[inaudible background conversations] good evening. i am the associate director of the leon leavy center for biography. which is supported by a generous grant from shelby white and the leon leavy foundation. the writing of biography is a famously argue extend lengthy process and each year we award for fellowships of $72,000 each to working biographers to help them across the finish line. over the past 11 years we have given out 44 of these grants and our fellows have produced 21 biographies to date. thanks to a grant from the sloan foundation we recently added a fifth fellowship also for $72,000 which will support biographies about figures and science and technology. the first winter is working on a biography of oliver sacks, laura snyder. another new feature of the center is unique two-year ma in biography and memoir which will train students in our historical research interview technique in narrative form and history of biography and memoir and how the forms have evolved over time. how jointly in the history and english department and directed by historian sarah covington the program is currently accepting its first class of students who will begin study in the fall of 2019. one of the ma programs prestigious and award-winning faculty is tonight's main speaker brenda one apple who's also a former director of the leon leavy center for biography. wayne apple is the author of remarkably original and stylishly written books stagnation confidence crisis and compromise 1848 to 1877. a new york times notable book. white heat, the friendship of emily dickinson and thomas moore higginson a finalist for the national book critics circle award. sister, brother, gertrude and leo stein. and hawthorne a life which received the ambassador award. one apple is joined by eric boehner, dewitt clinton professor at emeritus of history at columbia university and the author of numerous books on american history including reconstruction, america's unfinished revolution 1863 to 1877 which was a must have when i was in graduate school. in the fiery trial, abraham lincoln and american slavery. both winners of the coveted bancroft prize. his latest book, the second founding, how the civil war and reconstruction remade the constitution, will appear in september. tonight in the final event of our spring season eric holder will engage brenda one apple in a conversation about her widely acclaimed new book "tmp chairs: the trial of andrew johnson and the dream of a just nation". which might have one or two parallels to the current political situation but i will let our two historians weigh in on that. afterwards i will pass around a microphone to augments members who would like to answer question brenda one apple will be happy to sign them. please welcome brenda one apple and derek phone. [applause] ãbthank you for coming out this evening to talk about her excellent new book tmpit's an interesting phenomenon that the presidential election of 2016 and what's happened since has rekindled a lot of interest in reconstruction, the period after the american civil war. i couldn't hear what he said but i'm sure it was not good. [laughter] is my microphone not picking up my voice. reconstruction is kind of on the agenda nowadays issues at that period whether it's who should be citizen who should have a right to vote. things like that are on the political agenda now. i will not mention he who must not be named until may be the very end this is about history and the first impeachment andrew johnson. in 1868. to begin i'd like to ask brenda how she got interested in this subject. anyone who's written a book knows that it takes quite a few years to do so. she didn't just run into the archive with the mueller report appeared. >> sure i did. [laughter] i presume it had originated when president obama was in office and not too many people were talking about impeachment. what was it that interested you about this? >> first of all, thank you for the lovely introduction. it's a pleasure to be here with eric of course and i will reinforce eric really wrote the book on reconstruction in many of the views that are current today really come out of eric's groundbreaking research. let me go back to eric's question. i didn't start the book yesterday or even last year in fact, when i started the book, he who should not be named was andrew johnson and when people would ask me what i was working on and i would say the impeachment of andrew johnson, a couple things would happen, they either left immediately, they bolted, they headed for the door or they thought andrew jackson they said andrew jackson? nobody knew who johnson was. i couldn't remember. or they assumed, i think this was more troubling than having people run away from me was that the impeachment process and the impeachment of johnson had been preposterous mistake. that intrigued me. i began the book 6 years ago deep into the obama presidency, hence i was not prescient if anyone was prescient and i was interested because in the previous book i had written called ecstatic nation and it covers a very large period in american history before, during, and after the civil war rather ridiculously ambitious project but in any event, when i was working on that particular book it seemed to me strange that the first ever impeachment of an american president which occurred in 1868 was an event that seemed to make people's eyes glaze over. assumed you went and presidential history from lincoln to grand. the fact that ecstatic nation whether it was hawthorne or dealing with thomas higginson. it will reveal to me was such a crucial important time. the war was barely over. you had your first ever presidential assassination, the assassination of lincoln. you have over 750,000 people dead and you are confronted with putting the country back together. enter andrew johnson and before you turn around its impeachment. that got me started thinking about what happened? why did it happen? who were the people involved in it? and why did we not know more about it?those were my questions. >> you've done a great job in answering these questions. that's all to the good. different countries i guess have different ways of trying to get rid of people who are there presidents can prime ministers, whatever. we were just talking theresa may in england has been booted out