Docstoc

Unit Reconstruction

Document Sample
Unit Reconstruction Powered By Docstoc
					                                                     PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE TRIAL OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF
                                                     ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                                     You will participate in a Senate Impeachment Trial because this is what
                                                     Johnson had to go through. It is different than a court trial. The class will be
                                                     divided into different roles. Each of you will have your own responsibility in this
                                                     trial. It is your job to prepare for this trial, and walk into class having done
                                                     everything .

                                                     Performance on 12/13 (Monday)


Background : Johnson Impeached
The House of Representatives impeached Andrew Johnson, the 17th President of United States at five o‘clock p.m. on February 24,
1868 by a vote of 126 yeas to 47 nays. On February 25, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham appeared in the Senate chamber.
Mr. Stevens spoke, "In obedience to the order of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States. We do
impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office; and we further inform the
Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time exhibit articles against him, and make good the same, and in their name
we demand that the Senate take order for the appearance of said Andrew Johnson to answer said impeachment. "

Challenge: Retrial by You
The Senate will reassemble as a court on March 23, 1868. You, dear students, will play the key roles in this great historical event.
Pretrial preparation is IMPERATIVE! Though you are placed on teams, you can prepare individually.

        2/3 majority of the Senate are required to convict (you will ALL vote)
        Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial
        Senate conducts the trial

 Trial
On Monday, the trial will begin. The charge against President Johnson are as follows (though there were 11 articles of
impeachment brought against him, we will only focus on one). That Johnson knowingly committed high crimes and misdemeanors
by…

A) Dismissing Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War in violation of the Tenure of Office Act

Your job is to either prove that Johnson is guilty or is not guilty.

 Your Roles
All students will have a role. You will be given a brief biography as to who you are. It is your responsibility to do some
research on your character so that you understand your character‘s point of view on Johnson‘s impeachment. Substantial
newspaper editorials are located in Harper‘s Weekly and their website listed on the front of these instructions.

Something to note about this trial. This trial did not take place as a typical trial. It was an impeachment proceeding. President
Johnson had attorney‘s that helped with his defense; however, the prosecution side was composed of myriad opponents in the


                                                                                                                                           1
House and Senate. Therefore, when assigning the prosecution team, I will pick three of his strongest opponents and place them on
the prosecution team. The rest of Johnson‘s opponents will be witnesses.




Helpful websites:

http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/15ImpeachmentSimulationGame/CharactersAndReadingAssings.htm

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/johnson.htm




                                                                 Roles

You will be divided into two camps. One side supports Johnson, and the other wants him impeached.

Since this was a Senate trial, it will not play out like a courtroom trial. Instead, Each witness must prepare themselves to testify in
favor or against impeachment. You will be judged by the honorable judge, Salmon Chase, your fellow senators and your moral
obligation to do what is right for the nation. Regardless of your character (except for the press), all will be expected to tell the
senate your side of the story (your reasoning behind his impeachment and how Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act).

        You must do the following:
             o Fill out the appropriate form (Witness form, President‘s form, Judge‘s form, Press form). Come up with two ―Level
                 two‖ questions for the opposing side – these should be challenging and should attack specific witnesses‘ personal
                 motives.
             o Create a name tag for yourself, so we can see what you look like.

Roles:

Witnesses: Remember, not only must you testify stating a good reason why Johnson did indeed violate the tenure of office act,
and should be impeached, you must also listen to the other characters so that you can determine whether to impeach him or not.

         Defense Witnesses: 1) James Brooks, 2) Alexander Stephens, 3) William Evarts, 4) William Seward (Secretary of State),
         5) Gideon Wells, 6) Lorenzo Thomas, 7) Henry Stanbery, 8) William Pitt Fessenden, 9) James Wilson Grimes, 10)Lyman
         Trumbull




                                                                                                                                          2
         Prosecution Witnesses: 11) Charles Sumner, 12) Benjamin Butler, 13) Thaddeus Stevens, 14) James Ashley,
         15)Benjamin Wade (President Pro-Tempore of the Senate), 16) Edwin Stanton (Secretary of War), 17) Ulysses S. Grant
         (Acting Secretary of War), 18) Wendell Phillips,

19) President: Andrew Johnson
You will need to prepare your defense in the same manner as the witnesses. You will need to understand who you are, and how
you respond to the accusations. Describe your defense. Your statement should attempt to persuade us as to why you should not be
impeached (and not guilty of the terms accused).
         You must fill out the President‘s Form


20) Judge: Salmon P. Chase

One of moral people in the audience. You must listen, keep the senate chamber quiet, and ultimately deliver the news as to
whether Johnson will be impeached or not.

        You must fill out the Judge Salmon P. Chase‘s Form.

Press

Fun job. Each of you will take the role of the person you represent whether it be editor or artist. If you are one of the
editor/publishers you must write an article about the actual proceedings. Since this is an editorial, you may be quite persuasive in
your discussion of the proceedings and of course, since it is an editorial, you may be biased. No more than one page. You will read
your article to the class (if time) so that everyone can hear the final story about the trial they just participated in. If you are
Thomas Nast, you must compile 3 Nast cartoons regarding the trial, explain what is portrayed in each cartoon, and do an OPVL.
You will explain this to the class (if time). You must also write a brief statement as to your opinion about Johnson and what caused
you to have this opinion. You will need to get much of your information from the Harper‘s website (http://www.impeach-
andrewjohnson.com/15ImpeachmentSimulationGame/CharactersAndReadingAssings.htm)

         Press: 21) George William Curtis (Editorial writer for Harper‘s), 22) John W. Forney (editor), 23-26) Thomas Nast (political
cartoonist) (there will be more than one of you)




Allowable Evidentiary Objections
1. Facts on Record: "Objection, Your Honor. The answer is creating a material
fact which is not in the record," or "Objection, Your Honor. The question seeks
testimony which goes beyond the scope of the record."

2. Relevance: "Objection, Your Honor. This testimony is not relevant to the
                                                                                                                                        3
facts of this case. I move that it be stricken from the record," or "Objection,
Your Honor. Counsel's question calls for irrelevant testimony."

3. Foundation: "Objection, Your Honor. There is a lack of foundation."

4. Personal Knowledge: "Objection, Your Honor. The witness has no personal
knowledge to answer that question." Or "Objection, Your Honor. I move that
the witnesses testimony about ___ be stricken from the record because the
witness has been shown not to have personal knowledge of the matter."

5. Character: " Objection, Your Honor. Character is not an issue here," or
"Objection, Your Honor. The question calls for inadmissible character
evidence."

6. Opinion: "Objection, Your Honor. The question calls for inadmissible opinion
testimony (or inadmissible speculation) on the part of the witness. I move that
the testimony be stricken from the record."

7. Hearsay: "Objection, Your Honor. Counsel's questions calls for hearsay," or
"Objection, Your Honor. This testimony is hearsay. I move that the testimony
be stricken from the record."

8. Leading Question: "Objection, Your Honor. Counsel is leading the witness."

9. Argumentative Question: "Objection, Your Honor. Counsel is being
argumentative.

10. Asked and Answered. "Objection, Your Honor. This question has been asked
and answered."

11. Compound Question: "Objection, Your Honor, on the grounds that this is a
compound question."

12. Narrative: "Objection, Your Honor. Counsel's question calls for a narrative."

13. Non-responsive: "Objection, Your Honor. The witness is being nonresponsive."

14. Outside the Scope of Cross: "Objection, Your Honor. Counsel is asking the
witness about matters that did not come up in cross examination."
                                                                                    4
15. Speculation: "Objection, Your Honor. Counsel's question calls for the
witness to speculate about the answer."




Witness Form:

Student‘s Name: ______________________________Witness‘s Name:_________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT: As best you can, through research, analysis and speculation, answer the following questions:
    What is your character‘s point of view on the subject of the Johnson impeachment?
    What is your reasoning behind why you believe what you believe (reasons justifying your interpretation of his
      point of view)
    What might have caused your character to have feelings and beliefs against/for Johnson (personal
      background & influences in life, demographics, friends, enemies, political intentions, personal involvement,
      revenge, punishment, aspirations, morals)




                                                                                                                     5
WITNESS LEVEL 2 QUESTIONS: Come up with two ―Level two‖ questions for the opposing side – these should be
challenging and should attack specific witnesses‘ personal motives. Gather information about the characters by reading their
biographies.

             o   Create a name tag for yourself, so we can see what you look like.




President’s Form
Andrew Johnson

Student‘s Name: ______________________________
President‘s STATEMENT: As best you can, through research, analysis and speculation, answer the following questions:
     Explain your perspective on why this trial is happening.
     Explain what the accusations are against you.
     Respond to the accusations against you
     Why should the senate NOT impeach you?




                                                                                                                               6
LEVEL 2 QUESTIONS: Come up with two ―Level two‖ questions for the opposing side – these should be challenging and should
attack specific witnesses‘ personal motives. Gather information about the characters by reading their biographies.

             o    Create a name tag for yourself, so we can see what you look like.




JUDGE‘S STATEMENT: Salmon Chase

Student‘s Name____________________________________

RESUME FOR THE HONORABLE SALMON P. CHASE

                                                                                                                           7
Education:




Past Employment:




Past offices & job experience:




References: (who would write you one?)




Point of View:
     Your character‘s point of view on the subject of Johnson‘s impeachment.
     Is he impartial? How and did he remain impartial during the trial?
     Think about his past alliances, friends and enemies, political intentions, personal involvement, revenge,
         punishment, aspirations, character‘s morals and values that helped the character shape his point of view (and
         how you interpret it).




                                                                                                                         8
Press Form:
Student name:_____________________________________Student Character:__________________________

Character‘s job: (circle one)             Editor                   Publisher                        Artist


Editor and Publisher job:
     Write and type an article about the actual proceedings of the trial. Attach the article to this sheet. Since this is
        an editorial, you may be quite persuasive in your discussion of the proceedings and of course, since it is an
        editorial, you may be biased. No more than one page. You might read your article to the class (if time).

Thomas Nast:
    Attach 3 Nast cartoons regarding the trial
          o Each cartoon must be centered and at the top of the page (at least 3‖ x 3‖)
    Along with each cartoon, you do an OPVL (see format below, and also see instructions on OPVL‘s that I gave
      you in the first week of school)
          o OPVL chart must be placed beneath the cartoon.
    You must also write a brief statement as to your opinion about Johnson and what caused you to have this
      opinion.
          o Statement of Nast‘s opinion must be typed and attached.
          o You will need to get much of your information from the Harper‘s website
               http://www.andrewjohnson.com/

Origin




Purpose



                                                                                                                             9
Value




Limitation




Cartoon
overall
analysis:
what does
it mean?




             10
1ST period                Column 1
                          Character for
             2nd period   Impeachment Trial
                          #‘s correspond to
                          numbers on trial
                          instruction page
                          **Internet users,
                          please number the
                          chart yourself 1,2,3
                          and so on up to 26




                          Column 2 Quick report
                          1= Miners & mining (p
                          311-312)
                          2=cattle & frontier (p
                          312-313)
                          3=farming (p 313-314 –
                          skip Turner thesis, we‘ll
                          be doing it in class)

                          **Internet users, please
                          number the chart
                          yourself: 1,2,3

                          You won‘t be working
                          together, but all of you
                          will go up and present
                          your topic together.
                          Do not email this to me.
                          You must bring it all in to
                          class with you on the day
                          it is due.




                                                        11
                                                     Character biographies below
        Andrew Johnson
                                                           on next pages
Cabinet Members
William Seward, Secretary of State
Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War
Gideon Welles, Secretary of Navy

Acting Secretary of War
        Ulysses S. Grant
        Lorenzo Thomas

Johnson Opponents
       James Ashley, Representative
       Wendell Phillips
       Charles Sumner, Senator

House Impeachment Managers
       John Bingham
       George Boutwell
       Benjamin Butler
       John Logan
       Thaddeus Stevens
       Thomas Williams
       James Wilson

Johnson Defenders
       James Brooks, Representative
       Alexander Stephens

Johnson Defense Counsel
       William Evarts, (Attorney General, 1868-69)
       Henry Stanbery (Attorney General, 1866-68)

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
        Salmon Chase

Senate President Pro Tem
        Benjamin Wade

Senate Opponents of Removal
       William Fessenden
       James Grimes
       Lyman Trumbull

Press
        George William Curtis
        John W. Forney
        Thomas Nast




                                                                               12
Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson was born in Raleigh, North Carolina. His
father died when young Johnson was only three years old,
and he was raised by his mother who worked as a spinner
and weaver to support her sons. Johnson worked as a
tailor‘s apprentice from the age of 14, then opened his own
shop in 1827 after his family moved to Greeneville,
Tennessee.

Inspired by the spirit of Jacksonian democracy, Johnson
helped found the Democratic party in his region and was
elected to the town council in 1829, then as mayor in
1831. He was a strict constructionist and an advocate of
states‘ rights who distrusted the power of government at
all levels. He won elections to the Tennessee state
legislature in 1835, 1839, and 1841, before being elected
to Congress in 1843. As a member of the U.S. House,
Johnson opposed government involvement in the economy
through tariffs and internal improvements. He lost his seat
in 1852 because of gerrymandering by the Whig-
dominated state legislature. He won a narrow victory for
governor in 1853 and served two terms. In 1857, he was
elected to represent Tennessee in the U.S. Senate.

