| Title | : | Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1416547495 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781416547495 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 464 |
| Publication | : | First published April 24, 2009 |
Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy Reviews
-
“Americans, perhaps all people, expect historical crises to be met by heroes – Washingtons, Franklins, Lincolns, and Roosevelts. A nation learns a great deal more about itself and its system of government when a crisis has to be met by people of lesser talents. In the impeachment crisis of 1868, none of the country’s leaders was great, a few were good, all were angry, and far too many were despicable…”
- David O. Stewart, Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy
Abraham Lincoln is widely considered the greatest of all American presidents. Certainly, of all the men who have held that high office, none faced a larger existential crisis (and it’s not even close). Interestingly – and perhaps, not coincidentally – the towering figure of Lincoln is sandwiched by two men who, at best, were terrible presidents, and at worst, the two most terrible presidents in history.
James Buchanan, who immediately preceded Lincoln, did not necessarily fiddle during the secession crisis, but he certainly sat on his hands as rebellious states commandeered federal property. He is justly judged for his inability – or rather, indifference – to the crisis unfolding in the last days of his administration.
I am not going to defend James Buchanan. Yet, on a certain, very human level, I get it. If I was faced with that kind of onrushing catastrophe, it’d be really hard not to close the window shades, blow out the candles, and wait for it to become the other guy’s problem.
Andrew Johnson, on the other hand, gets no such sympathy from me. Nor, as David O. Stewart ably shows in Impeached, does he really deserve any.
It’s not simply that Johnson was a bad president, it’s that he was a bad human being. Among his sins, he was an avowed white supremacist and racist, blithely willing to trade back all the Union’s gains – won at the price of 600,000 men killed and wounded, and billions of dollars spent – for nothing. He did not merely turn a blind eye to the crimes, including murder, committed against blacks and Unionists in the South. He actually facilitated it, by removing troops sent to guard these people; by replacing officers meant to lead these men; and by vetoing just about every bill out of Congress that might have moved the needle on equality.
(Compare, if you will, Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves, yet seemed to truly want slavery to end, with Johnson, who witnessed the end of slavery, and was willing to see it reinstituted).
Johnson was a compromise vice-presidential choice who became an accidental president, a Southern Democrat facing off against an overwhelmingly Republican Congress. After a brief (almost schizophrenic) honeymoon period, during which Johnson actually sought brutal vengeance on certain Confederates, he backslid into a political posture not all that dissimilar from Jefferson Davis.
As Stewart demonstrates in Impeached, this put him onto a collision course with Congress, and with a man named Thaddeus Stevens. Mostly forgotten today (though partly resurrected by Tommy Lee Jones in Spielberg’s Lincoln), Stevens was a man that Stewart suggests should be reclaimed as s great American. He was a true believer in racial equality, and unlike Charles Sumner, a brilliant abolitionist in theory, though not in practice, Stevens actually practiced his beliefs (apparently to the extent that his black housekeeper was also his mistress).
Ultimately, Johnson was impeached by the House and acquitted – by one vote – in the Senate. Most people know this. The actual ins-and-outs, though, may be something of a mystery. To be sure, despite reading a significant number of Civil War books, my knowledge of Reconstruction is rather sketchy. This is a function of my tendency to skip from Appomattox to the postwar surge into the West, and the Indian Wars that were kindled thereby.
Thankfully, Stewart has crafted a book that is accessible to newcomers, without dumbing down the topic. Though this is not rocket science, it is, in its own way, rather complex. There are a lot of characters, many of whom earned only footnote status in U.S. history. Moreover, there is scheming galore. As in, lots and lots and lots of conniving. You might even say that devious back-hallway designs are the soul of this particular plot.
Stewart walks you through this with a lawyer’s systematic punctiliousness (Stewart is a constitutional lawyer who one defended a lawyer in a Senate impeachment proceeding), but with none of a stereotypical-attorney’s leaden prose. His narrative is fast-paced and engaging, and he does an excellent job (up to and including some charts) of piecing together the various bribery attempts made by Johnson acolytes. (Stewart is convinced that Johnson’s men bribed certain key Republican Senators; like a good lawyer, though, he refuses to issue that verdict without reservations).
It should be noted, given the current doings and happenings of our world, that Impeached was published in 2009, meaning that it has absolutely nothing to say – blessedly, I might add – about current events. Indeed, Stewart sticks pretty much to the 1865-1869 timeline, avoiding comparisons to Nixon and Clinton. The most he is willing to say is that the Johnson impeachment might stand for the precedent that a president has to commit an actual crime, rather than merely a political transgression, in order to get booted from office. (Which is probably a doomed prophecy).
While Stewart does not meditate much on the question, it is interesting to think about the uses of impeachment. For me, it comes down to stability versus accountability. The difficulty of impeachment makes a president less accountable; at the same time, it creates a certain political stability, avoiding the no-confidence votes and snap elections that lead to governmental downfalls in other nations.
I do wish that Stewart had spent a little more time with his subtitle – “The Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy.” The reason, obviously enough, is that Lincoln’s death is a fraught counterfactual. How would Lincoln – who was preaching “reconciliation” with the South – have dealt with Thaddeus Stevens and a Republican Congress who (naturally, in my opinion) wanted to impose their will (wars, like elections, having consequences). By his death, Lincoln became part of “the Ages,” no longer – to most – a controversial, plurality-elected president, but a martyr for the cause of democracy and freedom. What would we think of Lincoln today, if he had to make the decisions that Johnson made? We can rest assured, I think, that Lincoln would not have envisioned the same white-dominated Southern power structures that Johnson supported. At the same time, Lincoln would have been put in the impossible situation of trying to balance the freedom of one group of persons, with the desires of another group of persons, who saw the subjugation of that first group as a pillar of their society.
It would have taken all of Abraham Lincoln’s exceptional genius to make it work. Unsurprisingly, and unfortunately for the nation he swore to defend, Andrew Johnson lacked exceptional genius, or any genius whatsoever, or even the common sense God gave to his lowliest mule. -
”If he was impeached for general cussedness, there would be no difficulty in the case.”