in a coup d'ctat by the conservative party. no voter has anything to say about that in england. here we have a different process. the people who wrote the original constitution did put in the process of impeachment for a rather ambiguous ways, high crimes and misdemeanors. >> treason. even treason some of the discussion now about what treason is, treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. even if you assume you know what treason is and you know bribery when you see it, what are high crimes and misdemeanors? that really is a fuzzy terminology because theoretically, i think it was betty stephenson said a misdemeanor could be stealing a chicken. would you be impeached for that? probably not. but as eric says, the idea of impeachment and the process for it the conditions, which she just named, and what happens afterwards, that if the officer namely the president in this case is impeached then as the trial goes to the senate and i find too, you probably all have this experience more recently the people don't really entirely understand that the two prong process. >> impeachment is the accusation. >> exactly. like the indictment. to be impeached does not mean you're convicted. >> or removed from office. that itself is interesting but that's what's outlined in the constitution and what's interesting there to is that there isn't really a procedural, there are no procedures. the person will be tried in the senate, the chief justice shall preside and to be removed from office you need two thirds votes of the senate. that doesn't tell you much about how to contest a particular trial is up for grabs and it was in 1868 as it would be subsequently. >> do you think the people who wrote the constitution saw impeachment as a criminal kind of process or a political process? do you have to have committed an indictable crime to be impeached or is impeachment whatever majority of the house of representatives says it is. >> that still debated now. this couple books that came out on impeachment by constitutional lawyers in the 70s around the time nixon and then later because of clinton and they were arguing it had to be legal action. i'm not sure i entirely agree but it depends on the day you speak to me. i think there was ambiguity built into the constitution because in the federalist papers, you see alexander hamilton actually says that an impeachable offense can be an abuse of power. in that particular sentence, that is not a narrow definition, that is not a legalistic definition that really does have abuse of power significant that isn't technical difference. the interesting thing about when we talk about the past to make a point, clinton was impeached on a narrow ã >> perjury. >> he perjured himself. nobody was going to deny that. he was acquitted because of a broader interpretation of impeachment which is to say whatever he did didn't interfere with the way he conducted a fair stay. >> affairs of state. >> no pun intended. >> this is a biography center. the book is not a biography per se although andrew johnson is very central to it. but it does have a very flawed cast of characters with a very helpful little summaries of who they are. >> the front and back what about andrew johnson? as you said, he's not exactly a household name. >> now he will be. [laughter] his reputation, i guess like many figures of our history has gone up and down over the years. the original scholars on reconstruction the dunning school actually didn't like him very much. then in the 1920s who becomes like the heroic is the radical republicans decline in reputation he becomes the heroic defender of the constitution, today is like the stock market ticker is back down again. he is widely seen as the worst or possibly next to the worst president in american history. there are other contenders now but johnson is way down there. there's all sorts of andrew johnson's out there in the historical literature, is he just an inept politician or is he a shrewd schemer or just a guy who is racism blinded him to anything else. >> is interesting the three things you enumerate is he inept? is he strategic? or is he just blinded by racism. in a certain sense, all three i would say. the interesting thing about johnson and one of the ways in which he got on the ticket, lincoln's ticket, in 1864, had to do with the fact that many in the north, in 1864 and four years before, admired andrew johnson enormously as a man of courage, true courage. i think had we been allotted in 1860, 1861, we might have shared that view. he was the only united states senator from the south he represented tennessee who stood up against the secessionists in the so-called secession winter of 1860¤1 after lincoln was elected and he said, i am against secession, i am for the union, i want to have anything to do with it. we must stay within the union. i will fight for the union. and whatever credibility he had amongst southerners was shot. he was constantly being threatened and his family was threatened with assassination. it was a very heroic lonely stand to take. what his other views were on for example race they were not paramount in 1860, 1861 because at that juncture the reigning idea in the northwest save the union. there were abolitionists and antislavery people who wanted the war to be about something else but not a lot of people necessarily wanted that. it wasn't a popular view. andrew johnson looked great and lincoln then put johnson pointed johnson, military governor of tennessee flex when they captured asheville.>> that was another coup in a sense for johnson and lincoln is in a sense bringing closer into the republican party but also lincoln being very savvy as he was, johnson is this upright unionist southern senator or democrat he's in a different party but is very very committed to the prosecution of the war. in 1864's rolls around and there's some dispute, i don't know what you think about, to what extent lincoln was behind flex is murky, very murky. >> i happen to believe that he had his finger on the scales because.