THE DEBATE UPON IMPEACHMENT
The opening debate in the Fortieth Congress upon the Impeachment
resolutions was not advantageous to the measure. Mr. Ashleys (Representative James
Ashley of Ohio) speech was hurtful to his own reputation and to his proposition. It was a
mere philippic, so furious that the Speaker was compelled to call him to order, upon a
subject which required the calmest and most temperate statement. Mr. Ashley accused the
President of inciting a revolution and civil war. He insinuated a suspicion of his
complicity in the assassination of his predecessor. He charged him with usurpation of
power. He accused him of turning the White House into a den of thieves and pardon-brokers.
He denounced the Presidents "drunken electioneering tour." He described
him as "the moral incubus which has blotted our history with its foulest blot;"
and he affirmed that "the nation cries out in agony" for his removal.We can not but think that Mr. Ashley was unduly
excited. It is impossible not to remember that he made the same charges in more guarded
language many weeks since. Either he made them upon evidence or without evidence, and from
what Mr. Phillips called his "instincts." If he made them without evidence Mr.
Ashley committed a very grave offense. But if he made charges with knowledge he could
certainly, in the course of two months, have presented the proof to a committee composed
of gentlemen who were certainly not unwilling to impeach. Yet after the most constant and
diligent investigation the committee were not able to report that they had found adequate
evidence upon which to recommend impeachment. Now if sufficient reasons for impeaching the
President could not be discovered by a willing committee in a research of two months are
they likely to be found at all?
The Committee reported, indeed, that the
charges had not been "so entirely negative as to admit of no discussion," and
they are of opinion that there is sufficient testimony to demand further investigation.
But that is merely another way of saying that, after investigating for two months, they
can not find sufficient proof of the Presidential offenses, against which Mr. Ashley
declares that "the nation cries out in agony," to justify impeachment at
present. We certainly have not changed our own opinion, that if an impeachment did not
carry itself - if it were not a plain state necessity clearly above the
charge of party purpose in the strict sense - if it were necessary to engineer and
contrive it, then it could only result in the destruction of those who attempted it.
Impeachment is not a measure of partisan warfare; it is a great Constitutional
remedy for national peril.
Does that peril exist? We can not find
any valid proof of it in the speeches of Mr. Ashley, or of Mr. Phillips, or of General
Butler; nor have the Judiciary Committee been able to find it after two months of
investigation. That the President has usurped powers is not denied. But the country,
including General Butler in his letter to the Faneuil Hall meeting, condoned the
usurpation at the time, and has now provided against its evil results. That he has
corruptly used the pardoning power, or the appointing power, or has illegally returned
property to rebels, General Butler charged in his speech and Mr. Ashley in his. But the
exercise of the pardoning power and the use of the patronage are points very ill defined,
and of various precedent; and unless the corruption were proved, or the misuse were
flagrant, the country would not sustain an impeachment. Yet, had it been flagrant, would
not the proof have been laid before the Committee during the two months of investigation?
General Butler, however, discarding all
other charges, declared that if any man withstands the progress of the nation he must be
removed by a Constitutional method. But if any man does so withstand the popular purpose,
he is virtually and Constitutionally removed by being made harmless; and that is the
present position of the President. He is powerless. The popular purpose is thus far
maintained against him in the Constitutional way. If Mr. Ashley or General Butler can show
that he is endeavoring the overthrow of the Government, or the corruption of officers, or
that he refuses to execute the laws, then he can be as easily impeached as he is
denounced. But when they urge his impeachment as an obstacle they surrender their case.
Every President in opposition is an obstacle. Every majority in the House represents the
purpose of the people. Impeach this President because he differs with this majority, and
the precedent poisons all our politics. Every opposition President can then be impeached,
and the House can easily dispense with him by following General Butlers prescription
of suspending him during trial, and suffering the trial to outlast his term.
Articles Related to Military Reconstruction:
News Items
January 19, 1867, page 35
Impeachment
January 26, 1867, page 50
Congress and
Impeachment
February 16, 1867, page 98
The Probability of
Impeachment
February 23, 1867, page 114
The Louisiana Bill
March 2, 1867, page 130
Reconstruction
March 9, 1867, page 146
The Thirty-Ninth
Congress
March 9, 1867, page 146
The Veto of the Reconstruction Bill
March 16, 1867, page 162
The Fortieth Congress
March 30, 1867, page 195
The Fortieth Congress
April 6, 1867, page 211
Sprats and Vetoes
April 6, 1867, page 210
Adjournment of Congress
April 13, 1867, page 226
Prometheus Bound
March 2, 1867, page 137
The Result
March 30, 1867, page 194
The Southern Commanders
April 6, 1867, page 218
The Debate upon Impeachment
March 23, 1867, page 178
We Accept the Situation (cartoon)
April 13, 1867, page 240
The Big Thing (cartoon)
April 20, 1867, page 256
The End of Impeachment
June 22, 1867, page 386
|
|