Senator William Pitt Fressenden, March 1868
Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson was never supposed to be president. When Abraham Lincoln chose Johnson as his Vice President for his second term he was trying to heal a nation. He wanted a Southerner and what made Johnson uniquely qualified to grab the attention of President Lincoln was that he was the only Senator from a Southerner state to remain loyal to Union. Johnson was too insecure to be a compromiser, something the nation healing from a devastating Civil War needed desperately, and his acerbic, domineering personality created legions of enemies. These men that he insulted and annoyed with his flamboyant, undisciplined behavior were the very men that decided he needed to be removed from office.
Impeachment seemed the only option.
”As president, Johnson inflicted many more wounds on the nation than he healed, while votes for his acquittal were purchased with political deals, patronage promises, and even cash. Andrew Johnson was an unfortunate president, an angry and obstinate hater at a time when the nation needed a healer. Those who opposed him were equally intemperate in word and deed. It was an intemperate time. The tempests of the Civil War still triggered high emotions.”
Thaddeus Stevens
The great Republican radical warrior Thaddeus Stevens brought to bear eleven articles of impeachment detailing the broad, undefinable charge of violations of high crimes and misdemeanors. Violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the stake that was expected to be driven into the heart of that abomination in the White House. The previous year when the law was passed over Johnson’s veto it made it so the president could not fire his cabinet members without the authorization of congress. This was passed, in particular, to protect the radical Republican Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. As Stanton continued to advance a more aggressive agenda of reconstruction in the South and Johnson continued to try and soften some of the strictures that were being placed on former rebels and slave owners conflicts between the two men made it impossible for them to work together.
Actually the Tenure of Office Act was a ridiculous law, a short sighted law, made to protect one man without consideration for a time when the Republicans may not control congress. In my mind the cabinet should be people who advise the president and further his agendas and should serve at the discretion of the president. When Johnson tried to replace Stanton with first Grant who refused, then Sherman who refused, and finally Thomas who accepted he gave Stevens and his cabal of radicals the means to impeach him. Now Johnson did deserve some sanction. He had replaced able commanders in the South that had enforced the reconstruction laws as they were intended, specifically to protect the black freedmen, with commanders who were more likely to turn a blind eye to atrocities perpetrated by whites against blacks. ”In 1865-1866, more than 500 whites were indicted in Texas for murdering blacks; none were convicted. During the 1868 election campaign, an estimated 2,000 Negroes were murdered in Texas.” Though Texas set the record for violence, all across the South black freedmen experienced voter suppression putting their lives in jeopardy while trying to exercise their right to vote.
Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War
Apologists for Johnson will say that he was only implementing the policies that Lincoln had intended for reconstruction.
”This theory, however, unrealistically assumes that Lincoln was incapable of changing his course to respond to events. Lincoln was far too good a politician to alienate Congress, as Johnson did. Lincoln was far too strong a leader to accept meekly the black codes and gruesome violence of the restored Southern states, as Johnson did. And Lincoln was far too compassionate a man to ignore the suffering and oppression of the freedman and Southern Republicans, as Johnson did.”
The bullet that killed Lincoln was truly a magic bullet for it ricocheted all over the South leaving thousands of dead who would have survived under the protective wing of a president intent on justice and equality for all people.
Thaddeus Stevens was a man of acerbic wit and he loathed Johnson to such an extent that it was difficult to govern his tongue and keep the proceedings of the impeachment on a professional level. ”He demanded that Johnson be tortured on the gibbet of everlasting obloquy.” Stevens was suffering from ill health and if he had been of robust health the impeachment proceedings might have had a different outcome. He suffered under the outrages being committed against freedmen in the South and couldn’t stand the thought of waiting fifteen more months for Johnson’s term to end. The other lurking problem was the thought of Ben Wade, president pro temp of the senate and the next president of the United States if Johnson is impeached, assuming the presidency. His radical ideas about trade and other aggressive policies for change made many senators chaff under the thought of a Wade presidency.
Let the bribery begin!
Johnson needed 19 votes to avoid the two-thirds majority needed for impeachment. He had nine democrats who could be counted on and three republicans so the continuation of his presidency came down to swaying 7 republican votes to vote not guilty. Two groups are formed to help identify, bribe, and strong arm those Republicans needed to avoid impeachment. One was the Kansas Cabal seven men led by Senator Samuel Pomeroy, all veterans of several nefarious bribery schemes that had lined their pockets. They hoped by helping Johnson to further increase their patronage and wealth.
The other group was the Astor House group lead by Thurlow Weed a longtime friend of Secretary of State Seward. There are eight men in this group and they are willing to do anything to keep Johnson in office; and therefore, keep intact their influence on the highest office. One of the more unseemly members of this group was Sam Ward.
The not so honorable Senator from the great state of Kansas Edmund Ross.
”Ward paid Senator Ross (Kansas) $12,000 for his vote. The money supposedly came from John Morrissey, the prizefighter-turned-congressman who ran both Tammany Hall and New York’s biggest lottery business, and also was one of Sam Ward’s clients. In a salacious twist, it was speculated that the payoffs were handled by “Charley Morgan,” Sam Ward’s cross-dressing mistress who supposedly was having a simultaneous affair with Congressman Morrissey’s wife. Charley Morgan, has the singular advantage of being able to change himself into a handsome young woman for one purpose or another.”
Goodness bribery is one thing, but cross-dressing and unnatural relationships as well!! Oh my oh my.
Impeachment Cartoon
This book reminded me of watching the fantastic movie Lincoln and the voting on the The Thirteenth Amendment. I knew they passed it, but I was still on the edge of my seat as they counted the votes. I had the same feeling as David O. Stewart revealed the voting for impeachment. There is a humorous moment for me when Benjamin Butler, head prosecutor for impeachment attempts to bribe Cornelius Wendell, the corruption professional who had designed the president’s acquittal fund, into revealing the bribes that were paid to senators for their votes. Bribing to reveal bribery just struck me as bordering on the ridiculous.
As it came down to the final vote my fellow Kansas native Senator Edmund Ross, who did such a good job keeping his voting intentions close to his vest until the last possible moment, provided the vote that insured that Johnson would avoid impeachment. He was amply rewarded for his vote. This was an excellent followup to some reading I’ve been doing on Lincoln and extends the story revealing the aftermath and consequences of the death of Lincoln. One can not help speculating that the South would have been better cared for and recovery would have happened quicker under the steady hand of one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln. -
REREADING (June 2019)
Within recent history Presidential impeachment has touched us twice - Watergate and the resignation of President Nixon, who was under the threat of impeachment, and the accusation of President Clinton of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, i.e. he was impeached but not removed from office. These are stories we are all familiar with. But the first occupant of the Oval Office who was impeached was Andrew Johnson, the “president by accident”, who assumed office after the tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln. And even if as an historical buff you knew that, the details may be a little sketchy. David O. Stewart, author of The Summer of 1787 on the Constitutional Convention – also an excellent book – provides us with another engaging narrative concerning the trial(s) and tribulations of President Andrew Johnson.