>> although. >> fact then the vice president was unimportant actually flex it was unimportant except from what i've understood, hannibal him and his vice president brought nothing except that name to the ticket. >> he was a former democrat the republican party was a new party and had ex-wigs, ex-democrats, lincoln was an ex-wig. but hamlin and lincoln was from the west, hamlin is from maine. balance the ticket. johnson is on the balance of the ticket the another way. he's opening up because after the war is over the republicans have to find support in the south. >> exactly.and they wanted before the war is over they want to keep border states happy and lincoln wants to suggest that tennessee is really in the union even though it wasn't entirely in the union. i think it was very smart political move whoever was behind it. >> johnson represents on the ticket a white hedonism in the south. lincoln was very savvy but also like anyone, he made errors. greatly overestimated number of white unionists in the self johnson was supposed to be an example of his legion of people who were dragged into secession against their will. but anyway. >> and another miscalculation, lincoln didn't know didn't think he was going to die. >> although he did have dreams about it. . he was a young guy, he was in his 50s. there was no reason to think he wouldn't serve out his full term. >> but johnson, when i was in graduate school one of my mentors was eric mckitrick who wrote the great book andrew johnson reconstruction back around 1959 or 60 which began that generations process of tearing johnson off his pedestal. just to show you how elevated johnson's reputation had become, as you all know. john f. kennedy's profile which he didn't actually write pretty at the pulitzer prize for it anyway. >> ãbhe had a whole team go to the nevins papers at columbia. you will see nevins's contribution to profiles in courage. one of the profiles was edmund ross, one of the senators who voted to acquit and that was one of the great moments of courage because it saved the presidency from congressional domination. >> partisans who just wanted to tear down the presidency, tear down andrew johnson and edmund ross, voted against his own party because at the time he was a republican. >> you are jumping ahead ãb i'm jumping ahead a little bit, in your book you point out edmund ross was not motivated by purely ãbwhat was he trying to get? >> lots of favors. i really tried very hard to find actual evidence of bribery. there's a lot of smoke but no fire. i could never find that evidence of actual money changing hands. what i can tell you and what i did find is plenty of evidence of ross going to johnson after he cast his vote and importuning him, begging him, asking constantly in the consequence of what i've done for you for one favor an appointment for this person, appointment for his brother, and assignment here, and he constantly is coming back. it was clearly what we would call a quid pro quo kind of situation. from what i also can tell about ross he was a fairly weak person. he wanted to keep his seat. he needed money for sure from kansas, junior senator from kansas. had not passed any legislation, hadn't been in the office very long and was also just as the side although probably important. he was more or less smitten with his young sculptor named vinny ream whose family was very involved in contracts with native americans and assorted confederate leaning people. as i said, it's a lot of smoke but clearly he was asking for quite a lot of favors. >>. >> johnson had made his reputation in tennessee as a spokesman for the poor white class. yeoman farmers, eastern tennessee, he owned a couple slaves but he wasn't a big slave owner. in fact, he denounced big slaveowners. >> it was interesting though, that class is so interesting because as eric suggested, johnson came from nothing and it's almost less than nothing in a sense because ã >> certainly the president who started poorest whoever became poorest. >> when he and his brother ran away from the tailor shop there was a wanted ad put out for him.there was a price on his head which is not the same as being a fugitive slave but it's pretty horrific when you think about the kind of poverty and the kind of news he has. ironically and sadly in a sense pathetically as soon a c did well in his tailor shop grew and he became very successful both in industry or whatever you want to call it mercantile business, and politics the first thing he did is go out and buy slaves.really? that's what you did with your money when you are in the south. >> it shows how you change classes. >> but johnson was one of the mysteries about johnson after he becomes president, lincoln is assassinated, johnson takes over, very soon after that he inaugurates his reconstruction policy which contrary to the old mythology is not the same necessarily as lincoln's, but he sets up these governments in the south all white, black people have no voice, no rights, they are free but that's it. they can't vote, etc., but he also says that people who own $20,000 worth of property, which is a lot, big slaveowners, are not going to be able to vote or hold office. everyone else gets a pardon but not them. johnson seems to assume therefore the smaller farmers who take over, which doesn't happen, then pretty quickly he stops that and he starts offering pardons to all these people. he didn't explain why he just dropped that class-based effort, do you have thoughts about why johnson now begins suddenly to align himself with the planters, even though at the beginning he says working to keep them out of this whole process? >> i think it's part of the same psychology that got him to buy slaves when he had the body. there was a delegation of frederick douglass, a black delegation that came to see him in the early 1866. he was very put out by them and one of the things he said, it's really so hard to imagine what he is thinking when he says to them, i didn't sell any of my slaves it's like, what are you talking about? to me it he is still identifying with a planter class were not so sure that when he says that the so-called yeoman farmers to people who didn't have money automatically got pardoned that he was really thinking along the lines of restructuring the south away from what had been called the aristocracy. i think that was okay to do and it cut muster with most people but as soon as he got some power again, he begins using it in almost the same way and now he's making the planters come to him. he's got power over this people who called him basically, this was 