While in the Senate, Johnson became an advocate of the
Homestead Bill, which was opposed by most Southern                       Andrew Johnson
Democrats and their slave-owning, plantation constituents.       (29 December 1808 - 31 July 1875)
This issue strained the already tense relations between          Source: The Complete Book of U.S.
Johnson and wealthy planters in western Tennessee. He
                                                                            Presidents
further alienated them when he initially endorsed Stephen
Douglas for the Democratic presidential nomination in
1860. After the party split into regional factions, Johnson
backed the Southern Democratic nominee, John
Breckinridge, but by then the rupture between Johnson
and most Southern Democrats was too deep to heal. The
break became final when he allied himself with pro-Union
Whigs to fight the secessionist Democrats in his state for
several months after Lincoln‘s election.

When the Civil War began, Johnson was the only Senator
from a Confederate state who did not leave Congress to
return to the South. During the war, he joined Republicans
and pro-war Democrats in the National Union party. In
1862, Union military forces captured enough of Tennessee
for Lincoln to name him as the remnant state‘s military
governor. In 1864, Lincoln selected him as his Vice
Presidential running-mate on the National Union ticket.
Johnson delivered his inaugural address while inebriated,
lending credence to the rumors that he was an alcoholic.
Within six weeks of taking office as Vice President, Johnson
succeeded to the Presidency after Lincoln‘s assassination.
The new President faced the difficult situation of
developing a policy for the postwar reconstruction of the
Union. Committed to limited government and a strict
constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, Johnson‘s
Reconstruction plan allowed the former Confederate states
to return quickly to the Union. This would have left the civil
                                                                                                     13
rights of the former slave completely under the auspices of
the former slave-owners.

Incensed at these policies, Radical Republicans in Congress
wrestled control of Reconstruction from the president and
began passing their own program over Johnson‘s vetoes.
The implementation of military districts and supervision
across the South in 1867 piqued the president to aid
Southern resistance and to attempt to thwart the process
by firing Secretary of State Stanton, who was cooperating
with Radical Republicans. Stanton‘s removal violated the
recent Tenure of Office Act and prompted the Republican-
controlled House to impeach the president. The Senate
trial resulted in his acquittal by one vote.

Johnson remained in office as the lamest of lame-duck
presidents, and unsuccessfully sought the Democratic
party‘s presidential nomination in 1868. At the end of his
term, he returned to Tennessee where he began rebuilding
his political base of support and unsuccessfully seeking the
Democratic nomination for various offices. Finally in 1875,
an alliance of Republicans and a faction of the Democratic
party in the Tennessee legislature again elected him to the
U.S. Senate. He served only five months before he died.

Robert C.Kennedy, HarpWeek

Source: Michael Les Benedict, "Andrew Johnson" on the
Grolier's On-Line website




                                                               14
William Henry Seward
William Henry Seward was born in Florida, New York, the son of a wealthy physician who became
a judge. He graduated from Union College with high honors in 1820, and began practicing law in
1823, gaining a reputation as a skilled criminal lawyer. He first became active in politics with the
Anti-Mason party, then by supporting the (unsuccessful) reelection bid of President John Quincy
Adams in 1828. Seward entered elective politics by serving in the state senate from 1830 to 1834,
wherein he established himself as a leader of the Whig party. He was elected governor of New
York in 1838 and reelected in 1840, returning to private legal practice at the end of his second
term. He reentered elective politics in 1849 when the state legislature choose him to represent
New York in the U. S. Senate, where he served two terms lasting until 1861.

In 1860, Seward was the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. After losing
on the third ballot to Abraham Lincoln, Seward campaigned actively for his Republican rival. After
the election, Lincoln chose Seward to be his Secretary of State. The New Yorker ‘s strong
leadership proved valuable to the Union cause during the Civil War. He eased U.S.-British tensions
during the Trent Affair and, working through the U.S. Minister to Great Britain, Charles Francis
Adams, dissuaded Britain from recognizing the Confederacy. He also pressured France to withdraw
from Mexico, basing his argument on the Monroe Doctrine. Seward was wounded by a would-be
assassin on the same night that Lincoln was murdered.

After his recovery, Seward remained as Secretary of State in the administration of Andrew
Johnson. Although Seward had been an anti-slavery Whig, then Republican, he supported
Johnson‘s lenient plan of Reconstruction against that of the Radical Republicans. An enthusiastic
expansionist, he negotiated the annexation of the Midway Islands and the purchase of Alaska,
both in 1867. He retired from politics at the end of Johnson‘s term in March 1869. After touring
the Pacific Northwest, he returned to Auburn, New York, where he died in 1872.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of United States History; William Degregorio, The
Complete Book of the U.S. Presidents; and Harper‘s Weekly.




                                                                                                    15
Edwin McMasters Stanton
Edwin Stanton was born in Steubenville, Ohio, to
devout Methodist parents. Beginning in
childhood, he suffered from asthma throughout
his life. After graduating from Kenyon College in
1833, he studied law under a judge. He was
admitted to the Ohio bar in 1835, but had to wait
several months until his 21st birthday before he
could begin to practice. He developed a very
successful legal career in Ohio, then Pittsburgh,
and finally Washington, D. C.

While in Ohio, Stanton became active in the local
antislavery society and was elected Prosecuting
Attorney of Harrison county as a Democrat. In
1857, he was appointed by U.S. Attorney General
Jeremiah Black to represent the federal
government in California land cases. Two years
later, he was one of the lead attorneys on the
                                                           Edwin McMasters Stanton
defense team of Congressman Daniel Sickles,
                                                     (19 December 1814 - 24 December 1869)
who stood accused of murdering his wife‘s lover.
                                                             Source: Harper's Weekly
Stanton and his colleagues convinced the jury to
acquit Sickles on the grounds of temporary
insanity, marking one of the earliest uses of that
plea.

After the 1860 presidential election, Stanton
gave up a lucrative law practice to become
Attorney General in the lame-duck presidential
administration of James Buchanan. He advised
Buchanan to act forcefully against the South, but
when the president did not, Stanton
clandestinely keep the Republicans, particularly
William Henry Seward, informed about White
House policy decisions.

In 1862, President Lincoln decided to remove the
corrupt and ineffective Secretary of War, Simon
Cameron, by appointing him Minister to Russia.
Seward and Salmon Chase successfully lobbied
the President to name Stanton as his new
Secretary of War. He once again gave up a
prosperous law practice to enter public service.
He proved to be a strong and effective cabinet
officer, instituting practices to rid the War
Department of waste and corruption.

                                                                                        16
When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney
died in October 1864, Stanton wanted to be
named as his replacement. Lincoln believed,
though, that he was more important to the Union
cause as Secretary of War, so the President
appointed Chase, instead. Upon the
assassination of Lincoln, Stanton uttered the
memorable line, "Now he belongs to the ages."

It was Stanton who was at the center of the
battle to impeach and remove President Andrew
Johnson from office. After Lincoln‘s
assassination, Stanton had continued to serve as
Johnson‘s Secretary of War. However, he
became vehemently opposed to Johnson‘s
lenient Reconstruction policies, and consequently
worked with Republicans to implement
Congressional Reconstruction in the South. After
first suspending Stanton in August 1867, Johnson
fired the Secretary in February 1868. Stanton
refused to leave office, claiming job protection
under the Tenure of Office Act. He locked himself
in the War Department until the Senate voted
against the President‘s removal.

Stanton resigned in May 1868 and returned to
his private practice. His wish to sit on the
Supreme Court appeared to be fulfilled when
President Grant appointed him and the Senate
confirmed him on the same day, 20 December
1868. He died, however, four days later in
Washington, D.C.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of
United States History; William Degregorio, The
Complete Book of the U.S. Presidents; Harper‘s
Weekly; and Lydia L. Rapoza, "Edwin Stanton,"
on the Revolution to Reconstruction website.




                                                    17
Gideon Welles
Born in the Connecticut town of Glastonbury, Gideon Welles graduated from the American Literary,
Scientific, and Military Academy in Vermont (today, Norwich University). He first studied law, then
began writing for the Hartford Times. In 1826, he became part-owner and editor of that
newspaper, helping to transform it into a leading organ for the Democratic party and the Jackson
administration. From 1827-1835, he served as a Democrat in the Connecticut state legislature
where he sponsored a general incorporation law after which other states modeled similar
legislation. In gratitude for his support, President Jackson named Welles as Hartford‘s postmaster,
a position he held from 1836-1841. For the next few years he concentrated on his editorial duties
with the Times until 1845 when another Democratic president, James K. Polk, appointed him to
head the Navy Department‘s Bureau of Provisions and Clothing.

In the mid-1850s, Welles joined the new Republican party and, in 1856, ran unsuccessfully as the
Republican gubernatorial candidate in Connecticut. In 1860, he served on the executive board of
the Republican National Committee and as chair of the Connecticut delegation to the national
convention in Chicago, where he helped defeat front-runner William Henry Seward. In 1861,
President Lincoln selected Welles as his Secretary of the Navy. Welles continued at that post until
the end of Andrew Johnson‘s term, supporting the embattled President against the Radical
Republicans. His three volume Diary provides an insider‘s view of the Lincoln and Johnson
administrations. Almost a decade after leaving office, he died in Hartford.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of United States History; William Degregorio, The
Complete Book of U.S. Presidents; and Lydia L. Rapoza, "Gideon Welles" on the Lydia L. Rapoza
homepage.




                                                                                                  18
Ulysses Simpson Grant
Grant was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio, and spent his
boyhood in Georgetown, Ohio, where his father had a
tanning business. Young Grant attended the U.S. Military
Academy at West Point, graduating in 1843 near the
middle of his class. At this point, he did not want a military
career, but an education, followed by a college
professorship. Instead, he was sent to Jefferson Barracks,
near St. Louis, Missouri. He saw duty in the Mexican-
American War (1846-1848) under the command of General
Zachary Taylor, then General Winfield Scott. During the
war, Grant was twice promoted in recognition of his
bravery and talented leadership. The Mexican-American
War proved to be a training ground for him as well as
other future Civil War officers.

After the war, Grant was stationed at Sacketts Harbor,
New York, Detroit, Michigan, and Fort Vancouver,
Washington. At Fort Vancouver, he dearly missed his wife,
was bored by the monotonous duty, and began drinking.
He resigned his commission in 1854 and returned to
                                                                   Ulysses Simpson Grant
Missouri where he unsuccessfully tried his hand at farming,      (27 April 1822 - 23 July 1885)
then real estate, before moving to Galena, Illinois, to work       Source: Harper's Weekly
in his father‘s tannery.

At the beginning of the Civil War, Grant was appointed
commander of the 21st Illinois Regiment and saw service
fighting Confederate guerrillas in Missouri. In August 1861,
he was appointed brigadier general of volunteers by
President Lincoln. He quickly led his troops to capture
Paducah, Kentucky, but had to retreat after a Confederate
counterassault at Belmont, Missouri. In February 1862,
Grant captured Forts Donelson and Henry in Tennessee,
handing the Union its first major victories and earning
himself national recognition and a promotion to major
general.

In October 1862, he was named commander of the
Department of Tennessee and placed in charge of the
Vicksburg campaign. The surrender of Vicksburg on 4 July
1863 was one of the turning points of the Civil War. In
March 1864 Grant was promoted to lieutenant and
commander of all Union armies. Giving the Confederates
no rest, Grant chased Robert E. Lee across Virginia, while
Union General William Tecumseh Sherman advanced
through Atlanta to the Atlantic. Finally, on 9 April 1865 Lee
surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, and the Civil War
was over.

In July 1866 Grant received the rank of full general of the
army, the first American to hold that distinction since
George Washington. His postwar duties included
overseeing Indian Affairs and protection of the
transcontinental railroad workers in the West and the
enforcement of Reconstruction policies in the South.

                                                                                                  19
Although he had doubts about Andrew Johnson‘s
Reconstruction policies, he accompanied the President on
his infamous "swing ‗round the circle" during the 1866
campaign. Grant became an integral part of the battle
between Congress and the White House over control of
Reconstruction policy. In August 1867, Johnson suspended
Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who had been working
with the Radical Republicans in Congress against Johnson,
and appointed Grant as Stanton‘s ad interim replacement.
The General was uncomfortable being placed in that
awkward position, but he dutifully served for five months.
When the Senate refused to consent to Stanton‘s removal,
Grant resigned. Thereafter, Grant sided with the Radical
Republicans and supported Johnson‘s impeachment after
he violated the Tenure of Office Act in 1868.

Although previously a nominal Democrat, Grant became
the Republican presidential nominee in 1868. He easily
defeated his Democratic challenger, Horatio Seymour, and
was soundly reelected in 1872, running against maverick
newspaper editor Horace Greeley. The Grant presidency
had some successes, such as the Treaty of Washington
(1871), but is remembered mainly for a series of
scandals—Credit Mobilier, the Sanborn contracts, the
Whiskey Ring, and the Belknap bribery. Other important
events during his tenure include the ratification of the 15th
Amendment, the Panic of 1873, and the Resumption of
Specie Act (1875).

