|
The Impeachment
of Andrew Johnson |
|
»Impeachment, Trial, and Acquittal |
back to
the Andrew Johnson Home Page
back to the intro to this section |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE DISSENTING SENATORS
Whoever has read the opinions of Senators Fessenden, Grimes, and
Trumbull, however he may regret the conclusions to which they come, will not deny the
ability, dignity, and candor with which their views are stated. They all knew the storm of
obloquy that was sure to follow their action, but they leave no doubt that, however they
may differ with many of their party friends upon the particular point involved in the
Impeachment, they are still in hearty sympathy with the great purposes of the party.Senator Grimes said:
"Mr. Johnsons character as
statesman, his relations to political parties, his conduct as a citizen, his efforts at
reconstruction, the exercise of his pardoning power, the character of his appointments,
and the influences under which they were made, are not before us on any charges, and are
not impugned by any testimony. Nor can I suffer my judgment of the law governing this case
to be influenced by political considerations. I can not agree to destroy the harmonious
working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President.
Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I can not consent to trifle with the high
office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed into an approval
of impeachment as a part of future political machinery. However widely, therefore, I may
and do differ with the President respecting his political views and measure, and however
deeply I have regretted, and do regret the differences between himself and the Congress of
the United States, I am not able to record my vote that he is guilty of high crimes and
misdemeanors by reason of those differences. I am acting in a judicial capacity, under
conditions whose binding obligation can hardly be exceeded, and I must act according to
the best of my ability and judgment, and as they require. If, according to their dictates,
the President is guilty, I must say so; if, according to their dictates, the
President is not guilty, I must say so."
Senator Fessenden said:
"The people have not heard the
evidence as we have heard it. The responsibility is not upon them, but upon us. They have
not taken an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. I
have taken that oath; I can not render judgment upon their conviction, nor can they
transfer to themselves my punishment if I violate my oath. I should consider myself
undeserving of the confidence that the just and intelligent people imposed upon me in this
great responsibility, and unworthy a place among honorable men, if, for any fear of public
reprobation, and for the sake of securing popular favor, I should disregard the conviction
of my judgment and my conscience. The consequences which may follow, either from
conviction or acquittal, are not for me, with my convictions, to consider. The future is
in the hands of Him who made and governs the universe, and the fear that He will not
govern it wisely and well would not excuse me for a violation of His law."
Senator Trumbull said:
"In coming to the conclusion that
the President is not guilty of any of the high crimes and misdemeanors with which he
stands charged, I have endeavored to be governed by the case made without reference to
other acts of his not contained in the record, and without giving the least heed to the
clamor of intemperate zealots who demand the conviction of Andrew Johnson as a test of
party faith, or seek to identify with and make responsible for his acts those who from
convictions of duty feel compelled on the case made to vote for his acquittal. His
speeches and the general course of his administration have been as distasteful to me as to
any one, and I should consider it the great calamity of the age if the disloyal element,
so often encouraged by his measures, should gain political ascendancy. If the question
was, is Andrew Johnson a fit person for President? I should answer no; but it is
not a party question, nor upon Andrew Johnsons deeds and acts, except so far as they
are made to appear in the record, that I am to decide
In view of the consequences
likely to flow from this days proceedings, should they result in convictions on what
my judgment tells me are insufficient charges and proofs, I tremble for the future of my
country. I cannot be an instrument to produce such a result; and at the hazard of the ties
even of friendship and affection, till calmer times shall do justice to my motives, no
alternative is left me but the inflexible discharge of duty."
Any party would be infinitely poorer
which should lose the sympathy and support of such men; and a party which should formally
exclude them would justly forfeit the sympathy of the most intelligent and honest
citizens.
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
|
|