James L'Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Spring 2020
PAGE 53-- The ML Benedict Citation-- (239)--A Close Reading
The citation in the Impeachment report, 239, refers to author Michael Les Benedict's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (1999) A journal article by the author can be found at JSTOR in which Benedict argues the schism between Johnson and the radicals within his own party as the catalyst for impeachment;
"Unsympathetic--if not antipathetic--to black aspirations, Johnson broke with his party and began a bitter conflict with its congressional majority, the so-called 'Radical Republicans." (JSTOR)
Following in-House confusion to impeachment approach whereby cautious leaders recommended a caucus before a judiciary review, debate was delegated to under committees. The bottom line after attempts were made to adjust Reconstruction amendments to suit the various branches, exact interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" took to the chamber;
"Conservatives, fearful of the institutional effects of impeachment on the stability of the country, turned to the theory propounded by the defense in several earlier non-presidential impeachments, i.e., that government officers could only be impeached for indictable violations of criminal statute or common law." (498)
From a legal standpoint, a strict "determinist" interpretation regarded the process have criminal footing; or a loose "relativist" interpretation, impeachment was brought about solely for political gain, having no basis in law where concrete evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was unnecessary. The other catchphrase, according to Benedict, was "violations of the oath of office" which he describes as "nebulous." More loose terms for grounds include malfeasance, nonfeasance and misfeasance. (499)
Regarding the Tenure of Office Bill, the London Daily News had this to say in 1868;
"Moreover he alleges that at the cabinet meeting at which this Tenure of Office Bill, under which Mr. Stanton claimed his right to hold over, was discussed pending the President's approval or disapproval of it, Mr. Stanton was foremost in pronouncing it unconstitutional and unwarrantable." (Daily News) According to the article in the London newspaper, the President backs up his decision to fire Stanton based on a telegram sent by General Baird from New Orleans detailing the possibility of riots that was withheld from the President by Stanton.
From the Andrew Johnson Articles of Impeachment;
ARTICLE I.
"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States issue and order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States," (Johnson, pdf)
It might be noted that the opening paragraph of this report shows that the Impeachment Report states Johnson wasn't motivated by the Tenure of Office Act, which in fact Secretary of War Stanton called unconstitutional, but by Reconstruction. According to the actual Johnson impeachment pdf file, this is incorrect. On page 51 of the current impeachment report, it correctly infers the charges were indeed related to the Tenure of Office Act and the firing of the Secretary of War. It may also be noted that President Johnson was allowed to respond to the charges. In addition, the impeachment resolution against Johnson contained 11 articles.(Johnson, pdf)
Of course, in Johnson's case, the argument fell upon various appointments and regulatory acts designed to prevent not just Reconstruction to follow the idealistic path of the radicals, but to prevent as well his allies from rebellion. The feud eventually fell over control of the military. By late 1867, the House Judiciary Committee announced it had at least some desire to have Johnson relieved of command. The remainder of the Benedict synopsis of his own book walks through the various ups and downs of the power struggle between the radicals and the President. Two things come of it.
First, in no way does the Benedict citation in the Impeachment Report show support for the current effort to remove the President, and it may be true for a number of others. Second, the era following the great Civil War was so incredibly distant from the current state of affairs that comparing the two for common ground borders on ludicrous. The zealots in the House out to get the President need to go back into their committees and hearing rooms and look for more substantial and relevant references and citations that have significant bearing on the current endeavor.
Further Reading:
IMPEACHMENT REPORT--A Critical Review-- IRAN-CONTRA NOT
JOUR107.1004 James L'Angelle University of Nevada, Reno Spring 2020 A Brief Summary of a Very Long Document. The official report, the long-version of the House Resolution 755, has been released today and consists of several sections. The opening still includes "Treason," and "Bribery" along with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," even though the president is only being charged with the latter.
Sources
Report, https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf
Stanton, London Daily News, 01 Jan 1868, Page 5.
Benedict, Michael Les. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 113, no. 3, 1998, pp. 493–511. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2658078.
Andrew Johnson, Articles of Impeachment, http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/Johnson%20Impeachment.pdf
Stanton Photo, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edwin-M-Stanton
See also, the Belknap Impeachment, https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2395&context=masters_theses