When he left office, Grant embarked on a triumphant two-
year world tour. In 1880, he was the top candidate for the
Republican presidential nomination. After leading on 35
ballots, he finally lost to a dark-horse candidate, James
Garfield, thus ending his hopes for a third term. His
business ventures in retirement were no more successful
than in his earlier days, and in 1884 he was forced to take
bankruptcy when his son‘s Wall Street firm failed. In his
final years, he penned his Personal Memoirs, which are
well respected for both content and literary style. He died
at Mount McGregor, New York.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: David Donald, "Ulysses S. Grant," on
the Grolier‘s On-Line website




                                                                20
Lorenzo Thomas
Lorenzo Thomas was born in Newcastle, Delaware. In 1823, he graduated from the U.S. Military
Academy at West Point. He saw action in the (Second) Seminole War and served as General
William O. Butler‘s chief of staff in the Mexican War. Thomas then became General Winfield Scott‘s
chief of staff until the outbreak of the Civil War. In March 1861 he was named adjutant-general
and, two months later, given the rank of brigadier-general. In March 1863, as punishment for
alleged inadequacy, he lost his status as adjutant (while retaining his rank) and was assigned to
organize black troops in the South. After the war he was breveted a major-general in recognition
of his military service.

Thomas played a pivotal role in the political battle between President Johnson and the
Congressional Radicals for control of Reconstruction. When the President decided to fire Secretary
of War Stanton in February 1868, he named Thomas to replace Stanton on an ad interim basis and
restored the general‘s adjutant status. Thomas was not well respected in the army, but he had a
grudge against Stanton and he supported Johnson on Reconstruction. Thomas personally delivered
the President‘s dismissal notice to Stanton, but the Secretary refused to accept its legitimacy or to
vacate the premises. Instead, Stanton had Thomas arrested for violating the Tenure of Office Act.
When Stanton realized, however, that the arrest would allow the courts to review the law, which
was what Johnson wanted, the Secretary of War had the charges dropped. Thomas retired in 1869
at the end of Johnson‘s term. He died in Washington, D. C.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Albert Castel, The Presidency of Andrew Johnson; Harper‘s Encyclopedia of
United States History; and Mark Boatner, The Civil War Dictionary.




Lorenzo Thomas
(26 October 1804 - 2 March 1875)
Source: Harper's Weekly



                                                                                                  21
James M. Ashley
James Ashley was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He did not attend college, but acquired his
education as a clerk on Ohio and Mississippi River steamboats. Later, he became editor of two
newspapers in Portsmouth, Ohio. He studied law and was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1849 but
never practiced.

Ashley served five terms as a Republican Congressman from Ohio from December 1859 until
March 1869. He was the chairman of the Committee on Territories, and President Ulysses Grant
appointed him governor of Montana in 1869 after he was defeated for re-election in November
1868.

Ashley believed that Andrew Johnson was a co-conspirator in the assassination of Abraham
Lincoln. He played a vocal role in trying to have Johnson impeached and convicted, but was never
able to come up with the hard evidence to back up his words about the supposed conspiracy.

John Adler, HarpWeek Publisher

Source: History of Congress, 1867-69, Vol. II




James M. Ashley
(14 November 1824 – 16 September 1896)
Source: History of Congress, 1867-69, Vol. II




                                                                                                 22
              Wendell Phillips
Wendell Phillips was born in Boston,
Massachusetts, a descendent of that city‘s first
mayor. He graduated from Harvard College in
1831, from Harvard Law School in 1833, and was
admitted to the bar the next year. In 1836,
Phillips left the legal profession to dedicate his
life to the anti-slavery cause and became a
leader of the radical abolitionists. He authored
abolitionist pamphlets, wrote editorials for
William Lloyd Garrison ‘s The Liberator, and
spoke widely for the cause. Like Garrison, Phillips
rejected as morally corrupt both the Constitution
and the political process for bolstering the
institution of slavery. He therefore refused to
vote until after emancipation was accomplished.
In the decades leading up to the Civil War, he
called for the expulsion of the South from the
Union, so that the North could avoid the taint of              Wendell Phillips
slavery. Phillips also supported temperance,          (29 November 1811 - 2 February 1884)
women‘s rights, and labor reforms, and worked               Source: Harper's Weekly
for the civil rights of African-Americans after the
Civil War. He died in Boston.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Source consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of
United States History




                                                                                         23
              Charles Sumner
Charles Sumner was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and
graduated from Harvard in 1830. He edited a law review,
the American Jurist, and served as a reporter for the
United States Circuit Court, from which he published three
volumes of Judge Joseph Story‘s decisions under the title
Sumner‘s Reports. Sumner lectured on constitutional and
international law at Harvard ‘s law school for three winter
terms. In 1837, he began traveling throughout continental
Europe, followed by a year of residence in England.
Returning to Boston in 1840, he published a 20-volume
annotated edition of Vesey‘s Reports (1841-1846).

Sumner first entered the political arena in 1845 as
American-Mexican hostilities were on the horizon. In an
Independence Day speech before city officials in Boston,
he denounced the use of war for settling international
disputes and promoted arbitration in its place. The
publicity from that oration made him into a much sought-
after speaker on public affairs. He opposed the annexation
of Texas and criticized the institution of slavery. In 1848,           Charles Sumner
he abandoned the Whig party to support Martin Van              (6 January 1811 - 11 March 1874)
Buren‘s (unsuccessful) Free-Soil candidacy for President. In       Source: History of Congre
1851, a Democratic-Free-Soil coalition in the
Massachusetts legislature chose Sumner to fill the vacated
U.S. Senate seat of Daniel Webster, who had resigned to
become Secretary of State.

Sumner became a leader of the anti-slavery forces in the
Senate. During the debates on slavery in Kansas in May
1856, he delivered a two-day oration—"The Crime against
Kansas"—that vehemently condemned Southern advocacy
of the expansion of slavery. Congressman Preston Brooks
of South Carolina believed that Sumner had insulted his
uncle, Senator Andrew Butler. In retaliation, Brooks used
his cane to beat Sumner, who was seated at his desk on
the Senate floor, to unconsciousness. The caning of
Sumner became a symbol in the North of Southern
brutality. Meanwhile, Brooks became a hero in the South
for defending Southern honor, and was subsequently
reelected by his constituency. Besides his battle against
slavery, Sumner led the fight for racial integration of
Boston public schools in the 1850s.

During the Civil War, Sumner pushed for the emancipation
of the slaves and introduced the 13th Amendment to the
Senate in 1864. He also nominated a black lawyer, John
Rock, to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court,
introduced the bill that created the Freedmen‘s Bureau,
and proposed a civil service reform bill in 1864.

During Reconstruction, Sumner supported the policies of
the Radical Republicans and introduced the bill that
eventually became (after his death) the Civil Rights Act of
1875, which outlawed racial discrimination in public places

                                                                                                  24
until the Supreme Court overturned the law in 1883. He
was a strident critic of President Johnson‘s Reconstruction
policies and became an early and constant exponent of his
impeachment. After the Senate acquitted Johnson, the
Massachusetts Senator was one of the few true-believers
who proposed impeaching the President again.

Given his interest in international relations, Sumner sat on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He stringently
backed American financial claims against Britain for
providing the Confederacy with ships during the Civil War
(often called the Alabama Claims). His opposition to
President Grant‘s plan to annex Santo Domingo led to
Sumner‘s removal as chair of the Foreign Relations
Committee in 1870. Thereafter, he dissociated himself
from the Republican party, supporting the Liberal
Republican-Democratic presidential nominee, Horace
Greeley, in 1872. In that same year, he was nominated for
governor of Massachusetts by a Liberal Republican-
Democratic coalition, but he was in Britain for health
reasons, so declined the offer. Two years later, he died in
Washington, D. C.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Weekly Encyclopedia of
United States History; Melvin Urofsky, A March of Liberty:
A Constitutional History of the United States; and Harper‘s
Weekly.




                                                               25
Benjamin Franklin Butler
Benjamin Butler was born in Deerfield, New
Hampshire, and graduated from Waterville
College (now Colby College) in 1838. After
admission to the Massachusetts bar in 1840, he
began a successful practice in Lowell, gaining a
widespread reputation as a talented trial lawyer.
Active in the Democratic party, he served one
term as state representative in 1853, one term
as state senator in 1858, and ran unsuccessfully
for governor in 1859. The following year, he
supported John Breckinridge, the Southern
Democrat, for president and again ran
unsuccessfully for governor, this time on the
ticket of the Breckinridge faction.

When the Civil War began, though, Butler was
quick to volunteer his services to the Union
cause. A brigadier-general of the Massachusetts
                                                             Benjamin Franklin Butler
militia, he led forces that occupied Baltimore
                                                        (5 November 1818 - 11 January 1893)
unopposed and, as a major-general, captured
                                                              Source: Harper's Weekly
Forts Hatteras and Clark in North Carolina. He
coined the term "contraband" to designate
escaped slaves who crossed Union lines.

Butler‘s most famous (or infamous) connection
with the war was his controversial tenure as
commander of the occupation forces in New
Orleans in 1862. He seized the posh St. Charles
Hotel as his initial headquarters, confiscated
$800,000 from the Dutch consulate (which he
insisted had been intended for purchase of
Confederate war supplies), hanged a man for
taking a Union flag down from a flagpole, and
inflicted other strictures that caused New Orleans
residents to label him "Beast," "Brute," and
"Spoons" (for his alleged tendency to steal
silverware). The regulation that raised the most
ire was his "Woman Order" which stipulated that
women who insulted Union soldiers would be
treated as prostitutes. In December, he was
replaced by General Nathaniel Banks.

In late 1863, Butler was given the command of
the Department of Virginia and North Carolina. In
October 1864, he was sent to New York City to
prevent or control election riots. Criticized for his
inability in the field (Grant accused him of getting
                                                                                              26
"bottled up"—another nickname that stuck),
Butler retired from the army and returned to
Massachusetts in December 1864.

After the war, Butler returned to Congress as a
Republican, serving from 1867 to 1875 and from
1877 to 1879. He enthusiastically backed the
Radical Reconstruction policies of the
Congressional Republicans. A vociferous,
unrelenting critic of President Johnson, he
authored the tenth article of impeachment aimed
at the President‘s verbal attacks on Congress. At
the suggestion of the ailing Thaddeus Stevens,
Butler became the lead House prosecutor at
Johnson‘s removal trial in the Senate. The
Massachusetts Congressman‘s poor performance,
however, has often been cited as a factor in
Johnson‘s acquittal.

Butler was an almost perennial candidate for
governor of Massachusetts, running
unsuccessfully in 1871, 1873, 1874, 1878, and
1879, before being elected in 1882. In his final
bid for office, he was the Presidential nominee of
the Greenback-Labor and Anti-Monopoly parties
in 1884, polling less than 2% of the popular
vote. Butler died in Washington, D.C.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Dictionary of American
Biography; Harper‘s Weekly Encyclopedia of
United States History; and Mark Boatner, The
Civil War Dictionary




                                                     27
Thaddeus Stevens
Thaddeus Stevens was born in Danville, Vermont. He
suffered from many hardships during his childhood,
including a club foot. His father was an alcoholic who was
unable to hold a steady job and who abandoned the family
before dying in the War of 1812. His mother worked as a
maid or housekeeper to support her children. Stevens
graduated from Dartmouth College in 1814, then moved to
York, Pennsylvania, where he taught school and studied
law. After admission to the bar, he established a successful
law practice, first in Gettysburg, then in Lancaster.

Stevens served for several years in the Pennsylvania state
legislature before his election to Congress in 1848 as an
antislavery Whig. He opposed the fugitive slave law and
the Compromise of 1850. In 1856, Stevens was reelected
to Congress as a member of the new antislavery
Republican party, and soon wielded great power as the
chair of the important House Ways and Means Committee.
As a passionate believer in the principles of Radical
                                                                         Thaddeus Stevens
Republicanism, the "Great Commoner," as he was known,
pushed for emancipation and black suffrage.                         (4 April 1792 - 11 August 1868)
                                                               Source: History of Congress, 1867-69, Vol.
Stevens was an early and vehement critic of President                               I
Andrew Johnson‘s Reconstruction policy and eventually
became a leader in the effort to impeach the president. An
advocate of treating Southern states during Reconstruction
as "conquered provinces," Stevens encouraged strong,
sweeping action by the federal government to revolutionize
the institutions and culture that bolstered white supremacy
in the South. The measures he supported included the
Fourteenth Amendment and an unsuccessful plan to
confiscate plantations and redistribute the land to former
slaves. He was a member of Congress‘ joint committee on
Reconstruction, but it was dominated by moderates.
During Johnson‘s impeachment trial, Stevens was so ill that
he had to be carried into the Senate chamber and died in
Washington, D. C., less than three months after the
President‘s acquittal.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Weekly Encyclopedia of
United States History; James McPherson, Battle Cry of
Freedom; and James McPherson, Ordeal by Fire.




