Impeachment story told by john f. Kennedy in his 1957 book profiles in courage. This event was part of a symposium on reconstruction hosted by the u. S. Capitol historical vosociety. Brook thomas is a professor in the English Department at the university of california at irvine. I think you just took emeritus status, which means he has more time to write and more time to talk and more time to educate all of us. Im honored that he has come here again. He was here a couple years ago. Im honored that he is back today. Thank you. I have about 25 minutes so i hope we have time for question and answer. But were moving towards the end. Reconstruction stayed alive in the popular memory largely through its portrayal in popular media. I want to look at the politics of the portrayals of Andrew Johnsons impeachment. My primary works are the clansman, the film tennessee johns johnson. My thesis is that these works portrayal radical reconstruction as misrule reenforced highly held belief that although political factors inevitably influence impeachment, only if theres been a legal transgression threatening the welfare of the republic. So lets start with profiles in courage. I think as many of you know, this book in 1957 was sketches of senators, who, at personal cost, chose principle, patriotism and rule by law over partisan politics. Theres one chapter on johnsons impeachment, which failed by conviction of just by one vote. And these are the illustrations that kennedy has for this chapter. Here is a ticket to the impeachment trial. It lasted almost two months. Then here is a cartoon of the Senate Chambers with the trial going on. And this is edmond a. Ross. Hes kennedys hero he sacrificed a promising political career when previously undecided he delivered the vote to stave off conviction after johnsons impeachment on trumped up charges by rosss fellow republicans. Fulfilling his sworn duty to follow the law rather than bend to political pressure, he preserved the balance of power by keeping the presidency from becoming subservant to the will. We performed what one called the most heroic act in American History, more difficult than any deed of valor upon the field of battle. In fact, it was so valor he wrote his own account of the impeachment, which you can still buy. This is a really nice story of courage. But kennedy ignored certain evidence that the senator remained undecided to the last minute because he was shopping his vote around for the highest bidder. There was ample political motivation for him to highlight this refusal to bow to political pressure. Kennedy in 1957 had president ial ambitions. Writing soon, he was well aware massachusetts would need southern support to procure the democratic nomination. So its really important to remember that Many Americans considered johnson a hero. He was determined to carry out abraham lincolns policies of reconciliation with the defeated south by seeking to bind up the wounds of the nation and treat the south with mercy and fairness. Johnson faced the extremists in congress who already clashed with lincoln. Those radicals passed legislation to administer the downtrodden Southern States as conquered provinces. Bill after bill was vetoed on the grounds they were unconstitutional the, too harsh in the treatment of the south, or military war with the authority of the executive branch. Those bills included, the 1866 civil rights act, which gave africanamerican citizenship and basic economic rights and the reconstruction acts of 1867, they were always unconstitutional and unfair to the south. Its no accident that the villains in kennedys portrayal are massachusetts own Benjamin Butler described by kennedy as the butcher of new orleans and the souths most implaquable enemy who helped to make it a black nightmare the south would never forget. Kennedy assured southerners that this massachusetts politician could be trusted. And just to add more to the politics at the time, if you can avert your eye away from the fact this only cost 35 cents down to who wrote the forward, but the forward was written by the historian alan nevens. He was not only then wrote the forward for the edition, he was the chairman of president kennedy it was a time of debasement when the bad got the upper hand in congress. Johnson was partly broken for his courage. Sumner was an example of the false kind of courage that grew out of abolitionists. This is just a sideline, but unfortunately, the account of Foreign Policy at the time, he has this reconstruction is still influential with biographers today. Lets get to 1905. The racist novel which became the birth of the nation. Which omits the impeachment trial. And imploying dramatic flair. Its not surprising that relies on kennedys sources. But he does have a dramatic focus for kennedy. Dixon with ross, but also focuses on the character who stands forren stevens. But this is how he illustrated the clansman. And argue iing with lincoln. He had to allow butler to take over as lead prosecutor ask couldnt finish the one speech he tried to give. But dixon needed a villain and was a prime architect of the black plague of reconstruction. The johnson