History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, by the House of Representatives, and his trial by the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors in office, 1868

In Short

This narrative chronicles the impeachment and Senate trial of Andrew Johnson, the successor to Abraham Lincoln, who found himself at odds with a radicalized Congress over the post-Civil War restoration of the Southern states. The book documents the relentless push for removal, driven by political enmity and the desire to assert Congressional supremacy over executive authority. Ultimately, the trial serves as a study in political courage, centering on the small group of senators who defied party pressure to acquit the President, thereby preserving the structural independence of the presidency and preventing a precedent that might have forever altered the American government.

The Story

The conflict between Andrew Johnson and Congress rooted itself in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. While Lincoln had begun the process of restoring the seceded states, Johnson—a Union Democrat from Tennessee—sought to continue a policy of leniency, welcoming the Southern states back into the fold without the "debasing exactions" favored by the Radical Republicans. This policy of restoration directly contradicted the view held by leaders like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, who believed that the seceded states had effectively committed suicide and should be governed as conquered provinces.

The friction intensified as Congress passed measures to strip the President of his administrative autonomy. The defining instrument of this struggle was the Tenure-of-Office Act, a law designed to prevent the President from removing Cabinet officials without Senate consent. Johnson, viewing the law as an unconstitutional encroachment on his executive authority, eventually defied it by attempting to remove Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. This act of defiance provided the catalyst for the House of Representatives to draft articles of impeachment, charging the President with high crimes and misdemeanors.

The trial before the Senate unfolded as a highly charged, partisan spectacle. The House managers, led by figures like Benjamin Butler, argued that the Senate was not bound by standard judicial rules and should treat the proceeding as a political necessity to protect the nation from a "kingly" executive. Conversely, the defense argued that Johnson was merely testing the constitutionality of a law that infringed upon his rightful powers. As the prosecution’s case progressed, it became clear that the evidence was thin and that the impeachment was less about legal wrongdoing and more about the desire of a partisan majority to seize control of the government.

As the trial neared its conclusion, the political atmosphere in Washington was suffocating. Pressure on Republican senators to vote for conviction was immense; failing to remove Johnson was seen by the party leadership as a betrayal of the Union cause. Yet, a handful of senators—including the author himself—began to realize that the impeachment was a dangerous exercise in political vengeance. They viewed the effort as an attempt to subordinate the executive branch to the legislative, potentially establishing a precedent where any president could be removed simply for holding views contrary to the majority in Congress.

When the final vote arrived, seven Republicans broke ranks with their party to vote "Not Guilty." This narrow margin spared the President from removal. The aftermath saw the impeachment movement collapse, as the public and many politicians began to recognize that the trial had been a grave error. The author concludes that the acquittal saved the country from a precedent that would have fundamentally, and perhaps irreparably, damaged the balance of powers established by the Constitution.

How It Unfolds

The origins of rupture The narrative traces the initial disagreements over Reconstruction, where Congress began to rebuke the President for initiating restoration policies without legislative consultation. This section establishes the deepening divide as Congress increasingly viewed the President as an obstacle to their vision for the defeated South.

The legislative trap The focus shifts to the passage of the Tenure-of-Office Act, which intentionally restricted the President’s ability to manage his own Cabinet. This provided the technical legal grounds for the House to launch an impeachment inquiry when Johnson attempted to dismiss the recalcitrant Edwin M. Stanton.

The trial of power The account moves to the Senate floor, detailing the intense legal maneuvering and the refusal of the prosecution to allow testimony that might have vindicated the President’s intent. It highlights the aggressive rhetoric used by the House managers, who explicitly argued that the Senate was a law unto itself.

The verdict of conscience The climax describes the pressure exerted on Republican senators, many of whom were terrified of political fallout if they did not vote to convict. It profiles the specific senators who, despite their radical backgrounds, ultimately chose to uphold the Constitution over partisan demand, leading to the President's acquittal.

The People

Andrew Johnson serves as the central, polarizing figure. A "consistent Union Democrat," he stands firm in his belief that the President must possess the agency to administer the government without being a prisoner of Congress. He is portrayed as a man who, despite his flaws, possesses the integrity to reject corrupt schemes—even those suggested by his own counsel—if they threaten the honor of his office.

Opposing him are the Radical leaders, most notably Thaddeus Stevens and Benjamin Butler. Stevens represents the uncompromising ideological drive to treat the South as a conquered territory, while Butler serves as the sharp-tongued, opportunistic manager of the prosecution. Their goal is to consolidate power, and they see the trial as an instrument to render the presidency an appendage of the legislative branch.

The author, Edmund G. Ross, represents the conscience of the Senate. A Republican representing an intensely radical constituency, he arrives at the trial with every expectation of voting for conviction. His transformation—from a partisan soldier to a deliberate, constitutional judge—serves as the emotional anchor of the book. Joining him are fellow dissenters like Lyman Trumbull and John B. Henderson, who are depicted as men of profound legal intellect who refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a tool for political vengeance.

In Its Own Voice

The author describes the fundamental shift in how the Senate viewed its role as a judicial body during the proceedings:

A Constitutional tribunal solely, you are bound by no law, either Statute or Common, which may limit your constitutional prerogative.

The author reflects on the danger of the impeachment to the future of American governance:

The momentous question, here and now, is raised whether the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE ITSELF (IF IT HAS THE PREROGATIVES AND POWER CLAIMED FOR IT) OUGHT, IN FACT, TO EXIST AS APART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT OF A FREE PEOPLE.

The author captures the stark reality of the President’s position in the face of an organized political assault:

Whoever, therefore, votes "not guilty" on these articles votes to enchain our free institutions, and to prostrate them at the feet of any man who, being President, may choose to control them.

What It's Really About

At its core, this book is an exploration of the separation of powers and the dangers of "legislative autocracy." The author argues that the impeachment was never truly about high crimes, but was a revolutionary attempt to transform the American system into one where the executive exists only by the grace of the legislature. It raises the question of whether a representative democracy can survive when political parties treat the Constitution as an engine of vengeance rather than a framework for governance. The book asserts that the preservation of institutional independence is the "rock of safety" upon which the republic rests, and that constant vigilance is required to ensure that temporary political fervor does not destroy the permanent design of the government.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in constitutional law, the history of the presidency, or the mechanics of political crisis will find this account essential. It provides a rare, firsthand perspective on how a government can teeter on the edge of a fundamental shift in its own structure. Because the author was an active participant in the events, the narrative carries the weight of someone who personally felt the pressure of the era.

However, the reader should be prepared for the dense, nineteenth-century prose and the occasional inclusion of legalistic transcripts that reflect the formal, often slow-moving nature of the trial. The book is deeply rooted in the specific political vocabulary of 1868, and the reader must navigate the author’s clear biases toward the President's actions. While these might present a hurdle, they also offer an unfiltered look into the mind of a politician wrestling with the immense weight of his own oath. What stays with the reader is the chilling realization of how close the nation came to permanently altering its form of government, and the recognition that the stability of a nation often rests not on laws alone, but on the capacity of its representatives to act against their own perceived self-interest in service of a higher constitutional duty.