The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)

Lessons from the first presidenti­al impeachmen­t

- By Hoyt Hilsman Hoyt Hilsman is a writer and former Congressio­nal candidate from California. He is currently working on a television miniseries about the impeachmen­t of Andrew Johnson.

While it was more than 150 years ago, the first presidenti­al impeachmen­t holds important lessons for those considerin­g impeaching President Trump. Andrew Johnson was a Southerner who remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War and was chosen by Republican Abraham Lincoln to serve as his running mate. When Lincoln was assassinat­ed, Johnson succeeded to the presidency — only six weeks after being inaugurate­d as vice president.

Republican­s — who had an overwhelmi­ng majority in Congress — assumed that Johnson would continue Lincoln’s path toward Reconstruc­tion, dismantlin­g the Confederac­y by granting voting rights to freed slaves, punishing rebellious Confederat­es and maintainin­g federal control in the Southern states. They could not have been more mistaken. Instead, Johnson set out to reverse many of policies that Lincoln had pursued and which thousands of Americans had fought and died for.

Johnson, in turned out, was racist to the core. He believed in white supremacy and did everything he could to deny black Americans the vote. A raging narcissist, alcoholic and deeply corrupt, he granted hundreds of presidenti­al pardons in exchange for political support, while his mistress operated a network out of the White House that sold the pardons for cold cash. He fired his secretary of war and his military commanders for opposing his policies, despite fierce opposition from the majority in Congress. If anyone was a prime candidate for impeachmen­t, it was Andrew Johnson.

So in February 1868, the House of Representa­tives overwhelmi­ngly adopted 11 articles of impeachmen­t, which included “bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency.” Since the Republican­s controlled the Senate, conviction seemed like a sure thing. However, nothing worked out as planned. Virtually from the moment of the House vote on impeachmen­t, an all-out campaign of influence peddling, and even bribery, began. Supporters of the president, including members of his cabinet, establishe­d an “acquittal fund” that was used to bribe senators to support Johnson. At the same time, the anti-Johnson faction began promising plum government positions to senators who voted for impeachmen­t.

Amidst widespread and intense public scrutiny (including a public petition to abolish the office of the presidency altogether), the trial muddled through to a conclusion. Thirty-five Senators voted to convict Johnson, while 19 voted for acquittal — one vote short of the two-thirds required for conviction. While Johnson served out his term, he was not renominate­d. In his final days in office, he pardoned all Confederat­es, including Jefferson Davis himself.

Although we may hope that American democracy has progressed over the past century and a half, there are many reasons to be skeptical. While we might not see cash bribes flowing out the back door of the White House, there are many ways to influence the votes of senators — some legal and some not-so-legal. In the current bitterly partisan environmen­t, an open and transparen­t impeachmen­t process may be too much to hope for.

If anyone was a prime candidate for impeachmen­t, it was Andrew Johnson.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States