                                                                                                      28
James Brooks
James Brooks was born in Portland, Maine. His father was killed at sea in the War of 1812, leaving
the family in poverty. Young Brooks had to quit public school to work for a storekeeper, but the
man soon helped the lad get an education. In 1831, he graduated from Waterville College (now
Colby College). He worked as a schoolteacher as he studied law and began writing for the Portland
Advertiser. He passed the bar, but decided on a career in journalism. He gained public renown as
a correspondent covering national politics in Washington, D. C., and for his sketches of Southern
life, especially of the Creek, Cherokee, and Choctaw tribes.

In 1835, Brooks was elected to the Maine state legislature as a Whig, but failed the next year in
his bid to enter Congress. He moved to New York City and in 1836 established the New York
Express, described as a commercial not a political newspaper, although it backed the Whig cause.
Brooks worked on William Henry Harrison‘s Log Cabin campaign in 1840, was elected to the New
York state assembly in 1847, and served two terms in Congress as a Whig, 1849-1853. He
supported the Compromise of 1850 and in 1854 briefly identified with the Native American party
before switching his allegiance to the Democratic party. He endorsed Buchanan in 1856, Douglas
in 1860, and vigorously urged that the South be allowed to "depart in peace" in early 1861.

During the Civil War, Brooks was a Peace (Copperhead) Democrat and was elected to Congress in
1863. He was reelected in 1865, but his opponent successfully challenged the election, forcing
Brooks to resign in early 1866. He was reelected in the fall of 1866 and remained in Congress until
his death in 1873. Brooks served on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and was
twice nominated by the Democrats as Speaker. As a member of the Reconstruction Committee, he
condemned Republican "carpetbag" state governments in the South and insisted on a quick,
lenient return of the former Confederate states to the Union. He was a leading opponent of the
effort to impeach President Johnson. Brooks was appointed by Johnson as a government director
of the Union Pacific Railroad, but he became involved in the Credit Mobilier scandal and was
censured by the House for accepting a bribe. In 1872, while touring the world, he contracted a
fever in India. The added stress of the Credit Mobilier scandal further undermined his health.
Brooks died in Washington, D. C.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Source consulted: Dictionary of American Biography




                                                                                                 29
Alexander Hamilton Stephens
Alexander Stephens was born near
Crawfordsville, Georgia, and was orphaned as a
child. He graduated from Franklin College in
1832 and was admitted to the bar in 1834. As a
Whig, he served in the Georgia state house,
1834-1841, was elected to the state senate in
1842, and served as a U. S. Representative,
1843-1859. A proponent of state sovereignty and
a defender of slavery, Stephens favored the
annexation of Texas, played a leading role in the
Compromise of 1850, and supported the Kansas-
Nebraska Act of 1854. After the Whig party
collapsed, he joined the Democrats and backed
Douglas in the presidential election of 1860.
Toombs, along with fellow-Georgians Howell
Cobb and Robert Toombs, formed a triumvirate
opposing Southern secession.                                               Alexander Hamilton Stephens
                                                                          (11 February 1812 - 4 March 1883)
After Lincoln‘s election in 1860, Cobb and
Toombs endorsed secession, but Stephens stood
firm against it at the Georgia state convention.
When the delegates voted to secede, however,
Stephens acquiesced and was later elected Vice
President of the Confederacy. He was a leader of
the moderate faction of Confederates and an
advocate of a peaceful resolution of the war.
After the war, he was imprisoned in Boston for
five months in 1865, then released, whereupon
Georgians reelected him to the U. S. Senate
under the terms of President Johnson‘s lenient
Reconstruction plan. Radical Republicans,
however, refused to recognize the new state
governments in the South and Stephens was not
allowed to take his seat. With the formal end of
Reconstruction, he returned to Congress, serving
in the House from 1877 until 1882, when he was
elected Governor of Georgia. He was the author
of A Constitutional View of the Late War Between
the States (1868-70). He died in Atlanta,
Georgia.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of United States History; Mark
Boatner, Civil War Dictionary




                                                                                                              30
William Maxwell Evarts
William Evarts was born in Boston, Massachusetts, the son
of a clergyman. In 1837, he graduated from Yale, then
studied law at Harvard before being admitted to the New
York bar in 1840. He became one of nation‘ s leading
lawyers, and served as U. S. Attorney for the District of
New York, 1847-1853. During the Civil War, President
Lincoln sent him twice to Great Britain in order to convince
the British not to construct ships for use by the
Confederate navy.

In 1868, President Johnson chose Evarts as a member of
his defense team during the President‘s removal trial in the
Senate. The lawyer had been suggested by Secretary of
State William Seward, a fellow-Republican and friend from
New York. In mid-April, the President privately expressed
his dissatisfaction with Evarts, whom he thought had let
House prosecutor Benjamin Butler get away with character
assassination. By early May, however, an emotionally
rejuvenated Johnson concluded that he was "greatly                  William Maxwell Evarts
pleased with Evarts‘ efforts." A talented orator, he gave a    (6 February 1818 - 28 February 1901)
four-day summation at the trial. Following the President‘s           Source: Harper's Weekly
acquittal, Johnson named Evarts Attorney General, again
at Seward‘s suggestion, after the Senate had rejected the
reappointment of Stanbery. This time, the Senate
approved the President‘s choice.

In 1871-1872, Evarts was appointed by President Grant as
the United States counsel at the Geneva Arbitration of the
Alabama Claims. In 1875, he was the principal lawyer in
the sensational Tilton-Beecher adultery trial. During the
electoral college controversy of 1877, Evarts served as
counsel for the Republicans. After President Rutherford B.
Hayes took office in March 1877, he appointed Evarts
Secretary of State. In 1885-1891, Evarts represented New
York in the U. S. Senate. He died in New York City.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Source consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of United States
History; William Degregorio, The Complete Book of U.S.
Presidents; Albert Castel, The Presidency of Andrew
Johnson; and "William M. Evarts" on the cyberschool
website.




                                                                                                      31
Henry Stanbery
Henry Stanbery was born in New York City. He graduated
from Washington College (Pennsylvania) in 1819, was
admitted to the bar in 1824, then established a legal
practice in Ohio. He served as Ohio‘s attorney general,
1846-1851, and as a delegate to the Ohio constitutional
convention in 1850. President Andrew Johnson
unsuccessfully nominated him to the Supreme Court, but
was able to garner Senate confirmation of Stanbery as
Attorney General. Stanbery was a conservative Republican
and came to the office with little influence in national
political affairs.

The new Attorney General played a key role in Johnson‘s
Reconstruction and impeachment battles against the
Radical Republican Congress. In early 1867, he joined
former Attorney General Jeremiah Black in preparing
Johnson‘ s veto message of the first Military Reconstruction
Act, which they deemed to be unconstitutional. In May,
Stanbery prepared an opinion on Congressional
Reconstruction policies that he presented before President
Johnson and the Cabinet. The Attorney General accused                       Henry Stanbery
military officials of violating the rights of state officials and   (20 February 1803 - 26 June 1881)
state governments without proper authority, and upheld                   Source: Harper's Weekly
the efforts of the President to control the Reconstruction
process. The entire cabinet supported Stanbery‘s position
except for Secretary of War Stanton. The Congress,
however, ignored all of the Attorney General‘s arguments
and passed the Third Military Reconstruction Act in July.

In early 1868, Stanbery advised Johnson not to remove
Stanton from office, but the president chose not to listen.
When impeachment proceeding began, Stanbery resigned
as Attorney General to head Johnson‘s team of defense
lawyers. His first act was to insist that the president should
heed counsel on all points and stop talking to the press.
After the Senate acquitted Johnson, the president placed
Stanbery‘s name before them for reappointment as
Attorney General. The Senate rejected the proposal, but
quickly approved another member of Johnson‘s defense
counsel, Republican William Evarts, for the position.
Stanbery died in New York City.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of United States
History ; Albert Castel, The Presidency of Andrew Johnson.




                                                                                                        32
Salmon Portland Chase
Salmon P. Chase was born in Cornish, New Hampshire, the
ninth of eleven children. At the age of twelve, he was
placed in the care of his uncle, Philander Chase, a well-
known Episcopal bishop in Ohio and, later, founder of
Kenyon College. After studying at the bishop‘s school,
followed by a year at Cincinnati College, young Chase
returned to New Hampshire and graduated Phi Beta Kappa
from Dartmouth College in 1826. He moved to
Washington, D. C., where he taught school and studied law
under William Wirt, the U.S. Attorney General. Chase
passed the bar in 1829 and opened a law practice in
Cincinnati. He won praise for his annotated collection of
the Statutes of Ohio (3 vols.), which soon became the
authoritative reference work in the state judicial system.

In 1834, he defended abolitionist editor and activist James
Birney for harboring a runaway slave. Chase became
convinced that slavery was a sin and that blacks deserved
equal civil rights. He soon began defending the slaves
themselves, causing his opponents to label him the
"Attorney General of Fugitive Slaves." He was one of the
organizers of the Liberty party and, in 1848, of the Free-        Salmon Portland Chase
Soil party in Ohio. In 1849, a coalition of Free-Soil and
                                                               (13 January 1808 - 7 May 1873)
Democratic legislators elected him to represent Ohio in the
U. S. Senate. During his single term, Chase introduced the        Source: Harper's Weekly
successful Pacific Railroad Act and vehemently condemned
the fugitive slave bill that became part of the Compromise
of 1850. His opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of
1854 provoked him to organize the Anti-Nebraska party in
Ohio, which soon became the new Republican party. He
was elected governor of Ohio in 1855 as a Republican and
reelected in 1857. As governor he advocated public
education, prison reform, and women‘s rights.

Chase‘s political goal was to become President of the
United States, but he failed to gain the Republican
nomination in either 1856, 1860, or 1864. The Ohio
legislature decided to return him to the U. S. Senate in
1861, where he served but two days before resigning to
become Lincoln‘s Secretary of the Treasury. During the
Civil War, he faced the daunting task of financing the
Union war effort and maintaining the nation‘s solvency. He
created a national banking system, issued fiat money, and
established an Internal Revenue Division. Chase was a
constant critic of Lincoln‘s policies, inundating the
President with unsolicited advice and proffering his
resignation four times in fits of pique. In October 1864,
Lincoln finally accepted the Secretary‘s resignation, but in
December appointed him as the new Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, a position he held until his death in 1873.

In one of his first acts as Chief Justice, Chase appointed
John Rock as the first African-American attorney to argue

                                                                                                33
cases before the Supreme Court. In March 1868, Chase
presided over the removal trial of the impeached President
Johnson in the U.S. Senate. The Chief Justice brought to
the trial a much needed air of dignity and impartiality. As
the first impeachment trial of a President under the
Constitution, Chase realized that the procedure would set
important precedents. He insisted that the Senate conduct
itself as a court of law, not as a legislative body.

Chase was unable to forge a solid majority during his
tenure as Chief Justice and often found himself in dissent
on such important cases as Ex parte Milligan (1866),
Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and the Slaughterhouse Cases
(1873). In Texas v. White (1869), however, he authored
the majority opinion that ruled secession unconstitutional
and reaffirmed the Congressional right to guarantee
republican government in the states. This decision
essentially endorsed Congressional control over the
Reconstruction process.

In 1868, Chase sought the presidential nomination of the
Democratic party, but was passed over because of his
stance in favor of voting rights for black men. Thereafter
he largely withdrew from partisan politics, although he
opposed Grant‘s reelection in 1872. Chase died in New
York City.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of United States
History; William Degregorio, The Complete Book of U.S.
Presidents; and Lydia L. Rapoza, "Salmon P. Chase" on the
Revolution to Reconstruction website




                                                              34
Benjamin Franklin Wade
Benjamin Wade was born near Springfield,
Massachusetts. In 1821, he moved to Ohio, and
in 1827 he was admitted to the bar. He was
elected prosecuting attorney in 1835, a state
senator in 1837, and represented Ohio in the U.
S. Senate, 1841-69. As a leading anti-slavery
advocate in the Senate he opposed the Kansas-
Nebraska Act. During the Civil War, he was chair
of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the
War and sponsored the Wade-Davis Bill (1864),
an early attempt by Congress to wrest control
over the Reconstruction process from the
President. The bill stipulated Confederate
disfranchisement, a loyalty oath of 50 percent of
the electorate, and abolition of slavery before a
state could be readmitted to the Union. It was
pocket-vetoed by President Lincoln.
                                                           Benjamin Franklin Wade
Wade joined other Radical Republicans to                (27 October 1800 - 2 March 1878)
contravene President Johnson‘s Reconstruction       Source: History of Congress, 1867-69, Vol.
policies and attempt to oust him from office.                           I
Wade‘s position as president pro tem of the
Senate made him next in line to succeed to the
Presidency. That caused several Moderate and
Conservative Republicans to resist the movement
to impeach and remove Johnson because they
considered Wade to be a dangerous demagogue
and opposed his stance on other issues,
especially his support of "soft money." Wade
died in Jefferson, Ohio.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Source(s) consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of
United States History; Albert Castel, The
Presidency of Andrew Johnson.




                                                                                           35
William Pitt Fessenden

William Pitt Fessenden was born in Boscawen,
New Hampshire. He graduated from Bowdoin
College in Brunswick, Maine in 1823. He studied
law for four years and was admitted to the Maine
bar in 1827. He moved to Portland, Maine, in
1829.

He served several terms as a state legislator and
a Congressman, representing the Whig party in a
Democratic State. He became a Senator in 1854
and served until 1864 when President Abraham
Lincoln asked him to succeed Salmon P. Chase as
Secretary of the Treasury. In March 1865, a
month before Lincoln‘s assassination, he resigned
and was succeeded by Hugh McCulloch.

Fessenden returned to the Senate, serving from
1865 to 1869, and voted against the                         William Pitt Fessenden
impeachment of Andrew Johnson. As a                   (16 October 1806 – 8 September 1869)
conservative Republican, he strongly disagreed      Source: History of Congress, 1867-69, Vol.
with many of the economic and political policies                        I
of Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio who, as
acting Vice President, would have become
President if Johnson had been removed from
office; moreover, Fessenden had been a political
rival of Wade‘s for the position as President pro
tem of the Senate, that Wade acquired.
Therefore, he probably voted against impeaching
Andrew Johnson both for reasons of principle
and personal dislike of his potential successor.
He died the next year in Portland, Maine.

John Adler, HarpWeek Publisher

Source: Century Cyclopedia of Names




                                                                                           36
James Wilson Grimes
James Grimes was born in Deering, New
Hampshire. He became a lawyer and moved to
Iowa in 1836. He was the Whig governor of Iowa
from 1854 – 1858, and then became a
Republican Senator from 1859 -1869. He voted
against the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in
1868, probably out of both principle and a strong
dislike of Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio who,
as President pro tem of the Senate, would have
become President if Johnson had been removed
from office. He died in Burlington, Iowa.

John Adler, HarpWeek Publisher                            James Wilson Grimes
                                                    (20 October 1816 - 7 February 1872)
Source: Century Cyclopedia of Names                 Source: The Life of James W. Grimes




                                                                                          37
Lyman Trumbull
Lyman Trumbull was born in Colchester,
Connecticut. He began teaching school at the
age of sixteen and later studied law, being
admitted to the bar in 1837. He moved to
Belleville, in southern Illinois, and became active
in state government. In 1841, he was elected
secretary of state and, in 1848, he became a
justice on the state supreme court. He was
elected as a Democrat to the state legislature in
1854, then elected by that same body as a
United States Senator a few months later in
1855. He became a Republican because of his
opposition to the expansion of slavery, and was
reelected to the Senate as a Republican in 1861
and 1867.

Trumbull was one of seven Republicans who                        Lyman Trumbull
broke party ranks and voted against the                   (12 October 1813 - 25 June 1896)
conviction of President Johnson during his            Source: History of Congress, 1867-69, Vol.
impeachment trial in the Senate. The Senator                              II
was dubious about the legitimacy of the
impeachment process, had fears that it would
ultimately hurt the Republican party politically,
and was contemptuous of Benjamin Wade, who
was next in line for the Presidency. In 1872, he
joined other Liberal Republicans in supporting
Horace Greeley‘s presidential candidacy against
the reelection of President Grant. In 1880,
Trumbull was the unsuccessful Democratic
gubernatorial nominee in Illinois. A long-time
advocate of "soft money," he supported the
Populist party in the 1890s. He died in Chicago.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Harper‘s Encyclopedia of
United States History; Albert Castel, The
Presidency of Andrew Johnson




                                                                                             38
George William Curtis
George William Curtis was born into a prosperous family in
Providence, Rhode Island. As a teenager, he moved to
New York City when his father took a position with
Continental Bank. Educated by private tutors and in a
boarding school, Curtis and his older brother, Burrill, spent
18 months at the Brook Farm commune in order to take
advantage of its academic opportunities. The Curtis
brothers then sojourned to Concord, Massachusetts, where
they lived among some of America‘s leading literary
figures, such as Emerson, Hawthorne, and Thoreau. From
1846 to 1850, the Curtis brothers undertook a Grand Tour
of Europe and the Middle East.

Upon his return to the United States, George William Curtis
began a career that combined journalism and literature.
During the 1850s, he worked as a critic and travel writer
for the New York Tribune, an editor for the short-lived but
highly esteemed Putnam‘s Magazine, and a columnist for                George William Curtis
Harper‘s Monthly ("Easy Chair") and Harper‘s Weekly             (24 February 1824 - 31 August 1892)
("Lounger"). In 1863, he was named editor of Harper‘s             Source: George William Curtis &
Weekly, although the actual running of the newspaper was                the Genteel Tradition
left to a series of managing editors. During this period,
Curtis also became a best-selling and critically-acclaimed
author of travel books and novels.

From his position as the editorial writer for Harpers‘ two
news publications, Curtis sought to influence public opinion
in support of a number of political and social reforms.
These included: emancipation; civil rights and social
equality for African-Americans, Native Americans, and
women; civil service reform; public education; and
environmental conservation.

Curtis was for years a loyal, albeit independent-minded,
Republican, who in the early 1870s joined forces with
illustrator Thomas Nast to attack the corrupt Democratic
political machine in New York City, known as the Tweed
Ring. In 1884, the two men bolted the Republican party
and used their respective talents and positions to excoriate
the party‘s presidential nominee, James Blaine, for his
alleged corruption and opposition to reform. In 1892,
Curtis died at his home on Staten Island.

Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek

Sources consulted: Robert C. Kennedy, "George William
Curtis," Dictionary of Literary Biography.




                                                                                                      39
John Wein Forney
Of German extraction, John Forney was born in Lancaster,
the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country. At the age of
thirteen, he left school to begin working, first in a store,
then as an apprentice to the printer of the Lancaster
Journal. In 1837, he purchased an interest in the
financially troubled Lancaster Intelligencer, for which he
became editor. In two years, he was able to make the
newspaper profitable enough to allow him to merge it with
the Journal. Forney used the newspaper to promote the
political career of James Buchanan, a fellow Democrat
from Lancaster. In 1845, Forney was named by President
Polk as surveyor of the port of Philadelphia. Moving to that
city, he became co-owner and editor of another
newspaper, the Pennsylvanian.

Forney was elected as clerk of the U. S. House of
Representatives in 1851, serving in that position until
1855. In 1852, he became editorial writer for a Democratic
organ, the Washington Daily Union. In 1854, he became a
partner and helped the newspaper secure printing
contracts with the House of Representatives, thereby                       John Wein Forney
providing it with a handsome, steady income. He left the          (30 September 1817 - 9 December 1881)
clerkship of the House to work on Buchanan‘s presidential
election campaign. After his election in 1856, Buchanan
                                                                         Source: Harper's Weekly
was unable to secure a political position for Forney, so the
journalist returned to Philadelphia in 1857 to start an
independent Democratic newspaper called the Press. He
soon began to support Stephen Douglas in his fight against
the Buchanan administration over the Kansas question.
Forney was reelected clerk of the House in 1859, and, as a
Republican, served as secretary of the Senate from 1861 to
1868.

In 1861, Forney established the Washington Sunday
Morning Chronicle, adding a daily edition (the Daily
Morning Chronicle) in 1862. The newspaper‘ s expansion           In 1870, Forney sold the Chronicle and again
was allegedly at the urging of President Lincoln, who            returned to Philadelphia, where in 1871 he became
wanted the journal to counter criticism of the                   collector of the port. In 1878, he established and
administration by the New York Tribune. In the Press and         edited Progress, a weekly magazine. Switching back
the Chronicle, Forney supported Lincoln and, in the              to the Democratic party, he authored the campaign
beginning of his term, Andrew Johnson. The editor soon           biography of Democratic Presidential nominee
joined the Radical Republicans, though, to become one of         Winfield Scott in 1880. He also published Anecdotes
the Johnson‘s most strident critics. Uncharacteristically, the   of Public Men (2 vols., 1873-1881), The New
President refused the temptation to counterattack,               Nobility (1881), and other works. He died in
explaining "I do not waste my ammunition on dead ducks."         Philadelphia.
But Johnson‘s disparaging dismissal of Forney itself
became ammunition in the arsenal of Thomas Nast and              Robert C. Kennedy, HarpWeek
other political cartoonists who used "dead duck" to
symbolize Johnson‘s lack of political clout.                     Sources consulted: Dictionary of American
                                                                 Biography; Mark Summers, The Press Gang




                                                                                                                 40
Thomas Nast
Thomas Nast was born in Landau, Germany and came to
America in 1846. His father was a musician who played in
theatres, and young Tommy was exposed to Shakespeare
and other plays at an early age.

His first illustration for Harper‘s Weekly appeared in 1859
and his last one in 1896. Most of his approximate 2200
cartoons for Harper‘s Weekly were drawn between 1862
and 1886, an average of almost two per week.

Nast originated many symbols including the Republican
elephant and the Tammany tiger. He popularized the
Democratic donkey and the current fat and jolly image of
Santa Claus.

During the Civil War, Nast‘s depictions of Southern guerilla
raids and atrocities reportedly led Abraham Lincoln to call
him the Union‘s best recruiter. Two of his 1864 cartoons
were used as major election posters by the Lincoln-
Johnson campaign. In fact, Nast‘s cartoons played a key                      Thomas Nast
role in the re-election of Lincoln in 1864, the election of     (27 September 1840 – 7 December 1902)
Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 and his re-election in 1872, and               Source: Harper's Weekly
the defeat of Republican James G. Blaine by Grover
Cleveland in 1884. However, Nast probably is best known
for his powerful series of cartoons that led to the defeat of
Boss Tweed and his "Ring" in 1871.

Nast was just coming into his own as a satirical cartoonist
when Andrew Johnson became President in April 1865. He
disagreed with Johnson almost from the outset, and
lampooned him as "King Andy" and as a Roman emperor in
work which retains visual impact even today.

After Nast supported Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1884 -
as a ―Mugwump‖ or renegade Republican - he lost his
popularity among Republicans. He was only 44, but his
work was in decline. He stopped cartooning regularly for
Harper‘s Weekly in 1886, and lost most of his savings in a
Wall Street swindle the previous year. He died of yellow
fever in Guayaquil, Ecuador, where President Theodore
Roosevelt had appointed him consul in 1902.

John Adler, HarpWeek Publisher




                                                                                                        41
Read this article to help you prepare the case against President Johnson.
This is a primary document, and you will need to pull out all evidence
needed to prepare your opening and closing arguments.
Editorial
Harper's Weekly, April 18, 1868,
page 242

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
The case of the Managers of the House against the President, as we have elsewhere stated, has been conducted with
great skill. The chain of evidence is continuous; nor has it been broken, or in any degree weakened, by the onsets in
cross-examination of the President‘s counsel. Those gentlemen, or most of them, are very eminent lawyers. The ability
of Mr. Stanbery has been manifested to the country while he was Attorney-General. Judge Curtis is acknowledged to
be one of the most accomplished jurists in the United States. Mr. Evarts is also a very distinguished lawyer—a man of
remarkably clear, alert, and incisive mind. The other gentlemen of the President‘s counsel, Mr. Nelson and Mr.
Groesbeck, have taken no part in the trial during the presentation of the case by the Managers.

There can be little question that upon all points susceptible of proof by evidence the Managers have justified their
articles; and it was illustrative of the peculiar tact of General Butler that he reserved to the last one of his strongest
points, and somewhat surprised and annoyed his antagonists when he produced it. This was the testimony of Mr.
Creecy, Appointment-Clerk of the Treasury Department, and the autograph letter of the President to Secretary
M‘Culloch last August, notifying him that he had suspended Mr. Stanton in pursuance of the Tenure-of-Office Act,
thereby shaming his own assertion that he had acted "Under the Constitution," and without recognizing the law in
question. Indeed, General Butler has unquestionably had the best of the week‘s work. Only one serious effort of his
has been baffled by the President‘s counsel; and Mr. Evarts‘s occasional caustic manner has not in the least disturbed
the vast imperturbability of the practical advocate.

The case for the Managers, notwithstanding the array of articles, was really very simple. The most of it is of course
already familiar, for all the transactions have been public. That there is a Tenure-of-Office law prescribing the
conditions under which certain officers, including the Secretary of War, are to be removed, is not denied. That Mr.
Stanton was peremptorily removed by the President during the session of the Senate is in evidence. That General
Thomas, having been previously reinstated by the President as Adjutant-General, was appointed by him Secretary of
War ad interim is proved. That General Thomas signed himself as such, and attempted to exercise the duties of the
office; that he declared his intention to obtain possession by force if resisted, and that he stated his failure to do so
was in consequence of the legal action of Mr. Stanton, is also proved. It is established further that the President
officially acknowledged the validity of the law by confessedly acting under its authority, while he declared that he did
not recognize it as binding; that in September, after the suspension of Mr. Stanton last summer, the President called
General Emory to the command of the Department of the District, and upon his arrival to assume command had a
detailed conversation in regard to the available military force there; that upon the day of the attempted removal of Mr.
Stanton the President sent for General Emory and asked him again about the troops and what changes had been
made; that when the General proceeded to explain the movements of regiments the President said he referred to
other changes made within a day or two, to which the General replied that he knew of none, and that as all orders
must by law pass through the hands of General Grant, if any new ones had been issued, he should of course be aware
of them; that the President seemed surprised, and when the General showed him the order directing all orders for the
army to pass through General Grant, the President said it was in derogation of his constitutional rights as Commander-
in-Chief, to which General Emory replied that the officers of the army were of opinion that it was their duty to obey
the order, which was in obedience to the law of Congress. It is further proved that the expressions ascribed to the
President in the speeches during his Western trip were actually used by him.

The attempt of the Managers to show, in further proof of conspiracy, by the testimony of Mr. Chandler, that Mr.
Edmund Cooper, late Private Secretary of the President, was made by him Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in order
that the money of the Government might be obtained by the President for his purposes, was overruled by the Senate;
the ground of its action being understood to be that the evidence would open too wide and irrelevant a range of
inquiry. This was the only apparently important point not made by the Managers, and this was not essential. They
closed the case promptly at the end of the first week, and the Senate then adjourned until the following Thursday to
give the President‘s counsel an opportunity to prepare themselves fully, with the understanding that they will not call a

                                                                                                                        42
great many witnesses.

The case is thus brought to the exact point which we have before indicated as the one upon which the force of the
President‘s counsel was most likely to be concentrated. Conceding the facts claimed and substantially proved, that the
law was regularly enacted, and that it forbade the removal during the session of the Senate of certain officers
appointed by the President without the approval of the Senate; conceding that Mr. Stanton was Secretary of War, and
was removed by the President without the consent of the Senate—then the question arises, was Mr. Stanton
appointed Secretary of War by President Johnson? If he were, the law has been violated. If he were not, the law does
not touch the case. The position taken by the Managers is revealed by a little remark of Mr. Wilson when he offered
the first evidence for the prosecution. After putting in the commission of Mr. Stanton, signed by President Lincoln, Mr.
Wilson said that it was the only commission the Managers proposed to prove, and that commission, in the judgment of
the Managers, made Mr. Stanton Secretary of War. The battle will be joined just at this point. We will not anticipate
the arguments, but the rule of common sense is plainly with the Managers. If a man holds an appointed office and the
appointing power is changed, but the new power directs him to remain, it seems to be tolerably clear that he is
reappointed. This is a subject, however, upon which there may be the utmost refinement of legal subtlety, of which
we shall doubtless have a notable exhibition.

Should the appointment of Mr. Stanton as Secretary be maintained by the Managers, and he be judged to stand within
the operation of the law, it is possible that the President‘s counsel may try to show that there was no improper
intention in its violation by the President. We doubt if the utmost skill can do this, for it is impossible to destroy the
evidence that he had already recognized its validity. And even could it be done—even were it conceded that he had
always refused to acknowledge the constitutionality of the law, yet the violation by the Executive of a law regularly
enacted and not declared invalid by any court, is the substitution of the President‘s will for the law of the land, and the
intention must be inferred from the fact. The President is not charged with what is generally called a crime, but with a
high misdemeanor in the discharge of political functions. Should he be removed, he will not subsequently be pursued
with a criminal prosecution, as the Constitution authorizes when a crime otherwise punishable has been committed.
Indeed the case is very simple, and addresses itself to the common-sense of the whole country. Mr. Seward had
already asked the people of the United States whether they would have Mr. Johnson for king; and we presume that
the Senate will answer in their name—"Decidedly not."




Read the following editorial about the case President Johnson‘s attorney prepared in favor of the president. Use this
primary document to help you prepare for your opening and closing arguments:

Editorial
Harper's Weekly, April 25, 1868,
page 258

THE OPENING OF THE PRESIDENT‘S COUNSEL
The case for the President was opened by Mr. Curtis. His great renown as an able lawyer, possibly the head of his
profession in the country, and the weight of his personal character, gave peculiar interest to his plea. It was known
that he would say the best that could be said for his client; that he would subject the letter of the law to the most
trying ordeal of possible interpretation; and that he would ingeniously shift the lights and shadows upon the facts of
the case to favor his own view, in the manner of all great advocates, and with an effect deepened by the apparent
passionlessness of his manner. Indeed the advocate has no art so profoundly skillful as the air of severe judicial
impartiality: the appearance of seeking the truth for the truth‘s sake merely, and urging the acquittal of his client as a
homage which a magnanimous jury or Senate will naturally be anxious to offer to their own high sense of justice. This
quality Mr. Curtis possesses, and he has been trained in a school favorable to its development, for he has been
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

                                                                                                                        43
Yet, when the best has been said for the President, how unsatisfactory it is! The first thing that impresses the reader
of the argument of Mr. Curtis is that, however able, there is nothing new in it. The whole case is so simple and so
open to the public appreciation that the line of defense which was indicated at the very beginning of the trial as the
only possible line, is the one that has been followed. Mr. Curtis‘s argument subjects the Tenure-of-Office Act to the
most searching verbal analysis; but while it marshals probabilities and possibilities, and suggestions and surmises, with
consummate skill, the great facts steadfastly and impregnably confront them all. Mr. Curtis contends that Mr. Stanton
is not within the scope of the law; that the law is against precedent and interpretation; that, therefore, amidst the
conflict of authorities and the uniformity of practice, to question the validity of the law is not necessary hostility to the
Government; that Mr. Stanton has not been removed; and that Mr. Stanton having been removed the office was
vacant.

These points are elaborated with great ability; but the mind remains unconvinced, because it is part of the skill of the
orator to omit a whole series of facts which control the case, and which are familiar to the country. The argument of
Mr. Curtis assumes that an upright magistrate, anxious to execute the laws, and theoretically preserving order and
promoting concord at a time of great national disturbance, finds himself at last constrained to doubt the validity of a
law, and therefore seeks a judicial interpretation of its constitutionality. Were this really the case, Mr. Curtis would
perhaps not have made his ingenious plea, for the President would very possibly not have been impeached. He is
impeached because the violation of a law by this particular President under the peculiar circumstances in which he
stands is of itself evidence of intention. In another case it might not be. In another case, as we have formerly
supposed, and as Mr. Butler stated in his opening speech, there might have been a friendly understanding between
the Executive and the Legislature in order to test the law. But his is a very different case. If, under any circumstances,
such conduct upon the part of the Executive ought to be tolerated, and it is certainly very doubtful, in this case it
would be madness. Men must be judged by their conduct and character. If Andrew Johnson should be allowed to set
aside laws because he professed to have scruples as to their constitutionality, the country would deserve the anarchy
into which it would inevitably fall.

Mr. Curtis fortifies the doubts which the President professes to entertain by the opinion of many eminent men, and by
what he claims to be the settled interpretation. But the question is not of opinions, but of laws. The Tenure-of-Office
Bill may seem unwise to the shades of the great departed, but if laws were to be disregarded because great men had
prospectively condemned them, government would be at an end. Mr. Curtis farther says, that if the President did not
take the responsibility of testing the law in the Courts, it could not be tested. But if he takes the responsibility he must
also take the risk. One law properly passed is as binding upon him as another. If he is to execute only the laws which
he thinks constitutional, it makes no difference to an honest officer whether they immediately concern himself or
others. He has no right, as Mr. Curtis suggests, to leave them in the latter case to be tested by those whom they
affect. If a law be unconstitutional, the Executive ought not to connive at its execution; and if he is to be the judge in
any case, he is the judge in all cases. Nothing can be plainer, and no principle more vitally important, than that the
President must execute all the laws, without exception, which have not been adjudged unconstitutional, or resign. If
possible inconveniences result, they are not to be compared with the certain perils of any other course.

We doubt if Mr. Stanbery or Mr. Evarts can add weight to the argument of Mr. Curtis. Even should the witnesses for
the President establish what his counsel wish, we do not see how it could be sufficient. They certainly can not
disprove that the Tenure-of-Office Act is a law regularly enacted; that it has not been declared unconstitutional; that it
authorizes the Secretary of War, and the other Secretaries, to hold their offices "for and during the term of the
President by whom they may have been appointed, and one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate;" and that the President removed the Secretary of War without the advice and
consent of the Senate. And if Mr. Curtis has been unable to show that Mr. Stanton does not stand within the terms of
the law are his colleagues likely to do it?




                                                                                                                          44
News Article                                 go to the previous article in this
Harper's Weekly, April 25, 1868,                                        section
page 260                                 go to the next article in this section

THE PRESIDENT‘S COUNSEL
We gave in the last Number of the Weekly the portraits of Messrs. Stanbery, Curtis, and Evarts, of President Johnson‘s
counsel, employed in the Impeachment trial. We give in this Number an accurate portrait of Mr. William S. Groesbeck.

Mr. Groesbeck is a native of New York, and about forty-two years of age. He removed to Cincinnati, Ohio, at an early
age. He was a member of the Commission of 1852 for codifying the laws of Ohio, and also of the Constitutional
Convention of the previous year. He was a member of the Thirty-fifth Congress. He was also a member of the Peace
Congress of 1861, and was subsequently in the State Senate of Ohio.

The trial of the impeachment of the President was resumed in the Senate on April 9, with the opening speech for the
defense made by Mr. Curtis. On the subsequent day Adjutant-General Thomas was examined as to the instructions
under which he attempted to take possession of the War Office. The testimony as far as elicited does not as yet show
the line of defense proposed by the counsel of the President.




                                                                                                                   45
You might use the editorial regarding the eventual outcome of the trial to help you with your case.

Editorial                                        go to the previous article in this
Harper's Weekly, May 9, 1868,                                               section
page 290                                     go to the next article in this section

THE END OF THE TRIAL
The result of the great trial will probable be known when this paper is issued. Nothing new in evidence, except the
extraordinary dispatch to Governor Parsons, of Alabama and nothing new in argument has been developed during all
the long proceedings. That the President thought the law unconstitutional; that the Cabinet were of the same opinion;
that he would assert that Mr. Stanton does not stand within the law; that he would profess an edifying purity of
purpose, and urge that he alone could bring the law to the judicial test, were all familiar propositions. They have been
amplified, intensified, elaborated, combined, and reiterated by the skillful counsel of the President, excepting Mr.
Nelson, whose speech, however well meant, must be regarded as a burlesque. But no dexterous decoration can make
vulgarity seem to be refinement, and no ability of the advocate can conceal the significance of familiar facts, or
bewilder the plain public judgment upon them.

For not the Senate only, but the whole country has been sitting as a Court of Impeachment. The country will also
render its verdict, whatever that of the Senate may be. It is not likely to be confused by the loud cry of congressional
absorption of power, because it sees that in the very nature of government, however skillfully checks and balances
may be devised, no checkmate can be supposed to be intended, and therefore the final, supreme power must reside
somewhere. It knows that in our system it resides with the people, under certain prescribed forms. Under those forms
it remains with them always and at every moment; and therefore, when the Executive in the judgment of the
representatives is accused of high misdemeanors, and in the judgment of the Senate is guilty and removed from
office, it is still the people exercising under those forms the supreme sovereign power. If the action of the President
within the limit of those of his powers which are vague and doubtful betrays a disposition to thwart the will of the
country as decidedly expressed in Congress, it is the duty of Congress to restrain and control his action as far as it
lawfully may, and to prevent the mischief which he may contemplate. And when his dullness or his daring transcend
the plain bounds of his official discretion it is the duty of the House instantly to arraign him, and in the name of the
people whom it represents to state why it demands his removal.

Mr. Boutwell‘s argument for the Managers was the clear, ample, admirable statement of the people against the
President. He showed conclusively that the assumption of the Executive was fatal to national peace; and his reasoning
upon the constitutional point of the senatorial advice as necessary to removal as to appointment was peculiarly good
and strictly harmonious with the seventy sixth Number of the Federalist, in which the question is fully discussed
contemporaneously with the formation of the Constitution.

With great force and sobriety Mr. Boutwell also urged the view that we have constantly advocated, that it is no excuse
for the violation of a law by the Executive that he wished to test its validity. He is sworn to see that the laws are
faithfully executed. If he may, after exhausting his veto, still continue to impose it, under the plea of seeking a judicial
approval of the constitutionality of the law, the Congress of the United States is reduced to a mere committee of
suggestion, and if Congress should fail to exercise its rightful authority to withstand such usurpation, its assent would
be its own abolition as the chief department of the Government, and the consummation of a revolution which would
inevitably lead to an overthrow of our whole symmetrical political system. For such an act no good motive can be
pleaded, because none can be supposed. When an officer has taken an oath faithfully to execute a law, and then
deliberately violates it upon a plea which would make him the judge in every instance whether he would observe his
oath or not, and upon a plea which necessarily clothes him with enormous and dangerous power, the fact that he says
it is all done for public welfare is of no importance. If he sincerely thinks it to be so, it is still of no importance. The will
of the most virtuous and sagacious man in the country can not be suffered to become the Government. If he try to
make it so the presumption is wholly against him; and it is not necessary to show that his motive is bad for an act

                                                                                                                              46
which is subversive of the fundamental law.

Nor upon the ground that Mr. Stanton does not stand within the law, and that, consequently, his removal was no
violation of the law, have we ever had any doubt. The intention of the law was plainly expressed during the debate
upon its passage. It was introduced after the determination of the President to thwart Congress was apparent, and
when Congress felt it to be, as it undoubtedly was, its duty to limit his action as stringently as it Constitutionally could.
It was felt that, if the President could remove his Cabinet at his pleasure and surround himself with men willing to be
his tools, the national peril was palpably increased. The passage of the law was resisted upon the very ground that it
perplexed the President in the selection of his political family and counselors. We heard this argument urged in the
Senate. It was repeated in the newspapers. The law was opposed as special legislation. It was defended upon the
ground that when peculiar peril revealed the necessity of a law, that fact could be no argument against it, provided
there were nothing objectionable in the principle. We know that certain leading men felt the law to be imperatively
necessary in order to retain Mr. Stanton in the War Department, which they considered to be an essential point. And
we think that events have justified their view.

If this were the intention, there is certainly no fair doubt of the words of the law. If we follow Mr. Groesbeck into what
we must call quibbling, the law says that the Secretary of War, with the other Secretaries, shall hold office "for and
during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed, and for one month after, subject to
removal" with the consent of the Senate. Now, President Lincoln appointed Mr. Stanton, and when the Tenure-of-
Office Act was passed Mr. Stanton held by President Lincoln‘s appointment, and for President Lincoln‘s term. The Vice-
President succeeding Mr. Lincoln, whether in the first or in the last week of his term, serves only for the remainder of
that term. Mr. Groesbeck says that the dead have no estate. Does Mr. Johnson, then, serve as President until the 15 th
of April 1869, which, according to Mr. Groesbeck‘s theory, is the end of his term of four years? If Mr. Lincoln had lived
until now would Mr. Johnson have served for four years from now? Certainly he would, unless he is filling the
Presidential term for which Mr. Lincoln was elected. Mr. Groesbeck‘s question of "which term" of Mr. Lincoln‘s is not so
important as he seemed to think it. A Secretary appointed by a President and continued by him upon his re-election is,
in common-sense, reappointed. And if Mr. Stanton‘s office were vacated by the Tenure-of-Office Law, then he has
been holding the office by the President‘s permission, who has thus contravened the second section of the Act. But if
Mr. Johnson believed that Mr. Stanton did not stand within the law why did he suspend him in accordance with the
law, and thus acknowledge by his official action that he recognized it as valid? Indeed, the President has no defense
but a quibble—and even the quibble is not sound. Mr. Thaddeus Stevens‘s speech, which it was supposed might be
very intemperate in tone, was admirable both in substance and manner. Two sentences we quote, and commend to
the Chicago Convention: "Good deeds will never be done, wise acts will never be executed, except by the virtuous and
the conscientious. May the people of this republic remember this good old doctrine when they next meet to select
their rulers, and may they select only the brave and the virtuous."

If the judgment of the Senate shall be what we have no doubt the intelligent public opinion of the country expects,
Andrew Johnson will be removed from the office whose sworn duty he has violated, and which he has disgraced
beyond precedent. He is not a man to remain silent. He will doubtless do all that he can do by speeches upon the
stump to secure the ascendancy of the party that was friendly to the rebellion, and hates the results which the war
secured—results which will surely be gradually established in the national conviction and policy. If removed, he passes
from public official life without a serious regret upon the part of any human being. He cannot claim for himself, nor
will any man claim for him, the dignity and consideration of a martyr to great principles. If, indeed, his character and
career had been spotless, noble, and humane; had he committed the same offense with a clear and palpably upright
purpose, although it might have been necessary to show by the last resort that no man, with whatever honest
intention, must presume to substitute his will for the law, yet then the homage that the world always gladly pays to
honest error and humane purpose would have followed his retirement.

If the judgment of the Senate shall be other than we believe it must be, that of the intelligence and loyalty of the
country will still remain. The usurpation indeed will continue and increase. The national agitation will be deepened.
The spirit that rebelled, and is still defiant, will be quickened into still more baleful activity. The country will move one
step nearer to breaking its pecuniary faith with its creditors and its moral faith with the freedmen. The heart of every
lover of liberty and of free institutions in the world will ache as he watches the results of the great victory of
civilization delayed. But the conscience, and intelligence, and devotion that successfully surmounted every trial of the
war would not decline the embittered political contest that the acquittal of the President would provoke; and the same
sagacious, silent, resistless leader who triumphantly ended the war, would bring the old foe under a new face to
unconditional surrender.
                                                                                                                          47
Editorial
Harper's Weekly, May 30, 1868,
page 338

THE DECISION
The vote upon the eleventh article shows that the President will be acquitted. The adjournment until after the Chicago
Convention was doubtless for the purpose of obtaining a solemn demand of conviction from the authorized
representatives of the party through out the country assembled in Chicago. If this were the purpose, it seems to us
most unwise.

Suppose it to be successful. Suppose the Chicago Convention to insinuate, with the Tribune, that the Republican
Senators who vote according to their convictions are infamous scoundrels who have been bought with money; or with
the Philadelphia "boys in blue," to resolve that "James W. Grimes, William P. Fessenden, and Lyman Trumbull,
purporting to represent the loyal people of the United States, as well as Iowa, Maine, and Illinois, prompted by malice,
jealousy, disappointment, and perhaps baser motives which we blush to name, have conspired together to place the
Government, which we have saved from her armed foes, absolutely in control of its rebel enemies: that such a crime
is far more heinous than the surrender of an outpost to the enemy, and no punishment would express our utter
detestation of the three recreants who are today branded with an infamous notoriety: and that it is far better to have
died, as Senator Howard was willing to do, rich in the esteem of his countrymen than to live a degraded outcast and
friendless like James W. Grimes, William P. Fessenden, and Lyman Trumbull." Suppose this kind of resolution adopted
by the Chicago Convention and sent to each Republican Senator. Suppose that thereupon Senators Grimes, Trumbull,
Fessenden, Ross, Henderson, Van Winkle, and Fowler vote for conviction upon every article, and the President
consequently to be removed. Would the decision have any moral force? Would the Republican Party have
strengthened itself? Would the Senators mentioned be more worthy of respect, or would they be more respected than
they are now? Would not such a decision justly excite the derision of the world and the contempt of history?

Or suppose that, refusing to perjure themselves directly, these Senators resign and withdraw, thus securing the
conviction of the President, what is that but a shrinking from duty which is really indirect perjury? They have sworn to
do a certain duty conscientiously, and they recoil from it because of intimidation, and recoil in a manner which, by
their action, procures a result that they believe to be contrary to law and subversive of justice. Can they escape their
own condemnation or hope to elude that of those who look to them to stand fast at all costs for the moral freedom of
the Senate, and for judicial integrity?

We observe that Ex-Governor Israel Washburne, of Maine at a meeting in Portland, in speaking of Mr. Fessenden,
asked—with perfect courtesy, however—whether it might not be possible that one man was wrong and seveny-five
thousand men right? Surely Mr. Washburne upon reflection will see that he has not fairly stated the situation. Is Mr.
Fessenden the mouthpiece of seventy-five thousand men of Maine, or is he a sworn judge in a particular case? Is he
merely in this matter a representative of the men of Maine who are hostile to the President, or is he a representative
of the State under oath to do justice according to the evidence? Does not Mr. Washburne see that when we resolved
to resort to impeachment we renounced the removal of the President as a political or party measure, and aimed to
accomplish it by judicial methods? We engaged ourselves in honor to abide by those methods; and if, fearing their
failure, we attempt to coerce the court, we degrade our cause and rob our success of all its meaning.

The Chicago Convention will have adjourned when this paper is issued. The pressure upon it will be enormous to put
the party in a false position. But we believe that there will be good men enough among its members to reflect that
some victories cost too dear. A verdict extorted by a pistol held at the head of the judge is not very valuable. Should
this truth be forgotten in the heat of the crisis, should the counsel of passionate rather than of sensible men prevail,
and the Convention pass a resolution of censure upon the Republican Senators who are unable to believe that Mr.
Stanton stands within the Tenure-of-Office Act, we shall regard it as the expression of a momentary frenzy which the

                                                                                                                       48
delegates themselves will some day profoundly regret, and which will not be justified by the feeling of the most truly
intelligent and earnest Republicans.

But the duty of the Senators, with whom we indeed differ, will be only the plainer. They must follow their sincere
convictions, conscious that in so doing they maintain the only permanent principle of a free government; and their
task will be the more difficult because they will maintain it against the cry of the party which is its natural protector.




                                                                                                                             49
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

      [From Rules and Manual of the Senate; revised pursuant to S. Res. 479, 99–2, Aug. 16, 1986]

                                                                                                    50
I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on
their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the
Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to
receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are
ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the
Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ‗‗All
persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to
the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ——— ———‘‘; after which the articles shall be
exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper
order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due no-tice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o‘clock afternoon of the day (Sunday
excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such
articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless
otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment,
be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall
administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the
Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and
duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall
preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer of
the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a
request to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the oath by the Presiding Officer of the Senate and
shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial of the person impeached
therein.

V. The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders,
mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other
regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.

VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates,
writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience
to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations
which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the
Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful
orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the
Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of
trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on
the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and
redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some
Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate
for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the
Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the
Senate.

VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a
writ of summons shall issue to the person im-peached, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the
Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and file his answer to said articles
of impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate thereon; which writ shall be
served by such officer or person as shall be named in the precept thereof, such number of days prior to the day fixed
for such appearance as shall be named in such precept, either by the delivery of an attested copy thereof to the

                                                                                                                        51
person impeached, or if that can not conveniently be done, by leaving such copy at the last known place of abode of
such person, or at his usual place of business in some conspicuous place therein; or if such service shall be, in the
judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the person impeached to appear shall be given in such other manner,
by publication or otherwise, as shall be deemed just; and if the writ aforesaid shall fail of service in the manner
aforesaid, the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service may be made in such manner as the Senate
shall direct. If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on the day so
fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall
proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be entered, judgment may be entered
thereon without further proceedings.

IX. At 12:30 o‘clock afternoon of the day appointed for the return of the summons against the person impeached, the
legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary of the Senate shall administer
an oath to the returning officer in the form following, viz: ‗‗I, ——— ———, do solemnly swear that the return made by
me upon the process issued on the —— day of ———, by the Senate of the United States, against ——— ———, is
truly made, and that I have performed such service as therein described: So help me God.‘‘ Which oath shall be
entered at large on the records.

X. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him. If he
appears, or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself, or by agent or
attorney, naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he appears. If he does not appear, either personally
or by agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded.

XI. That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appoint a
committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may
determine, and for such purpose the committee so appointed and the chairman thereof, to be elected by the
committee, shall (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) exercise all the powers and functions conferred upon the
Senate and the Presiding Officer of the Senate, respectively, under the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate
when sitting on impeachment trials.

        Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on
        impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of the committee so appointed. The committee so
        appointed shall report to the Senate in writing a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings and
        testimony had and given before such committee, and such report shall be received by the Senate and the
        evidence so received and the testimony so taken shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject to
        the right of the Senate to determine competency, relevancy, and materiality, as having been received and
        taken before the Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent the Senate from sending for any witness and
        hearing his testimony in open Senate, or by order of the Senate having the entire trial in open Senate.

        XII. At 12:30 o‘clock afternoon, or at such other hour as the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the
        trial of an impeachment, the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the
        Secretary shall give notice to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon the
        impeachment of ——— ———, in the Senate Chamber.

        XIII. The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial of an impeachment shall be (unless
        other-wise ordered) 12 o‘clock m.; and when the hour shall arrive, the Presiding Officer upon such trial shall
        cause proclama-tion to be made, and the business of the trial shall proceed. The adjournment of the Senate
        sitting in said trial shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate; but on such adjournment the Senate
        shall resume the consideration of its legislative and executive business.

        XIV. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of
        legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of
        the Senate.

        XV. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard upon an impeachment.



                                                                                                                         52
XVI. All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or
relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions
arising during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only,
and if he, or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary‘s table.

XVII. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on be-half of the party producing them, and then cross-
examined by one person on the other side.

XVIII. If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be sworn, and give his testimony standing in his place.

XIX. If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, or to a manager, or to counsel of the person
impeached, or to offer a motion or order (except a motion to adjourn), it shall be reduced to writing, and put
by the Presiding Officer. The parties or their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering
questions pro-pounded at the request of any Senator and the merits of any such objection may be argued by
the parties or their counsel. Ruling on any such objection shall be made as provided in Rule VII. It shall not be
in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy.

XX. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be
kept open, unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decisions. A motion
to close the doors may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the motion shall be voted on
without debate by the yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record.

XXI. All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour
(unless the Senate otherwise orders) on each side.

XXII. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one person. The final argument on the merits may be made
by two persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and
the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.

XXIII. An article of impeachment shall not be divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time during the
trial. Once voting has commenced on an article of impeachment, voting shall be continued until voting has
been completed on all articles of impeachment unless the Senate adjourns for a period not to exceed one day
or adjourns sine die. On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be
taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles
presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be
entered; but if the person im-peached shall be convicted upon any such article by the votes of two-thirds of
the Members present, the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of such other matters as may be
determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing judgment. Upon pronouncing judgement, a certified copy
of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. A motion to reconsider the vote by
which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.

Form of putting the question on each article of impeachment.

The Presiding Officer shall first state the question; thereafter each Senator, as his name is called, shall rise in
his place and answer: guilty or not guilty.

XXIV. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders
and decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record,
subject, however, to the operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in
that case no member shall speak more than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on an
interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the
Senate, to be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and nays, unless
they be demanded by one-fifth of the members present. The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the
whole deliberation on the final question, and not on the final question on each article of impeachment.



                                                                                                                  53
     XXV. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form, viz: ‗‗You, ——— ———, do swear (or affirm, as the case
     may be) that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the United States and ——— ——
     —, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: So help you God.‘‘ Which oath shall be
     administered by the Secretary, or any other duly authorized person.

     Form of a subpena be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party
     impeached, or of his counsel.




Judges Script

      Read to Senators, who must swear:

     ‗‗I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the
     impeachment of Andrew Johnson now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and
     laws: So help me God.‘‘

     Form of summons to be issued and served upon the person impeached


     You, the said Andrew Jonsnon, are therefore hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the
     United States of America, at their Chamber in the city of Washington, on the 6 th (7th)day of December at 1:00
     o‘clock then and there to answer to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey,
     and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate of the United States shall make in the
     premises according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
     Hereof you are not to fail.
     Witness ——— ———, and Presiding Officer of the said Senate, at the city of Washington, this —— day of ——
     —, in the year of our Lord ———, and of the Independence of the United States the ———.

                                                                                                                54
        ——— ———,
        Presiding Officer of the Senate.

        Form of precept to be indorsed on said writ of summons

        ——— ———,
        Presiding Officer of the Senate.

        All process shall be served by the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.

        XXVI. If the Senate shall at any time fail to sit for the consideration of articles of impeachment on
        the day or hour fixed therefor, the Senate may, by an order to be adopted without debate, fix a day
        and hour for resuming such consideration




                                          Articles of Impeachment: Articles 1-9
                                                                                      st
   Article 1. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21 day of February, in the year of our
Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office and of the
requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M.
Stanton from the office of Secretary of the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been, therefor, duly
appointed and commissioned by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States as such
                                                                                   th
Secretary; and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12 day of August, in the year of our Lord
1867, and during the recess of said Senate, having suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and
                                                                                      th
within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, on the 12 day of December, in the year last
aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case,
and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily, until the next meeting of the
                                                     th
Senate, and said Senate therafterwards, on the 13 day of January, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly
considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, did refuse to concur in
said suspension; whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled "an act regulating the tenure of civil officer, "
passed March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew
                                                                                                             st
Johnson had then and there notice, and the said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21 day of
February, was lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the
removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:


                                                                                                                         55
Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President, by the Constitution and laws of the United States,
you are hereby removed from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will
terminate upon receipt of their communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General
of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all books, paper
and other public property now in your custody and charge. Respectfully, yours,

Andrew Johnson.

To the Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War

Which order was unlawfully issued, and with intent then are there to violate the act entitled "An act regulating the
tenure of certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867, and contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof,
and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the
Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said E. M. Stanton from the
office of Secretary for the Department of War, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then
and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

                           st
 Article 2. That on the 21 day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia,
said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office, and in violation
of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of
certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867, without the advice and consent of the Senate, then and there being in
session, and without authority of law, did appoint one L. Thomas to be Secretary of War ad interim, by issuing to said
Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority, in substance as follows, that is to say:

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary of the Department of War, you
are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the
discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records,
books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge. Respectfully yours,

Andrew Johnson.

To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General United States Army, Washington, D.C.

Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high
misdemeanor in office.

                                                                                    st
 Article 3. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21 day of February, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington in the District of Columbia, did commit, and was guilty
of a high misdemeanor in office, in this:? That without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then
and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War, ad interim,
without the advice and consent of the Senate, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, no vacancy
having happened in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no
vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which said appointment so made by Andrew Johnson of said Lorenzo
Thomas is in substance as follows, that is to say:?

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: The Hon. E. M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are
hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the
discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records,
books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge. Respectfully yours,

Andrew Johnson

                                                                                                                          56
To Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General

United States Army, Washington, D.C.

 Article 4. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of
                                                                                             st
his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the 21 day of February, in the year
of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and
with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, to hinder and
prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there, the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of
the United States, from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the
Constitution of the United States, and of the provisions of an act entitled "An act to define and punish certain
conspiracies," approved July 31, 1861, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and
there commit and was guilty of high crime in office.
Article 5. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of
                               st
his oath of office, on the 21 of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and on
                                                           th
divers others days and time ins aid year before the 28 day of said February, at Washington, in the District of
Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons in the House of Representatives
unknown, by force to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil
office," passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did attempt to prevent E. M. Stanton, then and
there being Secretary for the Department of Ward, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United
States, from holding said office, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there
commit and was guilty of high misdemeanor in office.
Article 6. That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the duties of his high office and of his
                           st
oath of office, on the 21 day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did
unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take and possess the property of the United Sates at
the War Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,"
approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain
civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there
commit a high crime in office.
Article 7. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of
                               st
his oath of office, on the 21 day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, and on divers other days in said year,
                th
before the 28 day of said February, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one
Lorenzo Thomas to prevent and hinder the execution of an act of the United States, entitled "An act regulating the
tenure of certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did unlawfully attempt to
prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, under the laws of the United
States, from holding said office to which he had been duly appointed and commissioned, whereby said Andrew
Johnson, President of the United States, did there and then commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
Article 8. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of
                               st
his oath of office, on the 21 day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia,
did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, to seize, take and possess the property of the United States in the
War Department, with intent to violate and disregard the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,"
passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a
high misdemeanor in office.
                                                                                    nd
Article 9. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 22 day of February, in the year of our
Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in disregard of the Constitution and the law of Congress duly
enacted, as Commander-in-Chief, did bring before himself, then and there, William H. Emory, a Major-General by
brevet in the Army of the United States, actually in command of the Department of Washington, and the military forces
therefor, and did and there, as Commander-in-Chief, declare to, and instruct said Emory, that part of the law of the
United States, passed March 2, 1867, entitled "an act for making appropriations for the support of the army for the year
ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes," especially the second section thereof, which provides, among other
things, that all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President and Secretary of War,
shall be issued through the General of the Army, and in case of his inability, through the next in rank was
unconstitutional, and in contravention of the commission of Emory, and therefore not binding on him, as an officer in
the Army of the United States, which said provisions of law had been therefore duly and legally promulgated by
General Order for the government and direction of the Army of the United States, as the said Andrew Johnson then
and there well knew, with intent thereby to induce said Emory, in his official capacity as Commander of the Department
of Washington, to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and receive, act upon and obey such orders as he, the
said Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General of the Army of the
United States, according to the provisions of said act, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office; and the House of Representatives, by
                                                                                                                          57
protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibition, at any time hereafter, any further articles of their accusation
or impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and also or replying to his answers,
which will make up the articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the same and every part thereof,
and to all and every other article, accusation or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall
require, do demand that the said Andrew Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office
herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be thereupon had and
given had and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.

An animate debate sprang up on the question of the adoption of the above articles, which was continued until March 2,
when they were adopted, and Speaker Colfax announced as managers of the impeachment trial on the part of the
House, Messrs. Thaddeus Stevens, B.F. Butler, John H. Bingham, George S. Boutwell, J.F. Wilson, T. Williams, and
John A. Logan.

It was then ordered that the articles agreed to by the House to be exhibited in its name and in the name of all the
people of the United States, against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, in maintenance of the
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors in office, be carried to the Senate by the managers
appointed to conduct and impeachment.



On the 2d of March, General Butler proposed an additional article, but as the vote on the previous articles was taken
on that day, final action was postponed until the 3d, when General Butler again reported it, remarking that, with but a
single exception, the managers favored the adoption of the article. He strongly urged the reception of the charges he
had prepared, saying:

"The articles already adopted presented only the bone and sinew of the offenses of Andrew Johnson. He wanted to
clothe that bone and sinew with flesh and blood, and to show him before the country as the quivering sinner that he is,
so that hereafter, when posterity came to examine these proceedings, it might not have cause to wonder that the only
offense charged against Andrew Johnson was a merely technical one. He would have him go down to posterity as the
representative man of this age, with a label upon him that would stick to him through all time."

The article was adopted. Yeas, 87; nays, 41? the only Republicans voting in the negative being Messrs. Ashley (Nev.),
Coburn, Griswold, Laflin, Mallory, Marvin, Pomeroy, Smith, Wilson, (La.), Wilson (Ohio), Windom and Woodbridge.

This article was made the tenth on the list, and is as follows:

  Article 10. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office
and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained
between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set
aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and
reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and
respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers
of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good
people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of
his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States,
convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United
States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on
divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate,
inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress
as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then
assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that
it to say: "Specification First. In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, I the Executive Mansion, to a
committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of
                                                   th
the United States, heretofore, to wit:? On the 18 day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1866, in a loud voice, declare
in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:?

"So far as the Executive Department of the government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to
heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and, to speak in a common

                                                                                                                          58
phrase, to prepare, as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character and co-extensive with the
wound. We thought and we think that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progresses, as reconstruction
seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and moving element
opposing it. In alluding to that element it shall go no further than your Convention, and the distinguished gentleman
who has delivered the report of the proceedings, I shall make no reference that I do not believe, and the time and the
occasion justify. We have witnessed in one department of the government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of
peace, harmony and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called or
which assumes to be the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only part of the States. We
have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and
make a disruption of States inevitable. We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon constitutional
rights, and violate day after day, and month after month, fundamental principles of the government. We have seen a
Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a
Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or
monarchy itself."

 "Specification Second. In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore to wit:? On the third day of
September, in the year of our Lord, 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice,
declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:?

“I will tell you what I did do? I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the government. In conclusion,
beside that Congress had taken much pains to poison the constituents against him, what has Congress done? Have
they done anything to restore the union of the States? No. On the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it: and
because he stood now where he did when the Rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor, Who had
run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factions and domineering, had undertaken to
poison the minds of the American people."

                                                                                                               th
 "Specification Third. In this case, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit:? On the 8 day of
September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, speaking of acts concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice,
declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:?

"Go on; perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you
do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in
calling out "New Orleans." If you will take up the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source and its immediate
cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New
Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned.
If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they knew that a convention was to be
called which was extinct by its powers having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government
was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the
population, called the colored population, and who had been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white
men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read
the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will
find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population? the black
population? to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that convention did assemble
in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the organized authorities in the State of
Louisiana, which had been organized by the government of the United States, and every man engaged in that
rebellion, in the convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been
recognized by the Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States,
and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the Radical Congress. So much for the
New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of blood that was
shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night.
But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have
been introduced here and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few
wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of
the elective franchise. I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance of me here, as
elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon
the government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a
traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting, and did arrest for a time, that which was called a

                                                                                                                           59
"Freedmen’s Bureau" bill. Yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced; I have been slandered; I have been
maligned; I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen, here to-night, it is very easy to indulge
in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out traitor, but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts
he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot? Judas! There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve Apostles. O,
yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had twelve Apostles. If I have
played the Judas who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell
Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Savior, and everybody
that differs with them in opinion, and tries to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as
a Judas. Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to give the
people a fair chance? soldiers and citizens? to participate in these office, God be willing, I will kick them out. I will kick
them out just as fast as I can. Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said is what I intended to say; I was
not provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to
be bullied by enemies, nor overawed by my friends. But, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures
whenever any of them come to me."

"Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and
unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the
high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good
citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a
high misdemeanor in office.


On the same day Mr. Bingham offered still another article, stating that it had received the unanimous vote of the
manager’s and he moved the previous question on its adoption. After slight objections from Messrs. Brooks and
Eldridge it was adopted by the same vote as the previous articles.

Article 11. That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and
his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did, heretofore, to wit:? On the
   th
18 day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, and in the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and
affirm in substance, that the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States
authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same, but on the contrary, was a Congress of
only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or
obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby
denying the power of the said Thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
And in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew John, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit:? On the
   st
21 day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, D.C., did, unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the
Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act
entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and
contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith
resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate
to concur in the suspension theretofore made by the said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of
Secretary for the Department of War; and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise
and contrive means then and there to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the
support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1868, and for other purposes," approved March 20, 1867. And
also to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel
States," passed Mach 2, 1867. Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to wit, on
       st
the 21 day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.




                                                                                                                           60

				
DOCUMENT INFO