obviously the focus is not on ross. And he doesnt even appear. He had just won an oscar. The film acknowledges that it requires taking certain is liberties. For instance, even though johnson didnt appear in his own trial in the film he comes in and gives a defense. The film produces drama by pitting johnson against stevens. Hes good at creating monsters. These are the the three different works. They have lots of different similarities. For ken dirks what was at stake was the checks and balances of government. The independence was on trial. Dixon grease with that. He has a supreme test. And if a partisan majority can defy the Supreme Court, stability to Civic Institution was at an end. But ultimately for him, the real question was will the u. S. Remain a white republican. In the film, it has those stakes, but also wants to rally support for the war. It comes from north carolina. Escapes to tennessee. He learns how to read and write, becomes a spokesman for poor whites and poor whites would be needed for the war effort. His hero was tennessees democrat andrew jackson. And he imposed the lincoln in 1860. But his love of the union made him loyal even when tennessee us is seceded. As president , hes committed to following lincolns policy rather than stevens of revenge, confiscation, addition enfranchisement. You can see in world war ii, youll have the need to have unity in times of crisis ask war. You need to have north and south reconcile what johnson was trying to do and have democrats and republics getting together. Africanamericans were need too. But their plight is to the those that appeal. Johnson is is a fugitive. He has a shackle on his leg. He has to have that cut off. So hes a fugitive. He keeps the shackle all of his life. Then when stevens comes in and offers to help him, ill help you win the next election. He says i have been chained before. And then he promises that hes going to free southerners just as lincoln freed the slaves. You can imagine the naacp wasnt happy and protested. They protested before the film even came out. A worker gave a copy of the script to the daily worker and the worker passed it on to the office of war information who pressured them to make changes before the film came out. Influenced by black reconstruction, the naacp saw a less demonic portrayal and elimination of portraits of the africanamericans. Mgm didnt go as far as hoped because they consulted a professor. Some seeds of the were caught ask reshot making a little more human. And many scenes with africanamericans were deleted. Hustorians have pointed this alliance between the office of war information and the naacp. Conservatives point to this as an example of Political Correctness leading to sensorship in hollywood. They have all agreed on reconstruction. And im going to give you just a sense of what that agreement about reconstruction was. People dont remember this, but johnson came back to the senate. Great was his personal triumph, of his policy and more significant. One by one, the rotten bureaus despite the u. S. Army have fallen or are falling. Soon no relic will remain of the hybrid empire. Just to give you a sense how long this view of reconstruction lasted, in 1960, dewits book was praised by the ph. D. Advisers. Its something of a classic whose narrative is not likely to need redoing for some time to come if ever. So that was the view of reconstruction in the 60s. Now theres not only was there agreement about the politics of reconstruction, but also about the politics of impeachment, which all three portray charges against johnson with no legal basis. What was the legal basis of the impeachment . It was the tenure of office act. They need to remove the cabinet member. Johnson fired the secretary of war. Who was radical in order to keep him from using the military to intervene in the south. Now johnson has good attorneys they are saying hold it, he didnt even come under the act. He was appointed by lincoln. Even if he did come under the act,s only reason they were doing this was to get the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the act. Now thats a crucial question. Can a president defy a law in order to get a constitutional ruling. How is the legal issue represented in the three works. Dixon i voids it. And a teenage sculptor. The other two actually do deal with the legal issue. Although it forbids dismissal of a cabinet member, thats not right. More or less accurately. Tliegted in knowing they were said to be unconstitutional, which is true. They failed to mention that they both. How do we get to the notion of the law . For kennedy, its a little more nuanced. Ill speak for the two of them. Johnsons accusers did not give the president a fair trial on the formal issues won which they were drawn. But intended to depose him from the white house on grounds for refusal to accept policies. It was that many of those policy disagreements that become law. And one of the charges against johnson was that he the political mystique of not doing his duty to execute them. So at the time, there was a strong argument for political grounds for impeachment. Sumner tried to get rid of the college. He