Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy
    Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy
    Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy
    Audiobook15 hours

    Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy

    Written by David O. Stewart

    Narrated by Paul Boehmer

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to ebook

    About this audiobook

    In 1868 Congress impeached President Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, the man who had succeeded the murdered Lincoln, bringing the nation to the brink of a second civil war. Enraged to see the freed slaves abandoned to brutal violence at the hands of their former owners, distraught that former rebels threatened to regain control of Southern state governments, and disgusted by Johnson's brawling political style, congressional Republicans seized on a legal technicality as the basis for impeachment-whether Johnson had the legal right to fire his own secretary of war, Edwin Stanton.

    The Senate trial featured the most brilliant lawyers of the day, along with some of the least scrupulous, while leading political fixers maneuvered in dark corners to save Johnson's presidency with political deals, promises of patronage jobs, and even cash bribes. Johnson escaped conviction by a single vote.

    David Stewart, the author of the highly acclaimed The Summer of 1787, challenges the traditional version of this pivotal moment in American history. Rather than seeing Johnson as Abraham Lincoln's political heir, Stewart explains how the Tennessean squandered Lincoln's political legacy of equality and fairness and helped force the freed slaves into a brutal form of agricultural peonage across the South.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherTantor Media, Inc
    Release dateFeb 26, 2019
    ISBN9781977342881
    Author

    David O. Stewart

    David O. Stewart is an award-winning author and the president of the Washington Independent Review of Books. He is the author of several acclaimed histories, including Madison’s Gift: Five Partnerships That Built America; The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution; Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy; and American Emperor: Aaron Burr’s Challenge to Jefferson’s America. Stewart’s first novel is The Lincoln Deception.

    More audiobooks from David O. Stewart

    Related to Impeached

    Related audiobooks

    History For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Tragedy of Edmund Morris

      May 28, 2019

      The Tragedy of Edmund Morris
      5 min read

    • Article

      Marketing Lincoln

      Apr 6, 2021

      Marketing Lincoln
      5 min read

    • Article

      'Heirs Of The Founders' Profiles The 'Second Generation' Of Great American Leaders

      Nov 13, 2018

      In his latest historical spellbinder, bestselling author and scholar H.W. Brands profiles Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun, as well as the decades leading up to the Civil War.

      3 min read

    • Article

      ‘The Impeachers’ Minutely Recounts The First Presidential Reckoning

      Dec 11, 2019

      Brenda Wineapple’s deep dive into President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment and the landscape of Reconstruction politics is an essential Civil War read.

      3 min read

    • Article

      Impeachment!

      Nov 1, 2020

      The trouble began in the summer of 1865. President Andrew Johnson had begun to implement his own version of Reconstruction while Congress was in recess. He quickly invited former Confederate states back into the Union and pardoned scores of their for

      3 min read

    • Article

      Editorial: Pardon Jack Johnson To Redress An Injustice

      Mar 13, 2018

      "I've found no better way of avoiding race prejudice than to act with people of other races as if prejudice did not exist." - Jack Johnson, world heavyweight champion boxer, 1908-1915. ___ In an era of lynchings and Jim Crow, Jack Johnson lived out h

      2 min read

    • Article

      Trials

      Mar 4, 2019

      AFTER THE BLOODY NATIONAL CATASTROPHES of the Civil War and the assassination of President Lincoln, the people of the reunited union deserved a period of calm. That was not to be. “Peace had come,” the journalist Matthew Josephson later wrote, echoin

      2 min read

    • Article

      Lincoln’s Plan for Peace

      Nov 1, 2020

      Lincoln’s Plan for Peace
      3 min read

    • Article

      The New Reconstruction

      Sep 8, 2020

      The New Reconstruction
      27 min read

    • Article

      Impeach Trump Again

      Jan 6, 2021

      Impeach Trump Again
      4 min read

    • Article

      The Dark Side Of The White House

      Nov 17, 2021

      Not many people in this country, I would guess, grow up wanting to be Prime Minister – apart from the present incumbent, who at the age of five declared that he wanted to be ‘World King’. In the United States, the story is different. An annual holida

