The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

Why in the world would I write about Andrew Johnson? Because his story provides insight into what a small cross section of the college students of 2010 are thinking. To refresh your memory: Andrew Johnson was a Democratic senator from Tennessee in 1861. He was the only Senator from a seceded state not to resign and go with his state. He represented people who were Unionist, poor white, anti-planter hierarchy. Because of his stand, Lincoln chose Johnson as his vice-president on the Union Party ticket in 1864. Upon his accession to the Presidency, Johnson tried to continue Lincoln's policy of letting the South up easy. Congress, led by Radical Republicans such as Sumner and Stevens did not agree. Johnson vetoed numerous bills dealing with Reconstruction and also fired Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, a holdover from Lincoln's administration and an ally of the Radicals. Charges were brought against Johnson for obstruction of justice (the vetoes) and violating the Tenure of Office Act (firing Stanton). The House impeached him but he escaped conviction by one vote in the Senate. Was his impeachment justified?
The historical interpretation for years has been no. These crimes did not constitute impeachable offenses. Perhaps a legal battle over the Tenure of Office Act, but not impeachment. Would the President be serving at the whim of Congress? Would we now have a more parliamentary system?
Yet this is not how college students view this event today. Here is one student's response (warts and all):

Johnson's actions were the complete opposite of the what would be good for society. The point of the war was to establish equality, and eliminate slavery, not keep people in a state of captivity and as second class citizens. Johnson wanted to keep the status quo, not change it. I believe that Congress' actions were completely justified because they were very lenient and patient with him as far as allowing him to challenge all of their new reconstruction laws, but when someone tries to put themselves above the law to suit their own self interest; there should always be consequences to those action. In Johnsons' case it is being impeached



Ignore (if possible) the grammar and spelling. This was a response given in a test. How were Johnson's actions the complete opposite of what would be good for society? Was the point of the war to establish equality and if so, what type of equality? Political, economic, or social? Was the elimination of slavery one of the goals of the war? Status quo is not defined. Is it the status quo in the South? Did Johnson want the planter aristocracy to remain in control? How was Congress lenient and patient with Johnson? Did that matter? Notice there is no mention of the Constitution or of Due Process. Also lacking is any sort of idea as to what the ramifications would have been if Johnson had been convicted. The President must respond to the will of the people, vox populi, vox deo. We don't want leaders, we want opinion poll watchers.