History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson,
E >>
Edumud G. Ross >> History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson,
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 | 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21
Yours truly, W. T. Sherman.
On Saturday, February 23, 1868, the day following the removal of
Mr. Stanton, Mr. Johnson sent to the Senate the name of Mr.
Thomas Ewing, senior, of Ohio, as his successor. The Senate had
adjourned for the day when the President's Secretary reached the
Capitol, between 12 and 1 o'clock, but the nomination was
formally communicated on the following Monday. Of this
nomination, Mr. Blaine has written, that "no name could have
given better assurance of good intentions and upright conduct
than that of Mr. Ewing. He was a man of lofty character, of great
eminence in his profession of the law, and with wide and varied
experience in public life. He had held high rank as a Senator in
the Augustan period of the Senate's learning and eloquence, and
he had been one of the ablest members of the distinguished
Cabinets organized by the only two Presidents elected by the Whig
Party. He had reached the ripe age of seventy-eight years, but
still in complete possession of all his splendid faculties. He
had voted for Mr. Lincoln at both elections, had been a warm
supporter of the contest for the Union, and was represented by
his own blood on many of the great battlefields of the war."
No notice was taken by the Senate of this nomination.
Here was offered an opportunity for the settlement of the dispute
over the War Office on fair and honorable terms to all parties
concerned. But that was not what the impeachers wanted. They
wanted to get Mr. Johnson out. They thought they had a pretext
that they could sustain by making it a party question, and did
not want a settlement on any other terms--so no attention was
given to Mr. Ewing's nomination. It was ignored and the
impeachment movement went on.
CHAPTER VI. IMPEACHMENT AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE.
Mr. Johnson's veto of the Tenure-of-Office Bill, and the passage
of that bill over his veto, of course intensified the antagonism
between himself and Congress. He not unnaturally regarded that
Act as an infringement of the Executive function which it was his
duty to his office and to himself to resent. The culmination came
upon his official notification to the Senate on February 21st,
1868, of his removal of Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary
of War, and his appointment of Gen. Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary
ad interim, nothwithstanding the assumed interdiction of the
Tenure-of-Office Act.
Immediately on receipt of this notification, the Senate went into
executive session, and the following proceeding was had:
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Senate of the United States
February 21st, 1868
Whereas, The Senate have read and considered the communication of
the President, stating that he had removed Edwin M. Stanton,
Secretary of War, and had designated the Adjutant General of the
Army to act as Secretary of War ad interim. interim.. Therefore,
Resolved, by the Senate of the United States, That under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, the President has no
power to remove the Secretary of War and designate any other
officer to perform the duties of that office ad interim.
The journal of the Senate shows that this Resolution was adopted
by the following vote:
Yeas--Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Cragin, Drake,
Ferry, Harlan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton,
Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sprague,
Stewart. Sumner. Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull. Van Winkle, Wade,
Willey Williams. Wilson. Yates--23.
Nays--Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Hendricks,
Patterson of Tennessee--6.
Absent or not voting--20. Note. (Note--It is due to myself to
say here, that the entry of my name in the above vote, was
incorrect. My distinct recollection is, that though present, I
declined to vote, and from the consideration mentioned. I was
totally unaware of my name being recorded as voting on the
proposition until long after I left the Senate, when of course
there was no opportunity to secure a correction of the journal.)
This was an extraordinary proceeding. A proposition to impeach
the President had till recently been pending in the House for
nearly a year, and the ingenuity of the majority had been taxed
to the utmost to find some basis for an indictment upon which a
successful impeachment might be possible. There is ground for the
suggestion that much was hoped for in that direction from the
Tenure-of-Office Bill, at least so far as the House was
concerned. That hoped for opportunity had now come--nor is it an
unreasonable surmise, that this very extraordinary action of the
Senate was forced by outside as well as inside influences for the
purpose of testing the Senate, and committing it in advance and
in anticipation of the preferment of another impeachment by the
House.