Andrew Johnson was a self-made and self-taught man who against all odds worked his way to the highest political office in the land, even if the final step was under a very dark cloud. During the Civil War he was the military governor of Tennessee and although he was Southern, he was also a Union man. This made him popular in Washington, DC, not so much among his neighbors.
Johnson also carried an immense chip on his shoulder, redefined the term “combative” and therefore was not the best suited man to head the necessary healing process for reconciliation and Reconstruction after the Civil War. Unlike his predecessor he lacked a sense of humor and even his friends were unsure if he was capable of smiling.
He also believed the United States was a “country for white men” and as long as he was President, “by God it shall be a government for white men.” This, one of his more moderate statements on race relations, again strongly suggests that Johnson was probably not the best candidate to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War and the fair treatment of the newly freed slaves. (Lincoln’s, at least minimal acquiescence to run with Johnson on the ticket in 1864, is one of his few miscalculations.)
Combine these Johnson personality traits and racial opinions with those of a handful of radical Republican Congressman - who believed that not only would the South never rise again, but that the secessionists should be treated as traitors or worse. Then add to this volatile mix, Reconstruction, the incorporation of the southern states back into the Union, the specifics of which Johnson and the radicals disagreed on violently and you have a Constitutional crisis of volcanic proportions.
Impeached does an excellent job in chronicling the Constitutional battle that ensued after Johnson assumed office. If you thought ugly politics was a recent phenomenon, this book will dispel that assumption. The beauty of this book is not only the author’s portrayal of the issues involved but also the men – through their own words and anecdotes - pitted against each other, on either side of the “Impeach Johnson” divide.
A few examples.
Ulysses Grant, the Civil War’s victorious general, Johnson’s successor and a central character here, was renowned for his sparse use of words. A fellow military man claimed Grant was “able to be silent in three different languages”. He also had a wit - when told that Senator Charles Sumner – he who had been caned in 1856 by Preston Brooks – did not believe in the Bible, Grant responded, “No he didn’t write it.”
Thaddeus Stevens, a Pennsylvania Congressman, was a strong voice and leader of the anti-Johnson faction but unlike the President had a sense of humor. When asked by a female admirer for a lock of his hair – not an unheard of request back in the day – Stevens, bald due to a childhood disease, removed his wig and handed it to the woman, saying, “Here, take it all.”
Salmon Chase, Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary and then as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the man who would preside over Johnson’s impeachment trial was also known for his not so small ego. He was described by a friend as “born an old man”, and by Ben Wade – not a friend - “Chase thinks there is a fourth person in the Trinity.”
In this by-gone time, men and women were much more facile with words and the author uses their quotes and observations brilliantly in not only telling the story but bringing the men alive.
An excellent, informative and engaging history that is never dry, dull or boring. -
David O. Stewart has written a well researched book dealing with the attempt to remove Andrew Johnson from the presidency after the Civil War. The author goes through excruciating detail describing the conflict between Radical Republicans and Democrats following the war between the states. The author explores the great personalities involved, ie; Thaddeus Stevens, Andrew Johnson, Ben Wade, U.S. Grant etc. Currently, we are in an age of extreme political partisanship that does not compare to the Reconstruction period the author discusses. Further, the book rebuffs many of the myths associated with the impeachment process in targeting Johnson for being too lenient on the south as the United States attempted to reunite. The pervasiveness of bribery and corruption during the process is shocking and the author offers a number of important documents in an attached appendix. The book is well worth reading for those interested in the post-Civil War politics or those who are drawn to the sinister nature of men whose beliefs are so strong they will stoop to any convoluted argument to achieve their goals.
-
Stewart's book on Johnson's impeachment is very engaging. What is unique is that he suggests that there was bribery involved in buying votes to save Johnson. It would not be a novel concept in this period as we move into the Gilded Age, but Stewart doesn't have enough evidence for this claim. We may never have it.
I like the fact that Stewart highlights the idea that Johnson's presidency was assertive, much like Lincoln, and this would change as power shifted to Congress. It's underappreciated.
The impeachment of Johnson is far from settled, and Stewart's book is one of many (like
Michael Les Benedict,
Hans Trefousse, and
Paul Bergeron) that you can read. -
Expertly researched and brilliantly narrated, David O. Stewart's examination of the political drama surrounding the impeachment and Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson is one of the most important and illuminating studies of the immediate post-Civil War and Reconstruction era that I have ever read. I highly recommend it for any and all citizens with an interest in American history and politics.
-
It's impossible to read this book and not see similarities to the impeachment proceedings against Clinton and Trump. In the case of the impeachment against Johnson it was clearly politically motivated and in my opinion you could argue that the more recent impeachments were as well.
I come away from the book believing that Johnson was not a good President and that he was especially problematic for such a critical time in American history but I don't believe he should have been impeached. I don't think impeachment should be used just because one party doesn't like the politics of the President.
In this case the main charge against Johnson was over his removal of the Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. It doesn't matter to me if you believe Stanton should be removed the issue for me is whether the President should have the power to remove a secretary. I believe they do have that power.
Some of the best parts of the book for me were when Thadeus Stevens was involved. I've read enough about Stevens to know he was a more important political figure than he gets credit for and might be worth me reading a biography about him. -
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...
“Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy” is David Stewart’s 2009 biography of our seventeenth president. Stewart is a former trial lawyer and has written four books including the highly regarded “The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution.”
Stewart’s book is more a review of Johnson’s presidency and his impeachment than it is a comprehensive biography. Given its title, that fact is unsurprising. But what is somewhat unexpected (at least for me given my experience with texts focused on somewhat abstruse topics) is how interesting and coherent this book proves.
Given its focus, Stewart’s book could easily have been mundane and tedious (my apologies to fans of the Reconstruction era). Instead, it is consistently lively, clear and engaging. Rather than approaching the complex issues associated with Johnson’s presidency from a dry academic perspective, Stewart’s book resembles the work of an extremely eloquent and thoughtful investigative journalist.
