[Y4N]∎ Descargar Impeached The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln Legacy David O Stewart 9781416547495 Books

Impeached The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln Legacy David O Stewart 9781416547495 Books

Download As PDF : Impeached The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln Legacy David O Stewart 9781416547495 Books

Impeached The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln Legacy David O Stewart 9781416547495 Books

Once again the topic of impeachment has a measure of currency. That circumstance prompted me to read something about the one presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history that was not the product of political grandstanding -- that of the seventeenth president, Andrew Johnson, in 1868. [Footnote: Impeachment is a two-step process. First the House of Representatives must vote articles of impeachment; then the Senate conducts a trial of the sitting president to determine whether he is guilty under any of those articles. Richard Nixon resigned before the House voted articles of impeachment and therefore no trial before the Senate took place; as shameful as Bill Clinton's conduct was, I view the impeachment proceedings against him to have been political grandstanding.] For my history lesson, I turned to IMPEACHED by David O. Stewart.

It was an unnecessarily arduous lesson. To his credit, Stewart conducted prodigious research, but then, seemingly, he crammed all that research into the book. Thus, IMPEACHED is too detailed and long. Nor is it optimally organized. There are many instances of undue repetition. I was tempted to give up a little over one-third through, but by that point I had progressed beyond page 100, which is my traditional "fish-or-cut-bait" mark in reading books -- so I persevered. Thankfully, the book picked up shortly thereafter. In the end, I feel I learned what I had set out to learn, but my grade for my teacher is B-minus.

The Andrew Johnson impeachment trial came about primarily through the confluence of two factors. One, of course, was the badly fractured nation, which had just endured a bloody civil war, seen its leader and greatest president ever murdered, and now was uncertain how to go about readmitting the defeated southern states, how much freedom to give to the ex-slaves, and, in general, how to "reconstruct" the South. The second was Andrew Johnson. He was a Democrat and a Southerner (from Tennessee), who had distinguished himself in 1861 as the only Senator from a southern state to stand with the Union. In 1864 he had been placed on the Republican ticket under Lincoln as a gesture towards reconciliation and unity, to show that the Republicans were not just a northern party. Even though, in two ways, he represented factions that had lost the Civil War, he was elevated to President by an assassin's bullet. Making matters even worse, Andrew Johnson was obtuse, frequently delusional and (according to many) drunk, and pathologically averse to compromise. He was one of the three worst presidents in American history.

Johnson soon locked horns with the Republican-dominated Congress. The escalating stalemate, which at times became farcical, takes up about the first third of IMPEACHED. It is a slog. The rest of the book covers the passage of eleven articles of impeachment by the House (after three earlier attempts failed); the trial in the Senate, where impeachment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds majority by only one vote; and the super-abundance of evidence of bribery and corruption surrounding that vote. Indeed, Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas, who had vacillated back and forth and ultimately cast the decisive vote against impeachment, almost certainly was enriched monetarily and afterwards was rewarded by still-President Johnson with a host of opportunities for lucrative patronage. That JFK (or his ghostwriter) memorialized Ross with a "profile in courage" is laughable.

Stewart does a relatively good job in expounding on the difficulties of giving precise meaning to the language in the Constitution that impeachment shall be only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". He also is to be commended for the dispassionate perspective, both political and historical, with which he discusses that singular moment in U.S. history. And speaking of perspective, one takeaway from the book is that the politics and circumstances of the country were more parlous in the late 1860s than they are 150 years later.


Tags : Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy [David O. Stewart] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A revisionist account of the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson identifies specific incendiary behaviors on the part of the seventeenth president that the author believes failed to heal post-Civil War America.,David O. Stewart,Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy,Simon & Schuster,1416547495,United States - 19th Century,United States;History;1865-1898.,United States;Politics and government.,United States;Politics and government;1865-1869.,1808-1875,1809-1865,1865-1869,American Government - Executive Branch,GENERAL,General Adult,HISTORY United States 19th Century,History,History - U.S.,History United States General,HistoryAmerican,History: American,Impeachment,Influence,Johnson, Andrew,,Lincoln, Abraham,,Non-Fiction,POLITICAL SCIENCE American Government Executive Branch,Political History,Politics and government,U.S. HISTORY - CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION (1860-1877),U.S. PRESIDENT,United States,United States - Reconstruction Period (1865-1877)

Impeached The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln Legacy David O Stewart 9781416547495 Books Reviews

The author writes very well in terms of style. First you learn about Reconstruction, of which I was totally ignorant. Most of the book concerns the attempt via the impeachment process to remove Andrew Johnson, a tempestuous racist, a firm believer in states rights, and a Democrat, who succeeded the presidency after the assassination of President Lincoln. At the beginning of the book the author relates how the states that seceded from the Federal Government were not recognized by the Congressional leaders and thus were not part of Congress. This was something I did not know and will follow up with additional reading of such authors as Eric Foner.

The author concludes that both sides, those prosecuting and those defending Andrew Johnson, used illegal means to get their desired result.

My only real criticism is that when dealing with the alleged corruption the author deviates from the chronological order of the impeachment process.

It is a quick read. Also, the quality (print size and to a lesser degree the high quality paper) of the book I purchased was excellent, which helped.

I contacted the author, who is a true gentleman, and told him I preferred end note numbers in each chapter. He agreed with me and said his third and next book will be formatted that way. His publisher had decided to change formats.
This book was a great book to read because the story of Andrew Johnson's impeachment is a fascinating one. To understand first how he came to the presidency (why Lincoln picked him as VP), then to see how he acted after Lincoln's death, it is without wonder why Congress sought to oppose Johnson and seek his removal. The author makes a pretty clear case against Johnson. While it may be a matter of debate how Lincoln would have handled years of Reconstruction in the South, both Congress and Johnson thought they were upholding Lincoln's legacy. (Johnson wanted quick new state governments open to "all," while Congress wanted carefully rebuilt new state governments free of senior Confederates.)