19th century term "poor white trash. now he is saying, look who is poor white trash now. >> johnson and my mentor mckittrick's argument is remembered johnson was an outsider he was kind of his personality was really his problem. >> one of his problems. [laughter] he was stubborn, he did not listen to anyone. he could succumb to flattery. another way of looking at it is he's an outsider but this guy has held everything the office you can hold in this country from like alderman state legislative governor, senator, president, he knew the political system. another way of looking at it is to say, obviously a vice president who takes over has to think about how my going to get reelected in 1868? and where is my coalition going to be? some people are like, really johnson is the first of these white identity politicians he says, the white man ãbhe's deeply racist, i'm fighting for the white man, the republicans are fighting for blacks, i will take that gamble. what to voters and so you wait for the white matter black people? i want to be on the side of the white man. that is a work for johnson because also to circumstances. one might see him as a more calculating politician then sometimes appears. to answer your question, the other side of johnson, the seesaw of johnson's reputation as the radical republicans who were the villains of the piece with decades and decades they were fanatics, they were vengeful. >> diabolical. >> thaddeus stevens with his clubfoot. >> sign of the devil. it was considered son of the devil. you take a much more positive view of thaddeus stevens and the radical republicans. how do you see them? >> it's interesting, i was just thinking about stevens, who was himself an outsider. a lot of these people, johnson wasn't the only outsider. certainly stevens came from poverty except his poverty was in vermont as opposed to north carolina and tennessee. but poverty nonetheless. with that kind of poverty did for him in a sense was make him much more empathetic to other people. >> which was like lincoln and some people poverty makes you empathetic and in others you just close as you around yourself. >> but in a sense, the way i was taught history was had nothing to do with mckittrick or anything like that, it was as if i was getting my textbook on the birth of the nation. >> me too. >> were thaddeus stevens the character for thaddeus stevens was depicted as this awful person with this weird wig. he was sort of dark and scary and he was going to ruin the south and he had to come to the ku klux klan to the rescue. in a sense, that was the history that in some sense actually to a certain extent all eric's work notwithstanding. >> it's out there. >> it still exists. don't get me started on spielberg and lincoln. >> you are right. there's been an effort, somehow i have a little finger in this, to get postage stamp of thaddeus stevens. thaddeus stevens is still blocked by whoever determines these things. this mythology of him as a vengeful evil genius. what is your positive view? [laughter] >> what's interesting about that is, i was just reading something today that sort of the notion that people like stevens, these radical republicans, they want, all they were interested in was power. you think, yes, this gets to the positive, of course they were interested in power. who is not?but they were interested in power because to them it was the only way to ensure the victory that the north had fought for which is to say equality injustice under the law and the eradication not just in slavery because the 13th amendment did that but the eradication of the effects of slavery, which is something worth thinking about. you don't just get rid of the institution and say, everything is okay now. south, come on back. everything is forgotten. slavery is gone let's move on. there are effects of slavery, 4 million people enslaved who been deprived of everything. the clothes on their back. the wages, ability to move or marry. all of those things. a person like thaddeus stevens of course those people were interested in power but they were particularly interested in power because they really did believe, this is what is astonishing, sadly astonishing, that this is 1865 i'm not even going to earlier history that these are people like stevens or sumner of massachusetts or, and many others, who actually are to my mind, visionary. they see the united states after the war that finally can make good on its promise. it's promise in the declaration of independence and they are committed to doing that. in trying to find the best way. in that sense, that's my take and i think that's very positive. they're not perfect. but they really do have this view and just to give one little example about stevens because it's so telling when he found out the burial plot he purchased was not in a cemetery that allowed black people to be buried there, he sold the plot. he said i'm going to an integrated cemetery because i want in death to be known for the same values i fought for in life. >> 30 years earlier talking about power and principal, 30 years earlier stevens had been a delicate tuesday pennsylvania constitutional convention. which took the right to vote away from black men in pennsylvania. they had enjoyed it up to that point. stevens refused to sign the constitution and walked out. there was no possible political benefit in 1837. >> quite the opposite. >> for standing up for the rights of black people in pennsylvania. quite the opposite. the radicals had been fighting for justice and equality long before the civil war, long before reconstruction, suddenly the destruction of slavery opens up this question of what is going to replace it. what is the country to look like with 4 million people suddenly freed. johnson of course, you know, you quote some of the things he has said to frederick douglass, others about black people, deeply racist and without going through the chronology of events because i want to get to impeachment yet. [laughter] congress tries to work with johnson, he refuses, they pass civil rights legislation. they propose the 14th amendment, he opposes it, tells the cell to reject it, finally they get fed up and they get rid of the governments johnson has created and put into effect what they call radical reconstruction with black men now voting in the cell