Although Johnson’s impeachment is the overwhelming focus of his book, Stewart provides enough political, social, economic and cultural context to ensure a smooth, comprehensible experience for a reader of almost any background. He even paints a vivid portrait of the nation’s capital during Johnson’s presidency – right down to its appalling roads and lack of sanitary infrastructure.
Early in the book Stewart sets the stage for the more detailed discussion of impeachment to come by reviewing Reconstruction’s goals and articulating the competing objectives of “Northerners” and “Southerners.” And for political or legal neophytes, he reviews both the history and mechanics of the presidential impeachment process.
The best features of the book are its preface and its final chapter (intriguingly called “The Rorschach Blot”). Even for an impatient, uninterested reader these fifteen or so pages are a fascinating summary of Johnson’s failed presidency. Best of all is that Stewart takes the time to place Johnson’s regrettable presidency into a broader historical context.
Notwithstanding the book’s clear objective, however, I would have preferred less focus on Johnson’s impeachment and more emphasis on his extraordinary rise from poverty to the presidency. Although this would have shifted the book’s center of gravity slightly, Johnson’s fall from grace would seem appropriately more dramatic and unfortunate. (In other words, I wish Stewart had chosen to write a comprehensive birth-to-death account of Johnson’s life.)
A more fulsome exploration of Johnson’s life would also allow Stewart to provide more insight into Johnson’s family life, which was largely missing, and a more complete description of his personality.
Overall, David Stewart’s review of Andrew Johnson’s presidency and impeachment is as fascinating as it is articulate. Going far beyond simply recounting the facts of Johnson’s impeachment, Stewart’s analysis is excellent and his commentary is skillful. Unfortunately, readers with little knowledge of Johnson will not fully appreciate the incredible story behind his rise to political power, but his fall from grace could hardly be better described or more riveting.
Overall rating: 4¼ stars -
I read this book about two (maybe three) years ago, but the recent hoopla surrounding President Trump compells me to write a quick review.
I read this book not because of President Trump, but rather because of a curiosity in the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
This book is one of those books that stuck with me.
It highlighted the corruption of the era. Andrew Johnson was a lousy president who was added to the Lincoln presidential ticket without much thought. After Lincoln's death, the Radical Republicans (a title they embraced) wanted to get rid of Johnson. Johnson was a Southern Democrat who had owned slaves. Johnson was much more forgiving of the Confederacy than the Northern Republicans wanted---they wanted vengeance.
It did not take long for the Radical Republicans to start the impeachment processes. Yes, I said processes. They tried to impeach him 3 times and failed. They failed despite having a super majority in both the House and Senate. They failed because they could not convict him for violating a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
So, the Senate passed a bill they knew that Johnson would violate---a bill that said the President could not fire anybody whom the Senate had to confirm. The bill was designed to protect Secretary of War Edwin Stanton from being fired. Stanton, a firm Radical Republican, and Johnson could not get along. Johnson believing the “Tenure of Office chose to challenge it.
This is all background. The story takes off from here. Stanton literally barricades himself in the Sec of War office to deny Johnson’s replacement physical occupancy. A long and intriguing case evolves with many allegations of malfeasance on both sides of the aisle. Despite Johnson’s desire to win the case on the merits, bribes are made (for and against impeachment).
Political fates are weighed. If Johnson is impeached, then Senator Wade becomes president. If Wade becomes president, he probably becomes the likely Republican presidential candidate in 1868---not U.S. Grant. Grant (who was being courted by both the Republicans and Democrats) likely becomes the Democratic Candidate instead---and the Democrats probably win the 1868 election! This factor played a role in the Johnson acquittal!
The fact that Johnson survived impeachment by 1 vote is often highlighted, but what is omitted is that after that deciding vote was cast, the rest of the Senate did not vote (and it is believed that others would have voted to acquit.) One thing that is forgotten is that Johnson is the only former president to later be elected as a Senator---he won his senate position by 1 vote!
The story of the Johnson impeachment, as told by Stewart, is full of twists and turns. It is a story that I am surprised has not been made into a movie! Stewart’s book is better than many of the other books on the subject that have come out over the past few years because it is about the Johnson Impeachment---not an effort to tie Trump to the Johnson impeachment. -
A well researched, well thought, easy to read book that helps one understand how we went from the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Jim Crow laws. It always seemed to me that the losers of the Civil War won as regards to keeping the blacks in slavery. I only had one argument with his reasoning. In one paragraph, he states that the changes in black rights came about when civil rights activists got the attention of the nation. In reality, the changes came about because of WW2 and the Nazis. Black soldiers came back unwilling to resume the yoke of Jim Crow laws. White soldiers came back with respect for the black soldiers they served with. And the nation was shamed by the Nazis using our inhumanity to the blacks, as well as native Americans, so the politicians finally had to do something to show we were better than the Nazis. Otherwise, a great read and I highly recommend it.
-
Most books on the reconstruction era blow by the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson in a few pages. Few that I have read have gone into depth on it other than to note he was impeached based on something called the Tenure of Office Act, note that the impeachment had a high degree of politics attached to it, and that Johnson was acquitted by one vote. There have been some good books written on the trial, most notably The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson by Michael Les Benedict which argues Johnson's impeachment was justified. Stewart tries very hard to treat both sides of that argument with equal seriousness. He mostly succeeds, though at times it seems strained. That being said said, Stewart’s opinion of Johnson is very clear as is his opinion of the later attempt to oust President Clinton.
After Abraham Lincoln’s assassination Johnson moved quickly to bring the former Confederate states back into the union fold. In doing so he enabled those in the south that had initiated secession and war to regain the power they had before it began. Elite white rule was reestablished and blacks were returned to a form of defacto slavery. This understandably angered northern leaders as it appeared those who had caused so much pain and suffering would again wield enormous power in Washington. Because the 3/5 compromise was no longer in force former slave states could no longer count their "property" in calculations of their population. However, and more perversely, former slaves, now counted as full citizens for purposes of representation, were not being allowed to vote, potentially giving former Confederate states more power than they had before the war.