admits some of the bomb bass made some crucial points. The fact that the house impeaches in the senate and not the Supreme Court tries indicates the Founding Fathers recognized the politicals a tect. Why does the chief justice preside over. It could wft from impeachment. He cites the federalist who says you can have impeach mement for abuse or violations of the trust. Which is political. Sumner cites his mentor, joseph storey, saying you could have impeachment for misconduct, gross negligent or disregard in the discharge of political office. He then cites the most famous constitutional historian at the time who prior to war had written that someone can be unfit for office where theres no offense against law being committed yet if you want to see how the politics played out this this impeachment, when curtiss brother, who is a former Supreme Court justice and became one of the attorneys for political reasons, george changed his position. Said, no, it has to be legal. And indeed, you have quotations from some of the people, then, who voted not to convict, who said judge curtis gave us the law and we followed it. Now obviously, i want to have us rethink this long standing legal and political opposition. To do so, you have to look at the different meanings. In the opposition between legal and political grounds, political is is almost always become a synonym for partisan. This my title. My argument is for complicated partisan reasons, popular portrayals of the impeachment helped to engrain the long held belief that impeachment should occur only for legal transgression. Its certainly plausible to claim the Founding Fathers felt someone entrusted in governing could be impeached for reasons both legal and political. The hope was that the senate could in a nonpartisan way determine if someone was unfit for office. Remember this opposition grew at the time when those was supported by the study of one of the biographers a study encouraged for battling radicals who threaten the welfare of the republic. But what about the recent studies on impeachment that acknowledged the possibility of conviction without a legal transgression and denounced as a terrible president. And it was his politics, not the radical, threatening the welfare of the republic. I want to bring up three studies, all good. You should all read them. The power of impeachment. Now all of these lessons from johnsons impeachment, but significant, not one agrees me should have been convicted. Tried was his lesson. Failure to convict johnson offers lessons. Although impeachment proceedings are political, they are also technical and legalistic. The house put forth a great case. Thats a good lesson. If you want to impeach. Johnson was impeached for just one reason. Violating the tenure of office act, purely partisan. Johnson was a terrible president , but his impeachment violated the plan. His impeachment was unconstitutional. An example of what to avoid. He says that johnsons trial offers a lesson for today. How political passion and National Division found expression to remove a president. And then he concludes without a clear violation of law the senate ask he says, rightly decided that the voters acting through the electoral process, not lawmakers were to determine the presidency. Let me quickly respond to these. Its true. The houses case was a bit of a mess. Because republicans themselves were divided over whether the violation of the law was needed. But hes wrong with firing the sole reason. The tenth article of impeachment accused johnson of bringing the presidency into contempt, ridicule and disgrace. It was against the office. The 11th article combined legal and political arguments, including the political claim that johnson was not properly execute iing the reconstruction act. What about meacham. Leaf it up to the voters. The reconstruction act thats the question at the time. Who were the voters. Johnson was parredening confederates. The reconstruction acts tried to reverse that. So were there grounds to declare him unfit for office . I want to turn to a historian in the mid50s was a profile in courage. Remember at that time, johnson was considered a good president. And yet for the american heritage, he wrote an essay called why they impeeached Andrew Johnson. His political ineptitude destroyed any chance of bringing the nation together to give justice to africanamericans. And a quote at length because the voice doesnt get heard. Sure of his rectitude, he was indifferent. He never learned that the president of the United States cannot afford to be a coral. A rough and tumble politics in tennessee were exchange violent personalities, crude humor and bitter denunciations. He permitted hecklers to draw him into angry charges. You can see why i need to quote a little bit from this. Andrew johnson never learned that the president of the United States must function as a party leader. While making up his mind, he appeared reseptember issi septemberive to all yids yds. His mind was closed and he defended his course with all the reason. As Charles Sumner put it, no longer sympathetic or even kindly, he was heaarsh and unreasonable. According