      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Impeached

    4/5

    34 ratings4 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      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!!
    • 5/5
      As the presidency of Bill Clinton recedes into the halcyon glow of history, his impeachment by the House of Representatives seems less a personal repudiation than an institutional embarrassment for Congress. With the passage of time, the charges against Clinton seem overdrawn, more an extension of a political fight that included the federal government shutdown than a real threat to the sanctity of government.This recent context is important for anyone who reads David Stewart's magnificent account of the first presidential impeachment, "Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy." As the experienced lawyer turned engaging historian describes the specific charges against Johnson, they too seem overdrawn, legally speaking. However, they were simply one weapon in a more consequential struggle over the future of civil rights in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was a southern Unionist and highly sympathetic to southerners who feared the consequences of granting freed slaves any real civil rights. Such an attitude, while appealing to some influential politicians, was contrary to several of Lincoln's public statements, including his address after Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox, which coupled leniency for rebels and seceded states -- which Johnson took to extraordinary lengths -- with the promise of voting rights for African-Americans who served in the Union Army and Navy.Worse, Johnson's policy of leniency for southern politicians who had served in the Confederate government or army and his aversion to assistance for freed blacks was in direct opposition to the most influential group in the Republican-dominated Congress. The Radical Republicans, who had frequently complained that Lincoln's actions toward slavery were too little and too late, wanted the rebellion leaders, including southern politicians, punished for their involvement in instigating and prosecuting the war and also sought increasing civil rights and government support for freed slaves. The result was significant conflict between Congressional leaders and the President, who drug his feet whenever possible to limit the full execution of laws enacted by the Congress, many of which had been passed by Congress over his veto. Eventually, frustrated Republican leaders began exploring ways to limit Johnson's powers, including the possibility of removing him from office. While the first attempt at impeachment failed, Johnson handed his political enemies a gift when he knowingly violated the Tenure of Office Act, one such Congressional act which limited the president's power to remove appointees confirmed by the Senate and was of questionable constitutionality.In some ways, the precipitating incident was farcical, as Stewart makes clear. Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, but Stanton refuses to physically leave his office. Johnson then appointed an underling to the position, while trying to tempt Gen. William T. Sherman to take the post. As the impasse continued, General-in-Chief Ulysses Grant, who had little use for Johnson and nurtured presidential ambitions in the next year's election, carefully administered the military independent of civilian oversight, careful to not be directly insubordinate of the President.Meanwhile, Radical Republicans pressed for impeachment again, this time succeeding, but only after some difficulty in exactly describing the nature of Johnson's crime in constitutional terms. After this, the main event became the trial of the now-impeached Johnson in the Senate, with the possibility that he could be removed from office by a 2/3 vote. With great style, Stewart discusses the personalities and intrigue behind this trial, including the distressing fact that the prosecution's case was poorly coordinated by the House members selected to argue it.Underlying this analysis, which is consistently strong, Stewart offers a tantalizing, but ultimately unprovable assessment. Despite all of the factors that favored enough people voting to preserve Johnson in the presidency, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the key votes in Johnson's favor -- and the vote for removal fell only one short of the necessary 2/3 -- were bought and paid for by people who benefitted from Johnson remaining in office.If there is a shortcoming in the delightful account, it is that Stewart never adequately explores Johnson's unexpected Republican allies, such as Secretary of State William Seward, who were neither southern sympathizers or politically beholden to Johnson. This, though, is a small quibble in an otherwise excellent book that is both thoughtful in its assessments and dramatically engaging in its writing.
    • 4/5