In order to counter this, Radical Republicans initiated an era of congressional reconstruction that attempted to supersede what Johnson was doing. This included keeping newly elected southern Congressmen and Senators from being seated, passing laws that required all orders to army commanders go through the General in Chief (Ulysses S. Grant), that required former Confederate states to pass new constitutions that among other things guaranteed suffrage for former slaves, and included passage of the "Tenure of Office Act" which required the President get approval from Congress before appointees that required Senate conformation could be terminated. It was this last law that became the flashpoint for impeachment.
Fed up with attempts by congress to supersede what he believed was presidential prerogative, Johnson moved forward with efforts to oust Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. This initiated a months long standoff between Stanton who refused to give up his post citing the "Tenure of Office Act" as his justification, and Johnson who refused to treat Stanton as though he was still a member of the cabinet. This gave Congress, led by Thaddeus Stevens the excuse they needed to do what they had wanted to do since Johnson was elevated to the Presidency – initiate Impeachment. This was finally done and in the end Johnson was acquitted by one vote. It is this process that is the focus of Stewart’s account.
The impeachment and trial brought into stark relief the underbelly that was (and is) the American political system. It is clear that Republicans were impeaching Johnson not because he had committed a crime (except the vague "Tenure of Office Act"), but because they could not figure another way to get rid of a man they believed was squandering all that had been won in the war. Johnson’s supporters, not sure they could keep Johnson from being ousted began a campaign of outright bribery to try and corral enough Republican support in the Senate to keep Johnson in office. It worked. Even by the lax standards of the 19th century the amount of corruption was stunning. In the end neither side had anything to be proud of.
Stewart’s account of this is very readable and thorough. He is treading previously trod ground, but does so in a way that is clear and concise. Stewart comes away with a low opinion of many of the actors in the drama, though does note Thaddeus Stevens, despite his over zealous pursuit of Johnson, should have a more prominent place in our history as a staunch advocate for the rights of freedmen, and as the author of the 14th amendment to the Constitution which made possible future civil rights victories. His opinion of Johnson is just the opposite. While he does seem to believe impeachment was probably unjustified, it is clear he has a low opinion of Johnson who even for the day was a vicious racist, was unconcerned with anything but his own opinion, had a vindictive personality that required him to get even for every slight he believed he was subject too, and who is probably responsible for the failure of reconstruction.
Lastly Stewart talks some about impeachment itself, arguing that even though the whole process was sordid it nevertheless provided a necessary safety valve that prevented a return to war. It allowed the radicals who believed Johnson was purposely trying to return the United States to its prewar status quo, to elevate their complaints in a way that forced Johnson to amend somewhat the worst aspects of his behavior and insured Ulysses S. Grant would be able to follow a more aggressive program of support for freedmen when he became President. It allowed Johnson to assert that the proper power relationship between the two branches was maintained as he believed the Constitution required. Rather than resort immediately to chaos and possibly violence, impeachment slows down the process, allowing each side the forum it needs to make its case. Removal of the President is difficult with the necessity of getting 2/3 of the Senate to go along, but still puts chief executives on notice that they are subject to removal if they go to far.
Stewart also notes that even though we have now gone through three attempts at Presidential impeachment in our history, we still don’t really know what constitutes justification for removal from office. Johnson’s impeachment was clearly and wholly political, Nixon’s probably would have been justified but never got to the point where a vote was taken, and Clinton’s, according to Stewart, was merely a “moralistic tantrum” by his political opponents in Congress.
Overall I enjoyed this quite a bit. Not an academic work as most of his sources are secondary, but an excellent distillation of not only the impeachment and trial, but also the political climate the induced it. Highly Recommended!! -
David Stewart details the trial of Andrew Johnson in Impeached. A story of bribery, corruption and an angry, volatile US president. Trump resembles the hapless Johnson much more than the other Andrew. Important lessons for today's travail.
-
David O. Stewart gives a lucid, very readable account of the impeachment of Lincoln's successor in the White House. He leaves no stone unturned in his research in an attempt to ferret out the personalities and scandals involved in the impeachment process. Stewart rejects the assumptions of the previous century that Johnson was a heroic president trying to carry out Lincoln's legacy against a tyrannical Congress set on becoming the supreme power in the government. accounts, Stewart reminds readers of Lincoln's ability to change course or his views on an issue when it became necessary. Johnson showed himself incapable of compromise and so setting himself at loggerheads with the Congress. As the national legislature passed legislation, Johnson vetoed it destroying any goodwill he may have had with radical and even moderate Republicans and setting the stage for the events to come.
Johnson's attempt to fire Sec. of War Stanton was met by the Tenure of Office Act which required the president receive congressional approval before firing any cabinet member. After two previous attempts at impeachment which seemed to indicate the Congress was unwilling to bring charges against a president without some evidence of a crime, set the stage. Johnson fired Stanton and to add insult to injury, nominated a man to replace him who seems universally to have been viewed as a bit of a clown. The great amount of detail with regard to the corruption during the episode shows the exhaustive research conducted by Stewart. In the end, the Senate failed to convict Johnson by one vote.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in impeachment as it provides a highly interesting and relevant examination of the reasons for impeachment both on a constitutional and on a practical level. The Framers left the requirements for impeachment rather vague. A president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". What this means has perplexed those dealing with it to this day. While the Senate, when it has been faced with the decision of whether or not to convict, has seemingly decided on each occasion that there should be a crime, but has gone it in a most political way. That said, as Stewart pointed out, the process was designed to be political. Impeachment takes place in the "Peoples House" and the trial conducted in the Senate. A conviction is not criminal. Therefore, it is not possible to separate the two and one can only assume that the Framers were aware of this. In Federalist 65, Hamilton, recognizing the political nature of impeachment argued that if the issues raised were found to be criminal in nature, they could be brought before a court of law following conviction by the Senate. At the time of Johnson's impeachment, corruption was the order of the day so it should come as no surprise that the process was dominated by corruption to a degree that it is sometimes difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
Stewart presents a balanced account of the two sides in the crisis laying to rest the Lost Cause myth that Johnson was carrying out the will of Lincoln. As Stewart correctly points out, Lincoln was a man who could change directions when he realized that change was necessary. It suited Johnson to present himself in this way since he was, at heart, a white supremacist willing to overlook the grotesque abuses of the freedmen taking place in the South. His main opponent was the radical Thaddeus Stevens, a strong, and sometimes ruthless leader who held strong convictions and was willing to do what he could to see that the man who threatened to outcome of the Civil War was removed from office. Unfortunately, by the time of impeachment, Stevens was a very sick man whose days were greatly numbered thereby rendering him unable to lead the impeachment. It is entirely possible that the result would have been different if the Congressman had been healthy.
