The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson



In the months after ratification of the federal Constitution, the Congress took up the establishment of the new executive departments. The debate concerning one of them, the Department of Foreign Affairs, is of interest because it was an occasion on which James Madison opined on the nature of impeachment under the Constitution and in particular, his views on what was meant by high crimes and misdemeanors.


High Crime House Manager Federal Constitution Official Duty Office Holder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Joseph Gales, ed., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834) 495.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Buckner F. Melton, Jr., The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount (Macon: Mercer UP, 1998) 61–63.Google Scholar
  3. 10.
    Francis Wharton, State Trials of the United States duri ng the Adm inistration of Washington and Adams (Philadelphia: Adams, Carey and Heart, 1849) 200.Google Scholar
  4. 12.
    Ibid., 201. The House had debated the impeachment on July 6. A legal opinion was secured to the effect that Blount’s correspondence constituted a crime for which Blount could be impeached. Elenore Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials (Urbana: Illinois UP, 1992) 27–28Google Scholar
  5. 25.
    Ibid., 14. For that reason, the case is viewed as establishing the immunity of members of Congress from impeachment. Walter Ehrlich, Presidential Impeachment: An American Dilemma (Saint Charles: Forum Press, 1974) 36Google Scholar
  6. Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis, 3d ed. (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2000) 48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Philip B. Kurland, Watergate and the Constitution (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1978) 116.Google Scholar
  8. 27.
    Alfred H. Kelly, Winfred A. Harbison, and Herman Belz., The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 7th ed., vol. 1 (New York: Norton 1991) 162–163.Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, and Misfor tunes, 43; Hoffer and Hull, Imp eachment in America, 207. As noted by Lynn W. Turner, Pickering’s impeachment “would have seemed less brutal” had Pickering not had such a distinguished career in public service. Lynn W. Turner, “The Impeachment of John Pickering,” American Historical Review (1949): vol. 54:487–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 31.
    Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes, 43. Interestingly, just ten years earlier, in 1794, the Congress had removed jurisdiction from the District Court of New Hampshire to the Circuit Court because the district judge, John Sullivan, had been similarly incapacitated by drunkenness and dementia. David P. Currie, “The Constitution in Congress: The Most Endangered Branch, 1801–1805,” Wake Forest Law Review, 33 (1998): 236.Google Scholar
  11. 33.
    Andrew C. McLaughlin, A Constitutional History of the United States (New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1935) 320.Google Scholar
  12. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Parliamentary Writings, ed. Wilbur Samuel Howell (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987) 11.Google Scholar
  13. 35.
    The ship had been seized by the collector of customs, a Republican, in Portsmouth for nonpayment of duties. The ship’s owner, a prominent Federalist, was granted release of the ship by Judge Pickering without evidencing payment. The customs collector libeled the ship and its cargo and the owner’s suit for their return was heard by Judge Pickering. Turner, “Impeachment of John Pickering,” American Historical Review, vol. 54: 489. The impeachment articles charged that the ship and contents had been returned without proof of payment and that Pickering had refused to hear testimony on behalf of the United States during trial. Following the trial, Pickering had refused to allow the appeal of the U.S. attorney contrary to the Judiciary Act. Lastly, Pickering was charged with intoxication during the trial and with invoking the name of the “Supreme Being” in a “most profane and indecent manner.” All of these actions were “contrary to his trust and duty as a judge in violation of the laws of the United States,” and therefore were high crimes and misdemeanors. Emily Field Van Tassell and Paul Finkelman, eds., Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the present, (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1999) 93–95.Google Scholar
  14. 41.
    Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Law, 2d ed. (Mineola: Foundation Press, 1969) 857Google Scholar
  15. 42.
    William Plumer, William Plumer’s Memorandum of Proceedings in the United States Senate 1803–1807, ed. Everettt Somerville Brown (New York: Macmillan, 1923) 160–161.Google Scholar
  16. 47.
    Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, vol. 3 (Boston: Houghton, 1916) 169.Google Scholar
  17. 49.
    Ibid.; Richard B. Lillich, “The Chase Impeachment,” American Journal of Legal History, vol. 4 (1960): 52–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Richard Ellis, “The Impeachment of Samuel Chase,” Michael Belknap, ed., American Political Trials (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1981) 58–59.Google Scholar
  19. 52.
    Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, 273, quoted in Lillich, “The Chase Impeachment,” 53; Belknap, American Political Trials, 61. As was observed in this connection, “It was not by his judicial capacity alone that Samuel Chase had earned his reputation. For years he had been known as a pugnacious lawyer and politician who sought quarrels and delighted in them. Indeed, his entire career had been marked by such intemperance of word and action that he seemed to be perpetually with a mob at his heels, which sometimes pursued but quite often followed him.” Frederick T. Hill, Decisive Battles of the Law, 6–7, quoted in Lillich, “The Chase Impeachment,” 51, n.6. Sean Wilentz wrote that following his confirmation in 1795, Chase “turned into a single-minded enforcer during the Alien and Sedition crisis” and had “presided belligerently over several of the most sensational sedition trials and punished those convicted to the limits the law allowed.” Wilentz observed that “Chase was, in 1804, the most powerful conservative Federalist in the federal government, and the Republicans’ loathing for him ran deep.” Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (New York: Norton, 2005) 126.Google Scholar
  20. 62.
