[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Johnson s Removal of Edwin StantonThings came to a head when, in 1868, Johnson removedhis secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, a holdover fromLincoln s cabinet and an important and powerful ally ofthe so-called Radical Republicans. These Republicans NOTABLE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 69favored Reconstruction policies that protected AfricanAmericans, rewarded pro-Union Southerners, and pun-ished former secessionists by keeping them out of power.The year before, fearing that Johnson would begin toempty the federal government and his cabinet of Lincoln-era Republican appointees, Congress passed the Tenureof Offi ce Act.This act, passed over Johnson s veto, statedthat any public officer appointed with the advice and con-sent of the Senate must remain in that office until a re-placement was similarly appointed and approved by theupper house.When Johnson removed Stanton without the Senate sconsent, the House claimed to have the criminal offenseit was looking for in order to impeach Johnson (an ear-lier impeachment attempt in 1867 failed when the Housefound no substantial criminal actions to provide a basisfor the charges).Eleven articles of impeachment weredrafted and approved.Most of them concerned Johnson sremoval of Secretary Stanton and the authorizing of hisreplacement in violation of the Tenure of Office Act.Onearticle accused him of treating the office of the presidencywith contempt and, through his actions, bringing ridiculeand disgrace on it.Criminal But Not Impeachable?As had Justice Chase s, Johnson s defense rested mainlyon the fact that these charges did not represent impeach-able crimes.Johnson claimed that the Tenure of OfficeAct was unconstitutional, and he intended to argue that 70 THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESSbefore the Supreme Court (in fact, it was partially repealedin 1887 and declared unconstitutional in 1926).Until theSupreme Court passed judgment on its constitutionality,Johnson argued, the real crime would be his enforcementof an act of Congress that he believed to be in violationof the law.Even if the Tenure of Office Act was constitu-tional, he could not be faulted for misinterpreting the act.He would not have done so with criminal intent; it wouldhave been an honest mistake, his defense argued (ratherunconvincingly).In any case, Johnson s defense claimed, the president sremoval of Stanton did no harm to the public or the na-tion s interests.He may have violated the letter of the law,but he did nothing to endanger the United States and itspeople.Despite all of the contradictions and hedging ofbets in this rather scattershot defense, Johnson s lawyersdid raise doubts in some senators minds and slowed themomentum toward conviction.The House managers responded by arguing that, evenif Johnson s violation of the Tenure of Offi ce Act was nota criminal offense, it was still an impeachable one.Themanagers ran head-on into the age-old debate about whatconstitutes an impeachable offense, again questioningwhether an offense that would be punished in a criminalcourt was the only kind of wrongdoing that could get anofficer impeached.Their answer was that a crime was notnecessary for impeachment.Rather, any act that harmedthe public interest, the state, or the common good or was contrary to the good morals of the offi ce and was an NOTABLE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 71 offense to common decency was an impeachable of-fense.This vague and expansive range of possible offenseswas said to include abuse of power, illegitimate seizing ofpower, and seditious (undermining and challenging of au-thority) statements by an executive, all of which Johnsonwas said to have committed in removing Stanton from of-fice without congressional approval.Stepping Back From the BrinkOn May 16, 1868, the Senate took a test vote to seewhere it stood.The vote was on the eleventh article ofimpeachment, which was a sort of grab bag that en-compassed all of the charges.The votes of 36 senatorswere needed to convict.Only 35 voted guilty. Nineteenvoted not guilty, including seven Republicans.Voting onthe other acts was postponed, so the House managersand Radical Republicans in the Senate could regroup.On May 26, the Senate voted on two other articles.Thesame 35 19 split occurred.Admitting defeat, the Radical Republicans moved toadjourn, and the impeachment of President Andrew John-son came to an abrupt end [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.Johnson s Removal of Edwin StantonThings came to a head when, in 1868, Johnson removedhis secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, a holdover fromLincoln s cabinet and an important and powerful ally ofthe so-called Radical Republicans. These Republicans NOTABLE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 69favored Reconstruction policies that protected AfricanAmericans, rewarded pro-Union Southerners, and pun-ished former secessionists by keeping them out of power.The year before, fearing that Johnson would begin toempty the federal government and his cabinet of Lincoln-era Republican appointees, Congress passed the Tenureof Offi ce Act.This act, passed over Johnson s veto, statedthat any public officer appointed with the advice and con-sent of the Senate must remain in that office until a re-placement was similarly appointed and approved by theupper house.When Johnson removed Stanton without the Senate sconsent, the House claimed to have the criminal offenseit was looking for in order to impeach Johnson (an ear-lier impeachment attempt in 1867 failed when the Housefound no substantial criminal actions to provide a basisfor the charges).Eleven articles of impeachment weredrafted and approved.Most of them concerned Johnson sremoval of Secretary Stanton and the authorizing of hisreplacement in violation of the Tenure of Office Act.Onearticle accused him of treating the office of the presidencywith contempt and, through his actions, bringing ridiculeand disgrace on it.Criminal But Not Impeachable?As had Justice Chase s, Johnson s defense rested mainlyon the fact that these charges did not represent impeach-able crimes.Johnson claimed that the Tenure of OfficeAct was unconstitutional, and he intended to argue that 70 THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESSbefore the Supreme Court (in fact, it was partially repealedin 1887 and declared unconstitutional in 1926).Until theSupreme Court passed judgment on its constitutionality,Johnson argued, the real crime would be his enforcementof an act of Congress that he believed to be in violationof the law.Even if the Tenure of Office Act was constitu-tional, he could not be faulted for misinterpreting the act.He would not have done so with criminal intent; it wouldhave been an honest mistake, his defense argued (ratherunconvincingly).In any case, Johnson s defense claimed, the president sremoval of Stanton did no harm to the public or the na-tion s interests.He may have violated the letter of the law,but he did nothing to endanger the United States and itspeople.Despite all of the contradictions and hedging ofbets in this rather scattershot defense, Johnson s lawyersdid raise doubts in some senators minds and slowed themomentum toward conviction.The House managers responded by arguing that, evenif Johnson s violation of the Tenure of Offi ce Act was nota criminal offense, it was still an impeachable one.Themanagers ran head-on into the age-old debate about whatconstitutes an impeachable offense, again questioningwhether an offense that would be punished in a criminalcourt was the only kind of wrongdoing that could get anofficer impeached.Their answer was that a crime was notnecessary for impeachment.Rather, any act that harmedthe public interest, the state, or the common good or was contrary to the good morals of the offi ce and was an NOTABLE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 71 offense to common decency was an impeachable of-fense.This vague and expansive range of possible offenseswas said to include abuse of power, illegitimate seizing ofpower, and seditious (undermining and challenging of au-thority) statements by an executive, all of which Johnsonwas said to have committed in removing Stanton from of-fice without congressional approval.Stepping Back From the BrinkOn May 16, 1868, the Senate took a test vote to seewhere it stood.The vote was on the eleventh article ofimpeachment, which was a sort of grab bag that en-compassed all of the charges.The votes of 36 senatorswere needed to convict.Only 35 voted guilty. Nineteenvoted not guilty, including seven Republicans.Voting onthe other acts was postponed, so the House managersand Radical Republicans in the Senate could regroup.On May 26, the Senate voted on two other articles.Thesame 35 19 split occurred.Admitting defeat, the Radical Republicans moved toadjourn, and the impeachment of President Andrew John-son came to an abrupt end [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]