I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in American history. It gives the most complete examination of a part of our history that is all too often glossed over. -
This is an excellent book. I have had it for several years but was just recently prompted to read it due to the despicable state of the current presidency. Having been educated mostly in the south, I grew up with the view that Andrew Johnson was a hero who wanted to carry on President Lincoln's legacy and re-unite the country as quickly and humanely as possible after the Civil War but that he was thwarted every step of the way by Thaddeus Stevens and a group of Radical Republicans. This book presents the view that Johnson may well have deserved the treatment he got as he bent too far in favor of the losing side and did not give nearly enough attention to the former slaves. The picture the book paints of Reconstruction is clearly bleak and may explain many of the problems that exist with race relations to this day. Even though Trump was not even on the horizon when this book was written, the author's description of Johnson often brings Trump to mind. For example, the author notes, in describing one of Johnson's speeches, that: "Rather than acting the statesman who wished to unify the nation, he behaved like a political brawler with a grandiose self-image. Many deplored the speech, particularly what a moderate Republican recalled as its low tone, its vulgar abuse."
The book is thoroughly researched and well-notated. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about Andrew Johnson or the Impeachment process.
The book ends on an optimistic note, as the author observes: "A nation learns a great deal more about itself and its system of government when a crisis has to be met by people of lesser talents. In the impeachment crisis of 1868, none of the country's leaders was great, a few were good, all were angry, and far too many were despicable. Still, we survived."
David O. Stewart, a former, full-time practicing attorney also wrote "The Summer of 1787," about the men who wrote the Constitution. I recommend it highly, as well! -
It is difficult to remember how atrocious Andrew Johnson was as a President.
At first, some Radical Republicans were hopeful that Johnson would drop the conciliatory posture of Lincoln towards the reconstructed South. After all, Johnson had recently said that "treason must be made infamous, and traitors must be punished." Yet, within weeks, Johnson welcomed back the most unrepentant rebels with open arms, while ignoring the pleas of massacred blacks and repressed Republicans. He used Secretary of War Edwin Stanton's earlier plan for North Carolina reconstruction, appointed his own governor over the State, and had the governor call a constitutional convention, which could decide on the voting rolls in the state. Of course, blacks were excluded. Over the few months, before Congress came back into session, Johnson welcomed back almost all of the Southern states with such new plans. Every single one wrote explicitly racial constitutions that all but reimposed slavery. He pardoned almost every Southern white who made less than $20,000, and then only had the rich ones come to him to plead for his tender mercies. Later, he vetoed the Freedman's Bureau bill and the Civil Rights bills, refused to investigate the mass murders of blacks in the South, demanded the General Grant end martial law while these massacres continued, and continued to harangue the country that whites were the only ones with any rights. The book makes a strong case that Andrew Johnson was indeed our worst President ever, and, no matter the climate, it's difficult to imagine a worse one, or one with more ill-consequence for the future. A strong hand at this time could have ameliorated almost 100 years of darkness for blacks in the South. Yet Johnson only fought for the former slaveholders.
Almost from the beginning, Republicans were desperate to impeach Johnson. Unfortunately, one of Johnson's few virtues was that he remained uncorrupt. The House of Representative's first attempt to search illicit contracts did not make it out of committee, the second attempt to impeach him on mere ideological differences was voted down overwhelmingly. Only after Johnson removed Edward Stanton, against the Tenure of Office Act (and, importantly, after he had already tried to do it under the act and Congress had refused) did Representative Thaddeus Stevens find a club. The trial in the Senate lasted over a month. The author of this book makes a strong case that the one-vote margin that assured Johnson's acquittal, most especially the vote of Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas, was the result of explicit vote buying conducted by a $150,000 legal defense fund controlled by Johnson's Postmaster General, Alexander Randall, as well as patronage promises. Senate President Pro Ten Ben Wade, who stood to take over the Presidency if Johnson was impeached, and his partisans also engaged in some skullduggery, but not to the same extent. The Senators who saved Johnson were not bipartisan heroes, as John F. Kennedy claimed in "Profiles in Courage," but corrupt Republicans who sold out their consciences.
If Stewart does not entirely convince that Johnson's impeachment was warranted, he does at least make a strong argument for it. The 11 impeachment charges against Johnson were flimsy, but the final one, which Thaddeus Stevens wrote and which claimed that Johnson upset the political balance of the nation and made unwanted peace with the rebels, was closest to the mark. This was an explicitly political charge, with only the thinnest veneer of legal justification. Yet impeachment was a purely political process, and if any President ever deserved such a political revolution, it was Andrew Johnson. -
I waited about 10 days after finishing Lincoln to start this book because I was on my National Parks road trip and didn’t want to miss mountain views because of a comprehensive study of Johnson’s Impeachment. This book was ok, there were some parts I liked, some I didn’t. This wasn’t a crib to grave biography of AJ and I knew that, but I didn’t know how much it would really dive into his Impeachment (I know that is the title but the book monitored every single day of the process). Although not my favorite, I did enjoy the study and history of impeachment, but wish there was full (well written) biography on Johnson out there. For readability, honestly it varied throughout the book from being a chore to read it to really enjoying the content, it was up and down, so I’ll give it a 6.5/10. For depth, obviously this book did not take a deep dive into Johnson’s life but into the quest from the radical republicans to oust him from office, in terms of that study, this book was as in depth as possible, but since this challenge is supposed to be solely biographies, I can’t give this book any major numbers, 4/10. As far as engagement, again there were some parts I liked and some I didn’t, I think that it was hard sometimes for me to focus on the plethora of names that were listed in the pages but also loved the suspense of the fight for impeachment, it had me locked in for portions of the book, 6.5/10. At the end of the day, this book’s job was to cover the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and it did that to perfection. Although it may have been boring at times, this is truly historical event and I enjoyed learning about it. Overall Rating 6.5/10
Andrew Johnson was a pretty horrible president during reconstruction and was never truly elected into office. He established pro-slavery governments in confederate states, he supported black codes, and he was hostile towards all of the republican congress aiming to merge the union back together. For his accomplishments, I really am not sure if I can name one other than being VP to the best president of all time for like a month, and being able to not get impeached. He did come from being dirt poor to holding the highest office in the land, so there is some respect there, but overall he was a self-centered ambitious loser who slowed down reconstruction for 4 years. Although, he did support the union and wanted slavery abolished, and he was elected back into the senate like 8 years after his presidency which I thought was funny, so 1.5/10. For the “great” scale, he wasn’t great, and he didn’t care about African American rights. He almost got impeached (winning by one vote), and because of him reconstruction was a train-wreck, and his presidency never should have happened, so 1.5/10. I am done with racist presidents for a while and glad I am finished giving my time to an accidental kinda pro-slavery president, but he is probably better than Buchanan and Pierce, anyway, let’s read about the General of the Army of the United States, USG. -
After President Lincoln’s assassination, It fell to Vice President Andrew Johnson to carry on the emancipation legacy, and to oversee the whole Reconstruction efforts, a tremendous effort that fell upon a very unsuitable person. As one of few southern Democrats who voted against secession, Johnson served as governor-general of Tennessee and picked by Lincoln as part of ‘unity’ ticket. However, Johnson was a believer in concept of ‘state rights’, that is, letting former rebels basically scot-free, free from federal intrusion to reform the white supremacist governments and denying the freedmen their rights. This course of action, put him on a collision course with Republican-dominated Congress. Johnson was not helped by his unfortunate habits of making more enemies than friends, which put him in worse spot more than often.
