Introduction
President Andrew Johnson had succeeded in the seat of American presidency in 1865, after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He also assumed the role of Commander-in –Chief of armed forces of the USA and haughtily considered himself final authority over post-war reconstruction.
War of attrition with Congress over power sharing
His approach was not relished by Senate and legislative action, and he could be said to have fought a constant abrasive war of words with Congress legislators regarding who exerted greater authority over reconstruction- whether it was the Commander –in-Chief of the armed forces, or the legislature body governing America.
Upon his assumption of office, President Johnson strived to speed up restoration of the Southern States and held a lot of wartime laws in abeyance, claiming that they were not suitable during peacetime. He also questioned the powers of Congress and often disputed the role and powers of Congress. He also removed several Republican government officers and replaced them with people who, he believed, would support him in his efforts to undermine Congress, violate legislations and assist him during his testing times.
The Congress believed that the President was abusing his Presidential powers and remonstrated that he could not alone enact reconstruction policy without the approval of Congress. (US History Encyclopedia: Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson).
The Congress felt that certain actions of the President were not reasonable and hence adopted The Tenure of Office Act. Under this law, no Government official could be removed from office, unless Senate confirmed his replacement. Another aspect was that the term of members was dependent upon the tenure of the President. Thus the term of members naturally came to end exactly a month after President of USA quit office.
Emboldened by the fact that Congress was no match to exercise of Presidential powers, Johnson sought suspension of Reconstruction Act and wanted to replace Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton with Mr. Ulysses S. Grant. He was successful in doing so, however, later on, Stanton was reinstated and Grant stepped back from this post.
Beginning of impeachment motion
It was in 1867, that the first impeachment motion was moved against President Johnson for obstruction, unconstitutional removal of Secretary of War, Stanton and also his apparent contempt of Congress and abuse of Presidential powers. However, the Chairman of the Committee felt that impeachment could only be moved in case of cognizable offence of specific nature. But, it was also felt that Stanton’s removal was not in best practices by the President. and he was reinstated as Secretary of War.
This infuriated President Johnson and he now sought the use of Tenure of Office Act to have the Secretary of War compulsorily removed from office.
“Johnson was bent upon challenging validity of Tenure of Office Act in court, but to do so he would have to replace Stanton and defy the Senate. This he did on February 21, 1868, naming as the new Secretary of War Major General Lorenzo Thomas.“ (Linder).
Impeachment proceedings
Congress legislators’ attorneys pleaded that that he had dismissed Stanton merely in order to generate a court issue that could challenge the validity of Tenure of Office Act.
However, Johnson’s lawyers pleaded that Stanton’s term had ended a month after President Lincoln’s demise and thus the Tenure of Office Act could not be enforced in this case, and President had made a mistake in invoking it, but could not be evacuated from office for this mistake. However, President Johnson’s lawyers failed to impress on how he could have determined the invalidity of the Tenure of Office Act by invoking a law which was not applicable in the case of Mr. Stanton.
Verdict of the Jury: Not guilty
During the impeachment and conviction trial it was believed that the impeachment and Conviction of President Johnson was apparent. However, during the proceedings of the Deliberations it became increasingly cogent that most Republicans would not proceed with impeachment charges on all 11 Articles of Constitution considered to have been infringed. This is because most felt that a President could not be summarily removed for violation of any act, arising more out of mistake, than design.
Moreover there were concerns that no specific, cognizable and punitive offence prohibited by law and categorically punishable by law has been attributed in this impeachment case against President Andrew Johnson. And this was what actually transpired. In the end the jury returned verdict ‘not guilty’ with prosecution falling one short of the required votes necessary for impeachment of President Johnson.
Conclusion
It could be concluded that the attempted impeachment proceedings of this President could be seen in terms of desire of Republican Congress to gain more power for themselves at the expense of Democratic rulers. They may have been of the opinion that if he is not stopped, he may assume more obstruction and non- democratic means to achieve ends which may be prejudicial to the interests of the American county and its people. (Benedict, P.181).
However, they also felt that conviction would not be in their interests of the American heritage and history since this would cast a slur on America as a whole, to the delight of her detractors. Again, the fate of the American people in the hands of a new and untested Presidential candidate was the last thing in the minds of the people.
It was precisely for these and other reasons that the impeachment motion was overruled and President Johnson declared not guilty by the majority legislators.
Works Cited
US History Encyclopedia: Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson. 2008. Web.
Linder, Douglas O. The Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson Impeachment. 2008. Web.
Benedict, Michael Les. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson. Epilogue, 2008. Web.