for the first time. and then johnson opposes that and tries to obstruct that. we have two years toward the end of 1855 this exhilarating battle between congress and the president which focuses on what rights these average american people are going to have. how does that lead to impeachment? just like anything else it's a lot ãbeveryone who writes about reconstruction touches on it. >> they didn't look at it. >> but what is the motivation for impeachment? is it just people got fed up with johnson or they said, look, he's now violated a law they passed the law a tenure of office act violated by kicking out his secretary of war, what do you see as the motive of the house of representatives eventually to impeach johnson? what's the interesting thing is that it seems to me the motive was or the motive were growing over time. what i mean by that, i think it's important to understand that impeachment did it come overnight. we got to impeach this guy, let's go do it. impeachment had been kind of on a slow boil. there were people among the radical republicans who wanted to impeach johnson early on and according to ãbthe republicans themselves were divided, they were conservative moderate radical and even the radicals had different points of view and there were those who wanted to get ãbjohnson was under office but he was obstructing this idea of this new vision of things and besides, he was degrading congress, he was abusive. the list is very long. >> tweeting things out, denouncing people. but they didn't want to do anything fast or precipitous. starting in 1865 when it became clear that johnson wasn't going to work with congress, he didn't even call congress back into session they basically said, let's try to work with him. let's see what we can do. we don't want to alienate. we don't want to judge them into the arms the motives grew as he became more vehement in his language, more clearly supremacist, more abusive until and at the same time, i should add, impeachment was sort of lurching forward. congress was taking action these reconstruction acts that eric just mentioned. it's lurching forward. the vote to look at impeachment but then goes to the judiciary committee. the judiciary committee investigates and investigates and looks for that legal tripwire and it can't find it so they vote not to impeach. then they change their mind because johnson and he is trying to stop the reconstruction act from being executed. so then congress is still slowly marching. it's not eager to do this, the first-ever impeachment. then slowly, then they are passing other legislation dumping called the tenure of office act that was later repealed, it was sort of a dubious act but it was there to protect edwin stanton, the secretary of war. he was protecting the military and the military was protecting the blacks and the whites in the south who wanted to vote ..... >> when you ask how strategic he has, there are times when he is pigheaded. why did he stay in office that long. but he it fired him. but then realized the military, he can appoint his generals. so he appointed generals probably parental input to a point. they were against him. so he started firing them. and because of that, and then the tenure of office, then he fires danton and that was finally congress, that is a violation. a village is passed. you want to talk about something regarding congress, basically congress passes legislation and the chief executive officer of the country is supposed to enact the legislation. screamac but he violated it. but the articles of impeachment, this is now the spring of 1868. i think there are 11 of them but most of them are tenure. they seem to accept the premise that you have to have a specific violation of law. the 11th one is kind of a catch all the talks about congress and just generally being obnoxious person and we really need to get rid of him. >> the tenth actually does that too. they take the speeches and put them into the article. he is actually calling for an execution of some of these republicans. think of that. 1867, it is unheard of to do that. so there actually using their or his own language against him. catch all kitchen sink, this article, basically thaddeus stevens, and this other guy named ben butler, it's right out of dickens and the sense. they basically put together an 11th impeachment article that is broader. so that they will have the broader outline of abuse of power in this particular case. so they have nine things having to do with the tenure of office act into, they are not technical and then the lawyers of the house of representatives who prosecute the case against johnson and the lawyers that johnson berries. and this is very wisely he hires with the help of his pal, william stewart, gets some really brilliant guys in there. one is been a supreme court justice. and they argued in the senate, meantime one of the thing, before i forget. the chief justice, who presides, who wants to be president. that's a lot of power. >> and the democratic nomination. in the republicans, would have him but even as he is presiding over the senate, or the trial, he is trying to get the democratic side. also, what about ben is in a funny and funny position. been waiting. >> thaddeus stevens and van is the most radical of the radicals. he is a senator from ohio. any news been in the senate for a very long time and for a while they don't want him to vote because of his conflict of interest. >> he would have been come resident and johnson been convicted. but he was anyway. >> but it does not help them. it doesn't help anybody. but the thing about ben wade is among his radicals and his position is his voting rights for women. somebody said, he will put susan b anthony in the cabinet. >> that would be good. wade also gave a speech in kids' saint now that the battle between freedom and slavery is over. the next one is labor versus capital. he is the only american quoted in volume one" that speech here's a look even in america people have seen the struggle. so a lot of people did want him to become president. they did not want wade to become president. so in the end, by one vote. seven republicans vote to acquit and that leads to them feeling by one vote to remove johnson from office. before we go to question and answer, let me just ask you, there is a very vivid