After failing twice to impeach President Johnson, Republicans finally found a breakthrough in his botched attempt to sack his hated Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. Leading the charge was Senator Thaddeus Stevens from Pennsylvania, a radical Republican, who wished to see the acceleration of Reconstruction processes. In the beginning of the trial, President’s fate seemed to be sealed. However, the prosecution team’s failure to construct a more plausible ground for impeachment, coupled with maneuvers of president’s men, and his own patronage networks, served him well by acquitting him by a single vote.
Reading this book undoubtedly makes me relate to the current impeachment efforts by the Democrats against President Trump, a thoroughly partisan effort to turn a political case into judicial case, with ludicrous charges. Something that had been proven to fail by Johnson’s example, even with heavy majority in both houses of Congress. -
For the most part, I found the story fascinating. However, as the book progressed I got bogged down in the details (at least to the extent that they are knowable) as the author tried to cover all the shady schemes, bribes and general shenanigans surrounding the senate's vote on the impeachment charges brought against Andrew Johnson. For at least that part of the book, it was difficult for me to keep track and my interest flagged a bit, hence the three stars.
-
A solid, entertaining work of history that has lately taken on a new timeliness. Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached in 1868. For a long time historians portrayed him as a noble figure who attempted to carry on Abraham Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction in the face of intransigence from Radical Republicans in Congress. If you had this view of that era, Stewart's book works as a useful corrective. He shows the Radicals as incensed with a racist president who wanted to readmit Southern states to the Union without protections for the newly freed slaves. Thaddeus Stevens also gets his just due as a champion of the freedmen who almost literally sacrificed his life for his beliefs. This is the kind of popular history that non-historians can enjoy.
-
I don't think it was the author's writing, but the nature of learning about an impeachment trial invariably entails a bunch of hateful rhetoric...there was certainly not a deficit of it in this one!! Johnson was a bad dude; racist & rigid. Not a fan. If you like the nitty gritty of government proceedings and court cases, you're in luck b/c this book talks about it!
Love to have you follow me along as I read a bio of every US President @
www.ilovethepresidents.com -
Though not a proper biography of President #17, it was very interesting to read this during the impeachment trial of Trump.
Stewart portrays Johnson as a dangerous president who prolonged the suffering of former slaves and made decisions that could have led to the resurgence of the South. There were plenty of reasons to remove him from office. However, Thaddeus Stevens and the radical Republicans struggled to impeach him until they created the Tenure of Office Act, a questionable law which Johnson clearly broke. This led to his impeachment by the House and eventual acquittal by the Senate.
Johnson escaped removal from office by one vote — Edmund Ross. Far from being a great act of courage (per JFK in Profiles of Courage), there is evidence that Ross was bribed.
This book is a fascinating recounting of the legal twists and turns of Johnson’s impeachment trials. Though the outcome is common knowledge, I was still captivated till the last page. Really well done. -
This is a wonderful history of a nasty affair. Although I was familiar with the broad outlines of the Andrew Johnson appeal, from High School American History and from William Rehnquist's
Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments Of Justice Samuel Chase And President Andrew Johnson, I did not really understand the background of the proceedings until I read Stewart's book.
Nobody really comes off very well in this story. Johnson himself is portrayed as an impetuous, self-absorbed, politically tone-deaf partisan who, while continuing Lincoln's policies of reconciliation towards the Southern States after the Civil War, completely abandoned his predecessor's commitment to racial equality--or even basic fairness for freed slaves. He angered Republicans--often unnecessarily--by resisting Congress's efforts to reconstruct the South in a way that protected former slaves from harsh retribution. At the core of Stewart's narrative, then, is a President who was on the wrong side of history.
Johnson began his presidency with enough good will with Congress that, with a little bit of political astuteness, could have carried him easily through Lincoln's term. But he had no ability to pick his battles, and, by 1866, was virtually powerless. The veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate could do whatever they wanted and he couldn't stop them. And they kept trying to impeach him for being a jerk. Thaddeus Stevens tried twice before 1868 to whip the House into an impeachment frenzy, not over any supposed crimes that Johnson committed, but just because he was incompetent and mean spirited.
Both times, the House refused to impeach Johnson for general unfitness for office. Minimally, they required some assertion that the President broke a law. And when Johnson tried to fire his War Secretary, Edward Stanton, they found what they were looking for: something that was against the law. Sort of. "The Tenure in Office Act," which made it illegal for the President to fire (without Senate approval) an official who had received Senate approval was little more than an impeachment trap that Stevens' designed and forced through Congress in the hopes that Johnson would fall into it and justify the impeachment proceedings. He even used the Constitutional language of impeachment in the bill itself, defining the removal of a confirmed appointee as "a high misdemeanor." The act would almost certainly have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at the time, but Johnson did not pursue a Constitutional challenge.