to him, persuasion could have created president ial following. Instead johnson boggled. After noting that historians have dismissed charges as flimsy and false, donald concludes that perhaps before the history itself Andrew Johnson must be impeached with a graver charge that through plolitical ineptitude he threw away a magnificent opportunity. Im going to start drawing towards my conclusion. One of the points that i have been trying to make is, while the dismissal of political pa partisan didnt originate with reconstruction, it is, i think, not an accident that the law vs. Politics binary arose during reconstruction, which was condemned as partisan. To be sure in the post trump world, more and more scholars are acknowledging the legitimacy of some political factors. What does their failure to make a case for johnsons conviction tell us about reconstruction status in the national memory. Meacham helps us answer that question in the middle of his essay. He makes the speculation. The fate of reconstruction hinged on whether sumners political argument would meet the definition of an impeachable offense. But remember what he concludes. No, it didnt. We should leave it to the voters. Implying that he was going to allow reconstruction to go according to his own logic. Meacham exaggerates. It would not have made it a success. But johnson, more than radicals, was threatening the welfare of the the republic. Was it a weak case as tried to argue that not executing the reconstruction acts was impeachable. That charge was originally proposed by thomas jenkins, who tried to limit partisanship through Civil Service reform and then he who sponsored the bill that creates the justice department. To me, the charge was not farce. Nor a vague allegation. The reason it failed was one too many senators look for or could hide behind meachams standard of finding a clear violation of law. To be sure, an argument can be made the narrative in which the radical republicans were so partisan and couldnt even rule well enough to handle impeachment. Neither mentions the charge about the reconstruction acts. In the conclusion of impeachment on American History, jeffrey angle resurrects the account with high praise and mentions ross who deteeted trumped up charges by considering their consciences. And just last friday on cnn, a the history of impeachment. All the experts agree that partisanship reigned and no grounds for impeachment. For me the treatment of johnson as impeachment remains an unfinished revolution because when its absent from public memory its too often misremembered. Thank you. [ applause ] im happy to take questions. We have some time. Im going to ask you to sit down. And we have questions for both panelists. Okay. Can you live with that . Sure. So, are there people who would like to come up and ask questions. Theres a microphone over there. Im shocked. Im going to ask one of brooke, which is as most political historians who have studied this, have argued that the real reason for the defeat of the impeachment was the fact that the person who would succeed johnson was ben wade of ohio who was despised by an enormous number of people in the senate, including fellow radical republicans and that radical republicans who were pushing for grant to be the nominee in 1868 did not want to have to deal with the incumbent ben wade and so it was much easier to simply stomach johnson for what would have been less than another year until the new president came into office. Again, if i had a longer talk, i would have included or try to include that. Hes absolutely right. The this is more complicated. Ben wade, because there was no Vice President he would have succeeded, taken over as president for that short time. I can say, not all but maybe two or three votes, you only needed one. Also in the film they actually have a figure for wade and when johnson says, well hes introduced, johnson goes oh, between him and me and starts laughing, and so the film is accurate about that. No questions. No comments. Does anyone have a further comment for Randy Kennedy . I can bring you up here as well. If not, we get to leave a few minutes early. I want to thank everybody. I want to thank chuck and laurie who are in the back but i would like them to stands one more time for applause. [ applause ] and the rest, rest of the u. S. Capitol Historical Society staff because they are the ones who made this happen. I thank all of you for coming. And next year probably pretty much the same time, possibly even the same place. There will be another conference as the u. S. Capitol Historical Society does its best to educate the American People on the history that has helped take us to where we are today. Thank you all very much. [ applause ] all week were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. Elect the youre thes in history. American artifacts. Real america. The civil war. Oral histories. The presidency. And special event coverage about our nations history. Enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan 3. Week nights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. Tonight a look at a recent Conference Held at