As to the question of the guilt or innocence of the President of
the commission of an impeachable offense, this vote of the Senate
was in the nature of a vote of "guilty." It was therefore to a
degree an impeachment and conviction combined by the Senate,
prior to the bringing of an accusation by the House of
Representatives, the constitutional body for the preferment of an
impeachment of the President--and was an improper, and not far
removed from an indecent proceeding on the part of the Senate. In
effect, the President was thereby condemned by the Senate without
trial, and his later arraignment was simply to receive
sentence-it being solely upon the removal of Mr. Stanton that the
impeachment was brought by the House.
It is noticeable, and possibly indicative, that the names of
twenty out of fifty-four members of the Senate do not appear in
this list--a very unusual occurrence in divisions of that body;
especially in the exciting conditions that then prevailed. The
absentees, or at least abstentions from voting, were fifteen
Republicans and five Democrats, more than one-third of the body.
That very unusual absence or abstention from voting may well be
attributed to the very proper hesitancy of Senators to commit
themselves in advance, either way, on a proposition that was
reasonably certain to lead to an impeachment of the President,
then virtually pending and imminent in the House, and upon which
the Senate was equally certain to be called upon to act.
The action of the President was also communicated to the House of
Representatives by Mr. Stanton, at the same hour of the same day,
February 21st, 1868, in the following communication, enclosing a
copy of the President's notification of his dismissal.
War Department,
Washington City, Feb. 21, 1868.
Sir:--Gen. Thomas has just delivered to me a copy of the enclosed
order, which you will please communicate to the House of
Representatives.
(Signed) E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War.
Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Speaker House of Representatives.
This gave new life to the impeachment cause, which had a few
weeks before been defeated in the House and since then had, for
lack of material, been laming, to the discouragement of many of
its advocates: and the gleeful ejaculations, on the floor of the
House, in the lobbies, and on the streets, on receipt of this
news, and more especially after the action of the Senate became
known, which was not long in reaching the public, with a common
greeting slid clasping of hands: "Well, we've got him now!"
The communication of Mr. Stanton to the House of Representatives
was immediately, after reading, referred to the Committee on
Reconstruction.
In the evening of the same day, Mr. Covode, of Pennsylvania,
offered a resolution to impeach the President, which was also
referred to the same Committee.
On the next day, Feb. 22d, 1868, Mr. Stevens, Chairman of that
Committee, made the following report:
The Committee on Reconstruction, to whom was referred, on the
27th day of January last, the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the Committee on Reconstruction be authorized to
inquire what combinations have been made or attempted to be made
to obstruct the due execution of the laws; and to that end the
committee have power to send for persons and papers and to
examine witnesses oil oath, and report to this House what action.
if any, they may deem necessary; and that said committee bade
leave to report at any time."
And to whom was also referred, on the 21st day of February,
instant, a communication from Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of
War, dated on said 21st day of February, together with a copy of
a letter from Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, to
the said Edwin M. Stanton, as follows:
Executive Mansion, Washington. D. C., Feb. 21, 1868.
Sir:-By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as
President, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you
are hereby removed from office as Secretary for the Department of
War, and your functions as such will terminate upon the receipt
of this communication.
You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas,
Adjutant General of the Army, who has this day been authorized
and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records,
books, papers, and other public property now in your custody and
charge.
Respectfully yours. Andrew Johnson.
Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Washington, D. C.
And to whom was also referred by the House of Representatives the
following resolution, namely:
"Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors."
Have considered the several subjects referred to them, and submit
the following report:
That in addition to the papers referred to the committee, the
committee find that the President, on the 21st day of February,
1868, signed and issued a commission or letter of authority to
one Lorenzo Thomas, directing and authorizing said Thomas to act
as Secretary of War ad interim, and to take possession of the
books, records, and papers, and other public property in the War
Department, of which the following is a copy:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, Feb. 21, 1868.