When he fired Stanton, the House voted to impeach him and, only after presenting this vote to the Senate, determined exactly what to impeach him for. The eleven articles of impeachment were generally just restatements of the same thing--that he violated the Tenure of Office Act. But they were really impeaching him for being a Democrat, being a Southerner, and being a confirmed pro-Southern racist. Johnson, on the other hand, was willing to do whatever it took to stay in power.
The real story here--which I did not really understand until I read the book--is the politics of patronage in the 19th century. The president controlled thousands and thousands of jobs all over the country--postal appointments, Bureau of Indian Affairs jobs, customs jobs, etc. Not only were these jobs desirable in and of themselves; they also brought with them tremendous opportunities for graft and corruption. Furthermore, the politicians who dispensed patronage at the local level had enormous political control in their states.
What this meant in practice is that a lot of very powerful, very corrupt people throughout the country had a financial interest in keeping Johnson in power. A new president would dispense new patronage, and the president-in-waiting--Senate President Pro Tempore Ben Wade--would likely cashier the lot of them. So these powerful, corrupt individuals, who wanted Johnson acquitted for their own financial benefit, had a lot of motivation to act. And act they did, parting with fairly substantial wads of cash.
Stewart presents fairly compelling evidence that a non-trivial quantity of that cash found its way into the pockets of several undecided senators, most notably, Kansas Senator Edmund Ross, who remained undecided to the end and cast the deciding vote against impeachment impeachment. Ross is sometimes presented as a hero of conscience who defied his own party out of pure conviction. If Stewart is correct, that is complete piffle. The vote was bought and paid for by money diverted from crooked Indian agents and tax collectors.
Stewart is a gifted writer and a natural storyteller. Impeached is a very good book. -
Great book that corrects some of the myths surrounding the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, namely rebuking JFK’s whitewashing of history. Listened to this as an audiobook which was fantastic. Now I want to read more about Thaddeus Stevens. What a fascinating character!
-
First off, I only gave this book four stars instead of five for two reasons: 1) The author made derogatory comments about Grant's presidency (which doesn't even occur until after Johnson's presidency). The fact that Johnson and Grant couldn't tolerate each other says more about Johnson's inadequacies than Grant's. And 2) because I not only didn't like Johnson, but I didn't like most of the Senators and Representatives as well.
It's weird to read about a President and Vice President who were from opposing parties (Lincoln/Johnson). Johnson was picked as a running mate in the hopes that he would bring in more votes from Southern sympathizers. Of course when Lincoln was assassinated and Johnson became president, his leniency towards the South after the Bloody Civil War undermined everything that the Union arm had fought for.
I would like to read another book on Johnson to see if I could find some redeeming quality in his character that this book neglected to show me. Perhaps I'm looking for something that didn't exist.
The ill-fated impeachment trial was horrifying to read about on so many levels. Senator's votes were purchased to ensure the impeachment didn't occur, future job offers were offered as bait on both sides. Because the impeachment trial itself did not involve charges that the majority felt President Johnson SHOULD have been impeached for, the committee felt forced to bring insignificant charges that could be argued legally but that had little bearing on why Johnson should have been impeached.
It was very aggravating to read--it brought back a lot of memories about the Clinton impeachment trial. When Congress is unable (or unwilling) to compromise with the incumbent President, nothing good can come from it. Government is virtually shut-down, any kind of resolution that makes it through the legal process does so at an excruciatingly slow pace. Sound familiar?
Reading so much history lately only makes me realize that the same old problems keep coming around and repeating themselves. War, market crashes, depressions, impeachments and assassinations. It's encouraging to know we've been there before and we'll get through it again, but it's also depressing to realize our mistakes are nothing new--we just don't seem to learn.
By the end of this book, I not only despised Andrew Johnson, but I also despised the way Congress handled the entire affair. -
Andrew Johnson was one of those presidents that history has largely ignored. And even when he has been remembered, as in John F. Kennedy's own Profiles in Courage, he's remembered incorrectly. Historians no doubt argue over what are essentially opinions all the time, leaving laypersons like us with more questions than answers about how to feel about a certain person or time in our nation's past.
Stewart, perhaps in part because he isn't a historian, largely avoids that problem. Instead, he carefully, while succinctly, maps out the most important elements of Johnson's life and career, at least as far as understanding his role in our history is concerned: namely, his version of Reconstruction and his subsequent impeachment trial. (Anyone looking for more on his time as Governor, or more on his humble beginnings - both worthwhile, but not entirely relevant to US history entire - will have to search elsewhere.)
The result is a very well-written, concise look at one of the most provocative events of the 19th century, and one that would resonate through to the present in a number of meaningful ways (not least of which being the 14th amendment). The brief nature of the chapters and the sharp-but-fair language Stewart uses to analyze the cast of characters surrounding the trial makes this book feel less like a work of non-fiction and more like a decent season of House of Cards. The only real negative I can see worth mentioning is the pacing of the book, which seems to lag a bit towards the beginning and then shoots forward when Stewart talks about the conspirators during the trial. Otherwise, the book is a wonderful addition to any study of the Reconstruction era. -
How I wish Andrew Johnson would have kept a diary the way that John Adams did. Though he may not have been a very good president, I bet he would have been a great subject to read about. From the first chapter of this book I knew that this guy was going to be quite a character, after all it is alledged that he showed up drunk to his own inauguration as Vice President. He was so completely the opposite of Abraham Lincoln, I find it funny that the actually ran on the same ticket.
I find it amazing in this day and age that a guy that never had a day of school in his life can rise up to be the Vice President (and eventually President) of the United States.
The Johnson impeachment pretty much covered the gauntlet of all the politicians are known for: greed; bribery; decite; backstabbing and grandstanding. The impeachment trial went on and on only to have Johnson escape conviction by a single vote (which was probably bought at a high price, as there was a lot of money and political promises changing hands).
Instead of continuing Lincoln's legacy, Johnson almost lead the country into antoher Civil War. It was interesting to see how Johnson opponents would try turn any Johnson decision into a "high crime or misdemeanor" and justify it as an impeachable offense.
I was surprised at the actual length of the impeachment trial. It went on almost as long as Johnson's presidency itself. Of course reading about a long impeachment trial can be a bit trying on the reader as well and there were times that I could feel my eyes closing, but in all the book kept me interested and I certainly learned more than I ever knew about Andrew Johnson.
