ^ "President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial, 1868". Washington, D.C.: Historical Office, United States Senate. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
- ^ Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives; Ninety-third Congress, Second Session (1974). Impeachment: Selected Materials on Procedure. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 104–05. OCLC 868888.
- ^ Garvey, Todd (January 21, 2020). "Obtaining Witnesses In an Impeachment Trial: Compulsion, Executive Privilege, and the Courts". crsreports.congress.gov. Congressional Research Service.
- ^ "About this Collection | Andrew Johnson Papers | Digital Collections | Library of Congress". Library of Congress. Retrieved April 7, 2022.
- ^ a b c d e f g Extracts from the Journal of the United States Senate In All Cases of Impeachment Presented By The United States House of Representatives (1798-1904). Washington Government Printing Office. 1912. pp. 231, 238–284, 306–316, 320.
- ^ a b c d e f g h "Andrew Johnson's Impeachment". Bill of Rights Institute. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Stewart, David O. (2009). Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Licoln's Legacy. Simon and Schuster. pp. 207–212, 231, 240–49, 284–99. ISBN 978-1416547495.
- ^ a b c d e f "An Introduction to the Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson". law2.umkc.edu. University of Missouri - Kansas City Law School. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
- ^ Herrick, Neal Q. (2009). After Patrick Henry: A Second American Revolution. New York City: Black Rose Books. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-55164-320-5.
- ^ a b Varon, Elizabeth R. (October 4, 2016). "Andrew Johnson: Domestic Affairs". Charlottesville, Virginia: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved April 14, 2018.
- ^ "Andrew Johnson Trial: The Consciences of Seven Republicans Save Johnson" Archived 2018-08-10 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ ""The Trial of Andrew Johnson, 1868"". Archived from the original on August 10, 2018. Retrieved August 17, 2007.
- ^ a b c "40th Congress > Senate > Vote 361". voteview.com. Retrieved April 8, 2022.
- ^ Curt Anders "Powerlust: Radicalism in the Civil War Era" p. 531
- ^ Mushkat, Jerome (1967). "THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON: A CONTEMPORARY VIEW". New York History. 48 (3): 275–286. ISSN 0146-437X. Retrieved April 6, 2022.
- ^ Ross, Edmund G. (1896). History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of The United States By The House Of Representatives and His Trial by The Senate for High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Office 1868 (PDF). pp. 105–07. Retrieved April 26, 2018 – via Project Gutenberg, 2000.
- ^ "Senate Journal. 40th Cong., 2nd sess., 16 / 26 May 1868, 943–51". A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Retrieved June 7, 2019.
- ^ Hodding Carter, The Angry Scar (New York: Doubleday, 1959), 143
- ^ a b Avery Craven "Reconstruction" (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969), 221
- ^ Kenneth Stampp, Reconstruction (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), 153
- ^ Chester Hearn, The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2000), 202
- ^ Gene Davis High Crimes and Misdemeanors (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1977), 266–67, 290–91
- ^ Curt Anders "Powerlust: Radicalism in the Civil War Era", pp. 532–33
- ^ Eric McKitrick Andrew Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 507–08
- ^ Myers v. United States Archived 2014-12-26 at the Wayback Machine, Findlaw | Cases and Codes
- ^ White, Horace. The Life of Lyman Trumble. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1913, p. 319.
- ^ John F. Kennedy "Profiles in Courage" (New York: Harper Brothers, 1961), 115–39
- ^ Roske, Ralph J. (1959). "The Seven Martyrs?". The American Historical Review. 64 (2): 323–30. doi:10.2307/1845447. JSTOR 1845447.
- ^ Linder, Douglas O. "The Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson: An Account". famous-trials.com. Retrieved March 26, 2022.
- ^ Stewart, David O. (December 15, 2019). "Edmund G. Ross Was a Profile in Impeachment Corruption, not Courage | History News Network". historynewsnetwork.org. Columbian College of Arts & Sciences of The George Washington University. Retrieved March 27, 2022.