description in the book of the proceedings themselves and the trial because usually when people write about this, the actual or what actually happened in the senate is fascinating. and you explain this very well. >> for those people who think that reading transcripts of the congressional record is dull. it is really like theater. it's like reading place. you might as well be reading, o'neill or something. in the trial was like that. it was thrilling really innocence. kind of law and order. >> before we go to questions, let me ask you what you think the consequences are for reconstruction of the acquittal. there were some who taught in this building for some time, and he felt that the failure of impeachment really weakens the radicals very dramatically. edited is the rare influence of the party. others say no, if forced johnson to stop being so annoying. he has had a most another year in the basically, his lawyer said if your acquit, he'll will behave himself from now on. we will watch over him. city think it was a mistake to impeach him. you think it weekend reconstruction or enabled reconstruction to go forward more effectively. >> actually think it helped reconstruction go forward. i think that the process and we did even talk about the roles that you listed. in the roles that grant played in it. in the process actually radicalized if you want to use that word, in a sense but certainly i think illuminated many issues from rent. so grant who did become the next president as we all know, can take steps that i don't know if he wouldn't have already but certainly change him in that way. and i think that those who had promised because many of the people even democrats, nobody wanted to touch johnson. nobody was going to nominate him in 1868. and so that particular sense, no one really had much respect for him. and so, he was curtailed. to a large extent and some of the best legislation of reconstruction as you know in the next book, it is percolating at this time. certainly before the tenth amendment and then became the way in which the southern states would be readmitted into the union. and that is grant citizenship to process. that's important. in the 15th amendment. that doesn't happen under johnson. it could have never happened under johnson so i think it creased those wheels and cents. i don't think it was a mistake. what you think. >> johnson comes back on blake. the strange ending of the set in 1875 tennessee since and back to the senate. >> like a bad penny. >> i don't think what, there were flowers on his desk. i don't think there were other ex-president who served in the senate. john quincy adams served in the house. i guess william taft did on the supreme court. after being impatient to serve in the senate. it would be like bill clinton to go to the senate. all right, we're going to open the floor to answer questions. >> my question deals with his tenure act. this tenure office act. during the president have to sign that. or was it passed. >> everything passed over his veto. >> good question. >> is a true andrew johnson was an alcoholic. and there was something about that his inaugural address, he was said to have been inebriated. >> in his inaugural address as vice president, it was said that he took a shot or two or more of medicinal whiskey that had a bad effect. it was indicated by his 19th century cold medicine whatever that might have been. >> more whiskey. it. >> berman. in which case, and led him to slobber over the bible and he was a little bit of an incoherent speaker. >> you have many detractors as you might imagine and even sumner who wasn't, a wonderful man in many ways but catty. he saw big cases of urban going into johnson's room as kirkwood house when he lived there. who knows. the word alcoholic is a bit strong. it is very kind of 20th century term. passivity asked in the 19th century, if johnson drink. and the answer was, everybody drank. a lot of the horrific speeches made, people would have liked to have attributed to his being debunked and the sad truth was he was not. [laughter]. how did they fare in their future elections after that trial. >> i don't remember specifics right now but again, the perceived wisdom was they were all booted out of office. they all suffered. some of them just left. one died. he switched parties. >> eventually. >> so there was no punishment. >> several of these seven men ended up like trumbull and ross, ended up in the liberal republican movement. their votes of acquittal for the beginning of their retreat for reconstruction altogether. in 18792, it would be supporting harris greeley, against graham. anna platform of ending reconstruction so it was a symptom of their becoming less enthusiastic about reconstruction even in 1868. it is also where you can start seeing how the republican party then becomes the republican party of now. >> ethics a while. >> absolutely. >> what is the 1789 definition of high crime and misdemeanor. because when we are talking about future impeachment, we have to look at what the framers meant my high crimes and misdemeanors. i think they meant something in english common law or english statutory law. so what has your research shown. it. >> my research shown that there is an enormous array of opinion about the definition even when they go back to 1789 and even when they look at english statutory law. and there's a talk the case of warren hastings in england and a lot of different opinions and i hate to say it this way but will anyway. and that is it really depends on the point of view person point of view that one has an even up until the state that i read books that were written in the 70s then more recently. and they have a wide difference of opinion. it really is in a sense, in the best sense of the word, it's a political determination. and, i mean, that in the best way. >> i would be very cautious that you define the single original intent for this or any other interesting or important subject. all of these things have different inputs and different motivations. different definitions and so i would forget about what the framers said i would think about what we think. when we think about the high crime and misdemeanor. >> did you say that there were the sport of johnson. >> he was a very strong supporter of johnson. those who felt wrongly in certain