|
The Impeachment
of Andrew Johnson |
|
»Impeachment, Trial, and Acquittal |
back to
the Andrew Johnson Home Page
back to the intro to this section |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE NATIONAL INQUEST
The President of the United States is impeached, and will be tried under
the Constitution and by the laws; and Mayor Hoffman of New York made an exceedingly silly
remark when he said that the assassins of Abraham Lincoln and the impeachers of Andrew
Johnson will be equally infamous in history. Whether Mr. Hoffman seriously thinks so, or
merely said so under the pressure of party necessity, he is equally to be pitied. The
immediate and remarkable change of opinion and of action upon the part of the House of
Representatives was sufficient to show that impeachment was not a party measure. Indeed,
however desirable it might have been thought in an exclusively party view, it was the
almost unanimous conviction of the dominant party that the offenses of the President,
however disastrous in their consequences, were not such open and absolute violations of
law and of his duty as imperatively to demand impeachment. But when, emboldened by a wise
forbearance, the President pointedly violated the law and defied the Representatives of
the people, seizing with one hand the prerogative of Congress and with the other that of
the Supreme Court, thus usurping all the functions of the Government, the remedy which the
Constitution provides was instantly applied, and he was solemnly summoned to answer to the
country and to declare the reasons of his conduct.The summons revealed the truth that the President had no friends.
No party in the country is responsible for him. The Republicans elected him, and he has
striven in every way to defeat their policy. The Democrats thought him rather worse than
Caligulas horse; and although he nominates one of their advocates for the mission to
Austria, and their late Presidential candidate Minister to England; although he consorts
chiefly with the most notorious Copperhead, and hails Democratic successes at the polls as
vindications of his policy; although he has struggled hard to deliver the late rebel
States wholly into the power of the rebels, and to cause the abandonment and betrayal of
those to whom he promised to be a Moses; yet the Democratic party have seen his two chief
Secretaryships filled with old Whigs and Republicans, while the faithful have been kept
from a monopoly of the patronage. This is the mortal sin which "the natural governors
of the country" never forgive, and the Democrats, who were glad enough to use him as
a party weapon against the Republicans, turn quietly upon their heels when he plainly
transcends the law, and without a word for him betake themselves to maligning and
falsifying those who bring him to judgment.
But all the Democratic orators in
Congress, all the newspapers which oppose the impeachment, all the speakers at the
"Conservative" meeting of protest whether the wise Mr. Gerard, the
consistent Mr. Brooks, or the foolish Mr. Hoffman say but two things: first, that
Mr. Stanton was not appointed by the President; and, second, that the President has a
right to test the constitutionality of the law. The first point is a very small quibble.
How did Mr. Stanton happen to be Secretary of War under the present Administration?
Because the President, finding him in office, invited him to remain. It was the only way
in which, under the circumstances, he could have been appointed; and it would be very hard
to show that the request to remain was not a perfect appointment. As to the second point,
the simple and sufficient reply is that if the President chooses to test a law he must do
it as every other citizen doesat the risk of the consequences. The police do not
release a sneak-thief until the constitutionality of the law against larceny, which he
declares that he questions, can be determined. He is tried for violating the law. The
position taken by the opponents of impeachment is really that when the President vetoes a
proposed law for unconstitutionality, and it is passed over his veto by the constitutional
two-thirds, he may still impose his veto. And refuse to obey the law until the Court holds
it to be valid. If this be not a fundamental change in our system of government, we should
like to know what would be? If this be not revolution, there is no such thing.
One of the most persistent defamers of
Congress says that "it can not be unlawful for the President to violate an
unconstitutional law, which is simply no law at all." If this means any thing, it is
that the President may decide the question of constitutionality; or may refuse to execute
the law until he can have a decision of the Supreme Court. But if he may refuse to execute
one law he may refuse to execute all laws, until he has such a decision, and all
legislation must wait, if he chooses to call it unconstitutional, until the Court
pronounces; the Court, of course, taking its own time. When the people of the United
States assent to such a doctrine as this they will assent to the over-throw of their own
power, and will have intrusted the Government to one man elected for four years, and to
nine men appointed for life.
Those who think impeachment an exciting
disturbance are mainly the supporters of the reaction which would place the country as
nearly as possible just where it was before the war. But the great national necessity is
not the restoration of the old southern policy in the government it is the
completion of its destruction. What we want is peace, and what hinders it? The President.
His obstinate refusal to co-operate with Congress, whether in the matter of the
Freedmans Bureau, of the civil rights of all citizens, of the Constitutional
Amendment, or of the final reconstruction policy, has produced all the turmoil of the last
two years. With the Government a unit in its general political policy, it can have time to
attend to the financial and other necessities of the time. But those who sneer at Congress
for doing nothing but discuss reconstruction forget that not only is that of necessity the
paramount question, but that with the Executive incessantly striving to baffle its policy,
Congress could not desert its constant care of the subject without guilt. The moment this
state of things is changed and harmony restored, public attention will be concentrated
upon other and pressing questions. The President will be fairly tried. He will not be
convicted, we are very sure, except upon testimony and argument that will satisfy the most
doubting; and should he be removed from office public confidence will be wonderfully
quickened by the full accord between the great branches of the government, while a man
whose conspicuous elevation has been a profound humiliation to every self-respecting
American will sink suddenly and forever into oblivion.
Articles Related to the Impeachment, Trial, and
Acquittal:
To see a list of the related
articles go back to the intro
section. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Website design © 1998-2005 HarpWeek, LLC
All Content © 1998-2005 HarpWeek, LLC
Please submit questions to webmaster@harpweek.com
|
|