Sir:--Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from
office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby
authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim,
and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties
pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to
transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public
property now in his custody and charge.
Respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson.
To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the
United States Army. Washington, District of Columbia.
Official copy respectfully furnished to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton.
L. Thomas. Secretary of War ad interim.
Upon the evidence collected by the committee, which is herewith
presented, and in virtue of the powers with which they have been
invested by the House, they are of the opinion that Andrew
Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high
crimes and misdemeanors. They therefore recommend to the House
the adoption of the accompanying resolution.
Thaddeus Stevens, George S.Boutwell, John A. Bingham, C. T.
Hulburd, John F. Farnsworth, F. C. Beaman, H. E. Paine.
Resolution providing for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States.
Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be
impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors in office.
The following is a brief synopsisof the debate which ensued: Mr.
Stevens, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in
the first instance to discuss this question; and if there be no
desire on the other side to discuss it we are willing that the
question should be taken upon the knowledge which the House
already has. Indeed, the fact of removing a man from office while
the Senate was in session without the consent of the Senate, if
there were nothing else, is of itself, and always has been
considered, a high crime and misdemeanor, and was never before p
racticed. But I will not discuss this question unless gentlemen
on the other side desire to discuss it. It they do, I shall for
the present give way to them and say what I have to say in
conclusion.
Mr. Brooke, (Dem. of N. Y.) Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have an
opportunity, at least, to submit a minority report before we
entered upon this august proceeding of impeaching the chief
executive officer of this Government. Bat after a session of the
Committee on Reconstruction, hardly an hour in length, violating
an express rule of this House by sitting during the session-for
Rule 72 provides that no committee shall sit during the session
of the House without special leave-we have been summoned upon a
very partial submission of facts, without any comprehension, in
reality, of the charges which are made against the President of
they United States, upon a new indictment, in a new form once
more, and in a more alarming manner than ever, in this but a
partial Congress, representing but a section of a portion of the
people-in my judgment not representing the people of the United
States at allto act as a grand jury, with a large portion of that
grand jury excluded from the juryroom here; and suddenly,
impromptu perhaps, a vote is to be forced this very day-to
impeach the President of the United States!
I am utterly inadequate to discharge the duty which has devolved
upon me on this august day, the anniversary of the birthday of
the Father of his country. I am utterly unable upon this occasion
either to do my duty to the people or to express myself with that
deep solemnity which I feel in rising to resist this untoward,
this unholy, this unconstitutional proceeding. Indeed, I know not
why the ghost of impeachment hag appeared here in a new form. We
have attempted to lay it hitherto, and we have successfully laid
it. upon the floor of this House. But a minority of the party on
the other side, forcing its influence and its power upon a
majority of a committee of this House, has at last succeeded in
compelling its party to approach the House itself in a united,
and therefore in a more solemn form, and to demand the
impeachment of the President of the United States.
Sir, we have long been in the midst of a revolution. Long, long
has our country been agitated by the throes of that revolution.
But we are now approaching the last and the final stage of that
revolution in which, like many revolutions that have preceded it.
a legislative power not representing the people attempts to
depose the executive power, and thus to overthrow that
constitutional branch of the Government.
There is nothing new in all this. There is nothing new in what we
are doing, for men of the present but repeat the history of the
past. We are traversing over and over again the days of Cromwell
and Charles I and Charles II, and we are traversing over and over
again the scenes of the French revolution, baptized in blood in
our introductory part, but I trust in God never again to be
baptized by any revolutionary proceeding on the part of this
House.
I have not and never have been a defender of all the opinions of
General Jackson, but those on the other side who pretend to hold
him as authority and those on this side who have ever held him as
authority will find that in uttering the opinions which I have I
but reutter the opinions which he advanced in his veto of July
10, 1832, when he said:
"The Congress, the Executive, and the court must each for itself
be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public
officer who takes the oath to support the Constitution swears
that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is
understood by others."