    In conversation with Adams, Giles had “treated with the utmost contempt the idea of an independent judiciary” and had expressed the view that other than the lone Republican justice, “All other Judges of the Supreme Court…must be impeached and removed.” With obvious reference to Marbury v. Madison, Giles told Adams, “The power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House of Representatives” and “the power of trying impeachments was given equally without measure to the Senate.” Accordingly, if the justices of the Supreme Court were to declare a law unconstitutional, “it was the undoubted right of the House of Representatives to remove them for giving such opinions, however honest or sincere they may have been in entertaining them.” Giles flatly stated, “we want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better.” John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1874) vol. 1: 322Google Scholar
  21. 65.
    Keith Whittington observed that Chase’s insistence that the Senate proceedings mirror a criminal trial, with the attendant legal standards and procedures, ensured that the grounds for impeachment would be construed narrowly. Keith E. Whittington, Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1999) 27.Google Scholar
  22. 75.
    Senate Document No. 864, 55–60; William Plumer’s Memorandum, 309–310. As to the issue of an impeachable act, Adams observed that “The question whether impeachment could be had for acts not violating any law was discussed and sifted, until the managers themselves were compelled to abandon it, at least in its application to the cause.” John Quincy Adams, The Writings of John Quincy Adams, ed. Worthington Chauncy Ford (New York: Macmillan, 1914) 112–113.Google Scholar
  23. 79.
    Lois Fisher, Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President (Lawrence: Kansas UP, 1997) 55.Google Scholar
  24. 81.
    William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Phillip H. Nicklin, 1829) 211.Google Scholar
  25. 83.
    James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, ed. Robert Green McCloskey, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1967) 324Google Scholar
  26. 93.
    James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 9th ed., vol. 1 (Boston: Little, 1858) 311.Google Scholar
  27. 94.
    George Ticknor Curtis, History of the Origin, Forma tion a nd Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, vol. 2 (New York: Harper, 1858) 260–261.Google Scholar
  28. 95.
    Theodore W Dwight, “Trial by Impeachment,” American Law Register, 15 (1867) vol. 15:257.Google Scholar
  29. 98.
    William Lawrence, “The Law of Impeachment,” American Law Register, 15 (1867): 641.Google Scholar
  30. 107.
    David Miller Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (New York: Macmillan, 1903) 1Google Scholar
  31. Michael Les Benedict, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (New York: Norton, 1973) 1.Google Scholar
  32. 108.
    Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 2. Nevertheless, there were profound differences between Lincoln and the Radical Republicans. Foner noted that to Lincoln, Reconstruction was part of his strategy to win the war and to achieve emancipation through establishing state governments that would include Southerners who took a loyalty oath and who pledged to uphold abolition. The Radical Republicans viewed Reconstruction as a broader plan to reform Southern society. Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988) 61–62.Google Scholar
  33. 109.
    Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 5. Benedict, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 3; David O. Stewart, Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009) 7Google Scholar
  34. Lloyd Paul Stryker, Andrew Johnson (New York: Macmillan, 1929) 1–129Google Scholar
  35. Robert W. Winston, Andrew Joh nson: Plebian and Patriot (New York: Holt, 1928) 3–257.Google Scholar
  36. William A. Dunning, “More Light on Andrew Johnson,” American Historical Review, 11 (1906): 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 110.
    Whittington, Constitutional Construction, 114. Benedict described Johnson as having been “[i]ntent on wrecking the Republican Reconstruction program irrevocably.” Michael Les Benedict, A Compromise of Principle: Congressional Republicans and Reconstruction 1863–1869 (New York: Norton, 1974) 294.Google Scholar
  38. Richard M. Valelly, The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2004) 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 112.
    Stewart, Impeached, 50–51; Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 45–48; Stryker, Andrew Johnson, 273; Gene Smith, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (New York: Morrow, 1977) 143–144Google Scholar
  40. William H. Rehnquist, Grand Inquests: The Historic Trials of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson (New York: Morrow, 1992) 205.Google Scholar
  41. Milton Lomask, Andrew Johnson: President on Trial (New York: Farrar, 1960) 142.Google Scholar
  42. Hans L. Trefousse, Impeachment of a President (New York: Fordham UP, 1999) 15.Google Scholar
  43. Michael Les Benedict, “A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson,” Political Science Quarterly, 113 (1998): 494–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 117.
    Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 87–97; Stryker, Andrew Johnson, 299–300. According to Trefousse, Johnson’s objection to the Fourteenth Amendment centered on black suffrage and the “enormous power” that would be conferred upon Congress by the due process clause. Trefousse, Impeachment of a President, 36–38. However, as Rehnquist noted, while Johnson had no constitutional authority to block ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Johnson nevertheless opposed ratification. Johnson sought the views of his cabinet, and whether due to his ambivalence or duplicity, Stanton indicated that he disapproved of it. Rehnquist, Grand Inquests, 207. Bruce Ackerman suggested that Johnson’s opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment was a decisive cause of Johnson’s impeachment. Bruce Ackerman, We The People: Foundations, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1991) 83.Google Scholar
  45. 189.
    Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 613–629; Lomask, Andrew Johnson: President on Triai, 344–347; Smith, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, 300–302; Noel B. Gerson, The Trial of Andrew Johnson (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977) 127–147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© H. Lowell Brown 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FalmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations