You know, every time I dive into Andrew Johnson's impeachment story, it hits differently than modern presidential scandals. There's no Twitter, no cable news, just raw political warfare in a broken nation. If you've typed "andrew johnson why was he impeached" into Google, you're probably looking for more than textbook answers. What really went down? Was it justified? Let's unpack this 1860s political earthquake.
The Tailor-President Who Inherited a Broken Nation
Imagine becoming president overnight because your predecessor was assassinated. That's exactly what happened to Johnson. Lincoln's death threw this Southern Democrat-turned-Republican into the White House during America's most fragile moment. Johnson grew up poor – apprenticed as a tailor at 10 – and never shook that outsider mentality. He hated Southern aristocrats but held deeply racist views about Black equality. That tension defined his presidency.
Honestly? Studying Johnson feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck. His stubbornness was legendary. Even his allies described him as "stiff as a poker" and just as pleasant to handle. That personality flaw became central to the impeachment crisis.
The Reconstruction Powder Keg
After the Civil War, Congress wanted Southern states to guarantee civil rights for freed slaves before rejoining the Union. Johnson? He practically rolled out the red carpet for ex-Confederates. Check what he allowed by 1866:
| State | Controversial Action | Johnson's Response |
|---|---|---|
| Mississippi | Passed "Black Codes" restricting freedmen's rights | Approved state government |
| South Carolina | Elected former Confederate VP Alexander Stephens to Senate | Supported seating him |
| Multiple States | Refused to ratify 14th Amendment granting citizenship | Opposed Congressional pressure |
Johnson's controversial reconstruction decisions (1865-1866)
The Real Reason Congress Wanted Him Out
It wasn't just policy disagreements – it was a constitutional crisis. Johnson kept vetoing crucial Reconstruction bills, including:
- Civil Rights Act of 1866 (defining citizenship rights)
- Freedmen's Bureau Extension (support for former slaves)
- Reconstruction Acts (military oversight of South)
Congress overrode his vetoes every time, which tells you how unpopular he was with legislators. But the breaking point? The Tenure of Office Act. This law (probably unconstitutional) required Senate approval to fire cabinet members. Why did Congress pass it? To protect Secretary of War Edwin Stanton – the only Lincoln holdover blocking Johnson from dismantling Reconstruction.
The Firing That Started It All
In August 1867, Johnson finally suspended Stanton. When the Senate reinstated Stanton months later, Johnson ordered him removed anyway on February 21, 1868. Big mistake. Within days, the House drew up impeachment articles. But was this really about one firing? Not even close.
| Article | Accusation | Political Context |
|---|---|---|
| I-IX | Violating Tenure of Office Act | Surface-level charge for impeachment |
| X | Undermining Congress's authority | Targeting his Reconstruction obstruction |
| XI | Defaming Congress publicly | Referencing his inflammatory speeches |
Primary articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson
The Circus-Like Senate Trial
Picture this: a sweltering D.C. summer, spectators packed into the Senate like sardines, bribes allegedly changing hands. Johnson's lawyers argued the Tenure of Office Act didn't protect Stanton since Lincoln appointed him. Prosecutors claimed Johnson intended to "seize control of Reconstruction." The star witness? General Lorenzo Thomas, who showed up drunk to testify about delivering Stanton's firing notice.
"This isn't law – it's vengeance," complained one Johnson supporter during the trial. He might've had a point about the political motivations.
Why He Survived Removal by ONE Vote
On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted 35-19 to convict – one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed. Seven Republicans broke ranks. The most famous? Edmund Ross of Kansas, whose "not guilty" vote ended his career but saved Johnson.
Several factors explain the acquittal:
- Weak legal case – Many senators privately doubted the Tenure of Office Act was constitutional
- Political fears – Removing Johnson would make radical Senator Benjamin Wade president, alarming moderates
- Backroom deals – Johnson promised to stop obstructing Reconstruction (a promise he promptly broke)
I've always thought Ross's choice was fascinating. Was it principle? Bribery? Pressure? Historians still debate it. Sometimes I wonder if he regretted his decision when his political career imploded immediately afterward.
The Lasting Damage of the Impeachment Failure
Johnson served out his term but accomplished little. His legacy? A Reconstruction plan so lenient that former Confederates quickly regained power, leading to:
- Rise of Jim Crow laws
- Racial terror groups like the KKK
- Century-long suppression of Black voting rights
Constitutionally, the impeachment established critical precedents:
| Precedent | Impact on Future Impeachments |
|---|---|
| "High crimes" interpretation | Set broad standard for "abuse of power" beyond criminal acts |
| Partisan nature | Revealed impeachment could become purely political weapon |
| Conviction threshold | Confirmed extreme difficulty of removing a president |
Your Top Questions on Andrew Johnson's Impeachment
Was Andrew Johnson's impeachment justified or political?
Both. The Tenure of Office Act violation provided legal cover, but Radical Republicans openly admitted their real goal was stopping his sabotage of Reconstruction. As historian David O. Stewart puts it: "The real crime was Johnson himself."
Did Andrew Johnson face criminal charges later?
Nope. After leaving office in 1869, Johnson returned to Tennessee, got elected to the Senate in 1875 (ironic, right?), and died months later. No legal consequences ever stuck.
How did Johnson's policies specifically harm Reconstruction?
Three destructive impacts:
1. Allowed ex-Confederates to dominate new state governments
2. Ordered return of confiscated plantations to former owners
3. Blocked federal protection for Black voters and officials
Would history view impeachment differently if he'd been removed?
Probably. Successful removal might have empowered Congress during Reconstruction. Instead, the failure emboldened future presidents to test constitutional boundaries – something we still grapple with today when discussing Andrew Johnson why was he impeached but not convicted.
Johnson vs. Other Impeached Presidents
Comparing Johnson to Clinton and Trump reveals patterns:
| President | Charges | Senate Vote | Core Issue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Johnson | Tenure violation, abuse of power | 35-19 (1 short) | Reconstruction sabotage |
| Bill Clinton | Perjury, obstruction | 45-55 & 50-50 | Personal misconduct |
| Donald Trump (1st) | Abuse of power, obstruction | 48-52 & 47-53 | Ukraine pressure campaign |
| Donald Trump (2nd) | Inciting insurrection | 57-43 (10 short) | January 6 Capitol attack |
Why This 150-Year-Old Scandal Still Matters
Whenever modern presidents push executive power boundaries, historians revisit Johnson. His impeachment established that Congress can impeach over policy disputes and abuses of power – not just criminal acts. But it also showed that without bipartisan consensus, removal is nearly impossible.
Johnson's racist policies had generational consequences too. His restoration of white-dominated Southern governments enabled:
- Sharecropping systems trapping Black families in debt
- Violent suppression of Black political participation
- Delayed economic justice by nearly a century
So when people search "andrew johnson why was he impeached", they're asking about more than 1868. They're probing how power struggles shape history. Johnson proved that surviving impeachment doesn't make you successful – just infamous. His presidency remains a cautionary tale about what happens when leaders prioritize pride over healing a divided nation.
Comment