The President of the United States has given his opinion upon the
official tenure-of-office act and upon the Constitution of the
United States by the appointment of Adjutant General Thomas as
Secretary of War ad interim. and because of the exercise of that
Constitutional right we are called upon here at once to pronounce
him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and to demand his
deposition and degradation therefor. * * * * *
Mr. Spalding, (Rep. of Ohio). Mr. Speaker, I feel myself to be
in no proper frame of mind or heart to attempt rhetorical display
on this occasion. I can appreciate the sentiments of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] when he says the question
before us is filled with solemnity; but when he attempts by
gasconade to deter members on this side of the House from the
conscientious discharge of their duty I say to my friend that he
has :.mistaken his calling." Sir, no more important duty could be
devolved upon this House of Representatives than that of
considering the question whether articles of impeachment shall be
preferred against the Chief Magistrate of the United States; and
for long months, ay, for more than a year, sir. I have resisted,
with all my efforts and all my personal influence, the approach
of that crisis which is now upon us and before us. The President
has clone many, very many, censurable acts: but I could not, on
my conscience. say that he should be holden to answer upon a
charge of "high crimes and misdemeanors" until something could be
made tangible whereby ha had brought himself in open conflict
with the Constitution and laws of the Union.
It has seemed to me, sir, for weeks, that this high officer of
our government was inviting the very ordeal which, I am sorry to
say, is now upon us, and the dread consequences of which will
speedily be upon him. He has thrown himself violently in contact
with an Act of Congress passed on the 2d day of March last by
the votes of the constitutional two-thirds of the Senate and
two-thirds of the House of Representatives over his veto
assigning his reasons for withholding his assent. Now, it matters
not how many acts can be found upon the statute books in years
gone by that would sanction the removal of a cabinet officer by
the President; the gentleman from New York numbers three. He may
reckon up thirty or three hundred and still if, within the last
six or nine months, Congress has, in a constitutional manner,
made an enactment that prohibits such removal, and the executive
wantonly disregards such enactment and attempts to remove the
officer, he incurs the penalty as clearly and as certainly as if
there never had been any legislation to the contrary. That
subsequent enactment, if it be constitutional, repeals, by its
own force, all other prior enactments with which it may conflict;
and in nothing is that enactment more significant than in this,
that the President shall not remove any civil officer, who has
been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
without the concurrence of that body, when it is itself in
session.
Mr. Bingham, (Rep.) of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, all right-minded men
must concede that the question under consideration is one of
supreme moment to till the people of the Republic. I protest for
myself, sir, that I am utterly incapable of approaching the
discussion of this question in the spirit of a partisan. I repel,
sir, the intimation of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Brooks,
that I am careless of the obligation of my oath or unconcerned
about the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws. I look upon
the Constitution of the country as the very breath of the
nation's life. I invoke this day upon the consideration of this
great question the matchless name of Washington, as did the
gentleman, and ask him, in the consideration of the matter now
before us, to ponder upon those deathless words of the Father of
our Country, wherein he declares that "the Constitution which at
any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of
the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all"--upon all sir,
from the President to the humblest citizen--standing within the
jurisdiction of the Republic. Washington but echoed the words
that himself and his associates had imbedded in the text of the
Constitution, that "this Constitution and the laws passed in
pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land." It shall
be supreme over every officer; it shall be supreme over every
State; it shall be supreme over every territory; it shall be
supreme upon every deck covered by your flag in every zone all
round the globe. Every man within its jurisdiction, official and
unofficial, must bow to the supremacy of the Constitution.