The case for impeachment was a pretty weak one, but the story of how it unfolded is mind-boggling to imagine in today's context. The president was vetoing every important act of Congress and Congress was meanwhile over-riding nearly every veto. The relationship was hostile, adversarial, and nearly childish. Johnson felt victimized and remained defiant. Meanwhile, Congress passed a law preventing the president from firing his Cabinet secretaries. So when he named a new War Secretary, the old one barricaded himself in his office, refusing to leave office.

While modern readers will most likely agree that Johnson's actions were immoral or otherwise wrong, the book makes pretty clear that he really broke no laws (other than, arguably, the ignominious Tenure of Office Act). So the case for his impeachment and removal was purely political. Because it is not illegal to pursue bad policies, Congress found it difficult to remove Johnson from office.

While many senators voted against impeachment for good legal and ethical reasons, the book makes clear than many votes were influenced by filthy lucre. Bribes and payoffs were a strong undercurrent to this story. This is also one area where the author's narrative fell flat. Few of the bribes and schemes can today be proven. So the mix of circumstantial evidence and hearsay make for less than convincing plots. Additionally, as with any true corruption scheme, the true story and string of events is convoluted and confusing. While the author tries to "follow the money," the reader is left with their head spinning and not knowing what actually happened. The problem is that the author traces some successful bribes alongside failed ones, and so the reader has to pick out what actually took place from what (though attempted) did not.

Like others, I found the last chapter out of place. While it includes a good summary of events, it is thoroughly editorial. The author comes out strongly in opposition to Johnson, arguing that he should have been removed from office, a conclusion few readers would surely have come to from reading the preceding chapters. While Johnson could be fairly painted as one of our worst presidents, the author himself demonstrates that he never truly met the high standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would prompt his removal.

Overall, this book is worth the read, largely because it is the most contemporary and dedicated book to the subject.
Great fun. The author has a lively writing style and makes the subject matter come alive. He vibrantly portrays the cast of characters Old Thad, Benjamin Butler, Edwin Stanton, et al. The last chapter is the best because it outlines the constitutional issues involved in the impeachment process. Yes that sounds dry and boring as I describe it. Stewart makes it compelling and highly entertaining
Once again the topic of impeachment has a measure of currency. That circumstance prompted me to read something about the one presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history that was not the product of political grandstanding -- that of the seventeenth president, Andrew Johnson, in 1868. [Footnote Impeachment is a two-step process. First the House of Representatives must vote articles of impeachment; then the Senate conducts a trial of the sitting president to determine whether he is guilty under any of those articles. Richard Nixon resigned before the House voted articles of impeachment and therefore no trial before the Senate took place; as shameful as Bill Clinton's conduct was, I view the impeachment proceedings against him to have been political grandstanding.] For my history lesson, I turned to IMPEACHED by David O. Stewart.

It was an unnecessarily arduous lesson. To his credit, Stewart conducted prodigious research, but then, seemingly, he crammed all that research into the book. Thus, IMPEACHED is too detailed and long. Nor is it optimally organized. There are many instances of undue repetition. I was tempted to give up a little over one-third through, but by that point I had progressed beyond page 100, which is my traditional "fish-or-cut-bait" mark in reading books -- so I persevered. Thankfully, the book picked up shortly thereafter. In the end, I feel I learned what I had set out to learn, but my grade for my teacher is B-minus.

The Andrew Johnson impeachment trial came about primarily through the confluence of two factors. One, of course, was the badly fractured nation, which had just endured a bloody civil war, seen its leader and greatest president ever murdered, and now was uncertain how to go about readmitting the defeated southern states, how much freedom to give to the ex-slaves, and, in general, how to "reconstruct" the South. The second was Andrew Johnson. He was a Democrat and a Southerner (from Tennessee), who had distinguished himself in 1861 as the only Senator from a southern state to stand with the Union. In 1864 he had been placed on the Republican ticket under Lincoln as a gesture towards reconciliation and unity, to show that the Republicans were not just a northern party. Even though, in two ways, he represented factions that had lost the Civil War, he was elevated to President by an assassin's bullet. Making matters even worse, Andrew Johnson was obtuse, frequently delusional and (according to many) drunk, and pathologically averse to compromise. He was one of the three worst presidents in American history.

Johnson soon locked horns with the Republican-dominated Congress. The escalating stalemate, which at times became farcical, takes up about the first third of IMPEACHED. It is a slog. The rest of the book covers the passage of eleven articles of impeachment by the House (after three earlier attempts failed); the trial in the Senate, where impeachment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds majority by only one vote; and the super-abundance of evidence of bribery and corruption surrounding that vote. Indeed, Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas, who had vacillated back and forth and ultimately cast the decisive vote against impeachment, almost certainly was enriched monetarily and afterwards was rewarded by still-President Johnson with a host of opportunities for lucrative patronage. That JFK (or his ghostwriter) memorialized Ross with a "profile in courage" is laughable.

Stewart does a relatively good job in expounding on the difficulties of giving precise meaning to the language in the Constitution that impeachment shall be only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". He also is to be commended for the dispassionate perspective, both political and historical, with which he discusses that singular moment in U.S. history. And speaking of perspective, one takeaway from the book is that the politics and circumstances of the country were more parlous in the late 1860s than they are 150 years later.