      Until President Clinton came along President Andrew Johnson had the dubious honor of being the only US President who went through an impeachment trial. Others may have come close, but these two stand alone in that aspect. President Johnson was in a difficult position after the assassination of Lincoln - he was a Democrat that had been elected VP on a Republican ticket. He had been chosen to help solidify the voters in the election of 1864 for the areas that may have had southern sympathies but remained in the Union.Johnson was trying to have the Reconstruction governments in the South based on Lincoln's plans per se - generosity of spirit - reduced animosity between that "conquered" and the victorious. But the Northerners in the Congress wanted their "pound of flesh" and wanted to increase their power over the southern states.The abolition of slavery removed the 3/5 counting of slaves for representation purposes and adjusted the negro counts to full. This would entitle the southern states to 28 additional representatives in the Congress plus 28 more electoral votes. Efforts were made to adjust this "outrage" by introducing a law that denied the southern states the right to include the counts of the blacks for representation if the blacks were denied the right to vote.The method of Reconstruction was a point of dissention between Johnson and the Congress. During his administration Johnson used his veto power 29 times and was overridden 15 times. At this time the Congress was trying various ways to curtail the Executive power. There were actually three different attempts at impeachment. First try at impeachment, Congressmen tried the facts that Johnson was wrong when he restored Southern railroads and when he removed men from office citing usurpation of Congressional powers. This attempt was abandoned by the Committee Chairman Wilson when he said "Political unfitness and incapacity must be tried at the ballot box, not in the high court of impeachment." The second attempt was also deemed to be a political rather than legal issue and was again abandoned.However, Thaddeus Stevens, the driving force behind impeachment, resolved to cut Presidential powers. For example, Stevens proposed to give Grant complete control over the Reconstruction efforts in the South - something Grant didn't want. He also tried to limit the Supreme Court influence by introducing a bill requiring 3/4 approval of the Court before a law could be declared unconstitutional. In early 1867 the Congress enacted the Tenure of Office Act which denied the president the power to remove from office anyone appointed by a past president, without the approval of the Senate during the next full session of Congress. This legislation would be the main blockade for Johnson. This struggle between Johnson and Stanton gave Stevens what he needed.All 11 articles of impeachment were related to the ongoing struggle between Johnson and Secretary of War Stanton. Johnson wanted to remove him from office but the Tenure of Office act which allowed only the Congress to remove a high level official from his office and also that should anyone try to violate this law, they would be guilty of a "high misdemeanor". A High Misdemeanor was one of the provisions of the constitution for removal from office of the President.Johnson was defended by Benjamin Curtis, a former Supreme Court Justice. At the beginning of Johnson's defense, Curtis dissected the Tenure of Office Act and analyzed how it could be interpreted in several different ways explaining how Johnson acted as he did. A senator from Maine praised Curtis by saying "Judge Curtis gave us the law and we followed it."As the trial progressed, it blatantly appeared more a political dogfight that a legal battle. At times the Senate allowed certain types of evidence admitted, and then would reverse themselves again later. Because of the handling of the procedures, few had any idea of what the outcome would be.When the time came for the vote, Senators who could barely walk or talk, suffering from strokes and other illnesses, still managed to appear in the Senate to cast their vote. By one vote, Johnson was acquitted. There was speculation that some of the votes had been purchased but no clear evidence was ever brought forward. The senators that voted for his acquitted were treated badly by their parties but in the end Johnson survived the trial.60 years later the Tenure of Office Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court headed by former President William Howard Taft now Chief Justice. How ironic that the law that brought Johnson to the brink of removal from office wasn't even Constitutional.I thought this book would be very dry and hard to get through, but it read more like a novel than historical fact. The writing was clear and concise and the information was presented so that the reader could understand the fight between Johnson and Congress. Now I really understand what the impeachment proceedings were about. I'm definitely glad I read this one.
    • 4/5
      I'd like to give this book a higher rating because I learned so much from it. Alas, though Mr. Stewart employs a wealth of information, his characters rarely come alive. Johnson is made to appear as a great defender of the Constitution while using un-Constitutional means. The prosecution, from the House, seem more intent on bringing the presidency down to size than of trying a man guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The corruption by all seems almost a sport for those interested in playing, which seems to be everybody.Ultimately, we have a story about our government where the Constitution worked. After Johnson's acquital, although a few still persisted in trying to impeach, most just returned to business as usual.