cases, the johnson was an idiot. they blamed stuart for all of the kinds of gestures and johnson will that he was. as an over exaggeration. the show stuart was against influential and he was very influential. it. >> though he tried to keep johnson under control. until enough to beat so crazy. >> yes. to go along with the 14th amendment. it was a no-brainer really. >> to work on spread to what degree is our view that reconstruction. that impeachment bad because it failed. if he had been removed, and two, just about the history of the fee of the case, there is a very good book by a scotsman by it about an american crisis in 1953. he is for the impeachment. and there is michael benedict, they don't get how much attention. what are your thoughts on why that is. >> i can address part of the go-ahead. >> in englishman. american historian. he came from a country that doesn't have a rinse it written constitution. and they claim they have one but if you read in english, just ask them to show it to you. they have a different whole whole different concept of what it means to violate the constitution. what is the main to abuse power etc. benedict is a law professor. his good friend of mine. some of my best friends are law professors. they think in a weird way. benedict had his own analysis. this was at the time of nixon. and they were writing about impeachment from the point of view of the 1970s. >> also i would say the benedict, which i think is wonderful bark. it opened up some discussion not very much, but when his analys analysis, which i thought is brilliant, it's a very political analysis with voting records that people were and whether affiliations were. it's from a taxonomic breakdown think it's extremely useful. i was interested in something else a little bit. that was as i said earlier when we started, what was it like to be on the ground. it was like to be one of the people in the south. against him black codes were being passed. because it seemed to me that the kind of analysis that benedict did is wonderful but i was interested in sort of the experience they got behind the motivated johnson impeachment. they really had to do with the lives of people and the vision of the country coming forward. not sort of distracted legalistic analysis. >> i am to what extent was impeachment men sort of an act of congressional assertion. we become used to, since teddy roosevelt to very dynamic presidents. yet at that time you just really had jackson, and you had a war president, lincoln. was there a different mission of the presidency at that point. if so, did it influence the impeachment process. >> interesting question. obviously are coming out of the war when he said lincoln, is such a strong present in many ways that a lot of people particularly in the democratic party and even some republicans hated him because they thought he was asserting a certain amount of power. you can argue these were more measures but the kind of shook people up a little bit. but impeachment itself, is a congressional prerogative so does fall to the legislature to stop and this goes back to the first framers. who knows what they intended but i know one thing is clear that air coming off a monarchy. and they certainly don't want the presidency to turn into that. i don't think it's a question of strong present versus maker president. it's more about the fact of the country is at a crossroads at this particular time and you have the legislature which is the congress which is supposed to determine the qualifications of its own members. you have 11 states and are being told, the congress is being told that they can't determine the falsifications for those 11 states. the former people has come back in the sky who was a southerner is telling them that you have trouble right there. >> the congress was cognizant of his own prerogatives even lincoln, when the 13th amendment was finally passed through the house of representatives at the end of january 1865, all of the members signed a copy of it. and then lincoln got a hold of it and he signed it whereupon the senate passed a resolution telling lincoln you have no right to sign this. the president has no role in this. stratified by two thirds of congress and three quarters of the states. in the present has nothing to do with it and they did want him to sign it. >> said they were aware. >> a particular flavor of the trial. what were some of the prominent arguments of each side. >> it is very complicated. to make a very simple or simpleminded in a certain sense, i think the best way to make those arguments comprehensible just in a quick question answer period is to say that there was a narrow field of the legalistic view of impeachment versus the broader view. it was seen that the prosecutors, the people who wanted johnson out of office would take those broader view because for all of the reasons enumerated. and the irony was that the johnson defense team, william everts, and curtis and as i said very brilliant people took the broader view and they were basically talking about the dignity of the president. and maintaining that dignity again congress and the kind of legalistic determination of the tenure of office act which they said he had not violated because the act was worded so ambiguously. so it really came down to the managers of the house and they are arguing and very legalistic terms, and they moved from that particular says because they don't really paint as i say with a broad enough brush. not in that particular way in time. it. >> we will probably have to call this to a halt. one more question. >> thank you very much. can you summarize why which the democratic democratic or republican side would be news happy to see him gone. and why. >> they would both be happy to see him gone. [laughter]. >> what were the politics behind it. >> that's what we have been discussing. his vision for the country whether your mission was one of the radical or progressive whatever you want to call it, republicans, free and just based inequality, obstructing that. or, if you're really sort of democrat who felt let's give the states rights and let's keep presidential power curtailed. the irony is this president is asserting presidential power he supposed to be a democrat who really wants to give power back to the states in that particular way. so