The gentleman says that the issue involved is an issue about an
office. I beg the gentleman's pardon. The issue involved is
whether the supremacy of the Constitution shall be maintained by
the people's Representatives. The President of the United States
has assumed, sir, to set himself above the Constitution and the
laws. He has assumed to defy the law, he has assumed to challenge
the people's Representatives to sit in judgment upon his
malfeasance in office. Every man who has considered it worth
while to observe my conduct touching this question that has so
long agitated this House and agitated this country may have
discovered that I have kept myself back and have endeavored to
keep others back from making any unnecessary issue between the
President and Representatives of the people touching the manner
in which he discharged the duties of his great office. I had no
desire, sir, to have resort unnecessarily to this highest power
reposed by the people in their Representatives and their Senators
for the vindication of their own violated Constitution and
violated laws. Notwithstanding there was much in the conduct of
the President to endanger the peace and repose of the country,
yet, so long as there was any doubt upon the question of his
liability to impeachment within the text and spirit of the
Constitution, I was unwilling to utter one syllable to favor such
a proposition or to record a vote to advance it. * * *
Mr. Beck, (Dem. of Ky.) The single question upon which the
decision of this House is now to be made is that the President
has attempted to test the constitutionality of a law which he
believes to be unconstitutional. All the testimony heretofore
presented upon which to base an impeachment of the President was
decided by even a majority of the Republican members of this
House to be insufficient to justify impeachment. All questions
growing out of the combinations and conspiracies lately charged
upon the President were ruled by the Reconstruction Committee to
be insufficient, and were not brought before this House. And
the sole question now before us is, is there anything in this
last act of the President removing Mr. Stanton and appointing
Adjutant General Thomas Secretary of War ad interim to justify
his impeachment by this House?
I maintain that the President of the United States is in duty
bound to test the legality of every law which he thinks
interferes with his rights and powers as the Chief Magistrate of
this nation. Whenever he has powers conferred upon him by the
Constitution of the United States, and an act of Congress
undertakes to deprive him of those powers, or any of them. he
would be false to his trust as the Chief Executive of this
nation, false to the interests of the people whom he represents,
if he did not by every means in his power seek to test the
constitutionality of that law, and to take whatever steps were
necessary and proper to have it tested by the highest tribunal in
the land, and to ascertain whether he has a right under the
Constitution to do what he claims the right to do, or whether
Congress has the right to deprive him of the powers which he
claims have been vested in him by the Constitution of the United
States, and that is all that he proposes to do in this case. * *
*
Mr. Logan, (Rep. of Ills.) Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine this
question for a moment. It seems to me very plain and easy of
solution. It is not necessary, in order to decide whether this
action of the President of the United States comes within the
purview and meaning of this statute, for us to talk about
revolutions or what this man or that man has said or decided.
What has been the act of the President is the question. The law
is plain. If the President shall appoint or shall give a letter
of authority or issue a commission to any person, without the
consent of the Senate, he is guilty of--what? The law says of a
high misdemeanor. And, under and by virtue of the Constitution,
the President can be impeached--for what? For high crimes or
misdemeanors. This law declares the issuing a commission to, or
giving a letter of authority to, or appointing to or removing
from office, any person. without the advice and consent of the
Senate of the United States, shall be a high misdemeanor, which
is within the meaning and within the pale of the Constitution of
the United States.
Now, what is the evidence presented to this body by one of its
committees? It is of this character: The Secretary of War, Edwin
M. Stanton, has been declared by a solemn vote of the Senate to
be the Secretary of War, by virtue of--what? By virtue of an
appointment to that office; by reason of the fact that Andrew
Johnson did not relieve him from office when he had the right to
present the name of somebody else--soon after his taking the
presidential chair--not the right to turn him out, but the right
to nominate some one else to the senate and ask them to confirm
him to that office. That the President failed to do. Then, acting
under the provisions of this statute, the President suspended Mr.
Stanton as Secretary of War, but the Senate passed upon that act,
and decided that the reasons given by the President for
suspending Mr. Stanton were not satisfactory; and accordingly, by
virtue of this law, Mr. Stanton was confirmed and reinstated in
his position as Secretary of War.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 | 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21