is basically any is been so difficult in terms of political strategies as i as said before. democrats were saying just go along with the 14th minute. we can move forward. said the democrats, the democratic press, they did want to have anything to do with him either. a plague. >> thank you very much. [applause]. congratulations on your book. [applause]. [background sounds] >> book tv has coupled several books on impeachment. part of president trump defense team, has a 2018 book, the case against impeaching trump. here's a portion. >> congress believed you don't need a crime. the president believes you need a crime. this the third branch of government. he says i'm not going anywhere. you violated the constitution. you did appropriately impeach or remove me. what are you going to do, so me. and i'm going bring the army. the president controls the army. what is he going to do, since of any to remove him. at this point the case goes to the united states supreme court. there is no other alternative. what i argue is to avoid that kind of constitutional crisis. congress auto narrowly read the impeachment criteria so as not to create a conflict the executive branch. if it does, the legislative branch of the executive branch discrete is going to be up to the supreme court. it is to decide who is right. two prior justices have already said that in this kind of a conflict arises, the congress act and they improperly than the supreme court might very well intervene and he said the case. i laid all of that out in the book. it's a possible scenario. i'm not advising present trump if he were to be impeached and removed, not to leave. i'm not advising him that. i'm just saying is certainly a reasonable possibility when you have three branches of government and two of them disagree about the interpretation of the constitution. in the end that has to be decided by the supreme court. it. >> to access all of the cspan2 about to be on impeachment, visit our website cspan.org/impeachment. the new cspan2 online store now has book tv products. good who cspan2 start .org to check them out. see what is new for book tv and all of the c-span products. on book tv monthly program "in depth", or advisor to president donald trump, sebastian discusses books and offered his thoughts on politics and national security. here's a portion of the interview. >> two weeks before graduation, then took my daughter's photograph and on social media and posted around the campus, the put her name and her picture. and this is the face of white supremacy this what they said pretty white. because she was part of and she was my daughter. despite the fact that this girl had helped ethnic women, minority women went she was doing a research project on those who had been abused by the partners. their husbands. and so it came to graduation i was very stations printed did want to cause a scene. i knew there would be many parents there. probably not trump supporters of when i arrived in that funny day, i did sit with my family. i sat under an oak tree. so that there wouldn't be any distractions from what my daughter should've had for celebration. it was all fine. until after the ceremony and madonna received her diploma and the caps were thrown in the air. and i decided to make my way back to my wife and my mother-in-law and the doctor. and in doing so i was separated from everyone. a little girl walked up to me in this the meat of the opening of this book. a little girl walked straight up to me maybe 19 years old maybe 85 counts of stripping what, and she looked me in the eye and she said, are you sebastian. are you the sebastian who worked for donald trump in the white house. in may, i smiled and extended my hand and said yes, that is me. and here i have to edit things. one that case, if you, you notate. i have been through the mill in the white house. but he never had somebody who was literally the most powerful free nation in the world do that in front of me or do that in front of hundreds of witnesses. no with my family background. but for this little girl to go back to her family, the mother and grandmother probably were standing there. i looked in the face and i said, who in the hell do you think you are. my parents suffered under nasi occupation in central europe. and after that my weather, on the communistic side was arrested and tortured and imprisoned and who the hell do you think you are. to call me a nosy. the girls mother was shocked and her job often said, did you really say that to this man. this is why i wrote this book. the little girl living in the freest nation in the world, with his grin from the joker in bettman, she looked in her mother and said yes, i did. that is frightening. then according to the victims, 792 percent of the american millennials would like to live in a communist or socialist country. this after the fact if you read the black book of communism, at least hundred million human beings were exterminated in the name of colum marx and his communist ideology. so i spent more than 20 years in the national security to men i specialized in regular warfare and strategy of commentaries and now, the last three years have been damaging boat for me. i realize the greater front we face is that falsification of history. in the indoctrination of a whole generation of americans. >> to watch the rest of this program, visit our website book to be .org. click on the "in depth" cap or search for sebastian borge, using blocks and that top of the page. [background sounds] >> it is great to be here with you will to celebrate and discuss an excellent new book printed by one of our country news most original and insightful economic thinkers. over the course of her distinguished career she's brought her wide range of intelligence and feel for storytelling to some of our country news leading in

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Maine , Tennessee , United Kingdom , Massachusetts , Vermont , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Ohio , Americans , America , Scotsman , American , Ben Butler , Graham Anna , Andrew Johnson , Michael Benedict , Laura Snyder , Frederick Douglass , William Taft , Edwin Stanton , Ben Wade , William Stewart , Sebastian Borge , John Quincy Adams , Klux Klan , Colum Marx , Thaddeus Stevens , John F Kennedy , Stevens Thaddeus ,