Editor’s Note: This is the first of a four-part series by renowned public policy scholar Michael Christensen placing the impeachment of Donald Trump into historical context. Part 1 provides an introduction and an overview of the Andrew Johnson impeachment. Part 2 will focus on the impeachment of Richard Nixon; Part 3 will focus on the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Part 4 will provide observations and describe what history teaches about the Trump impeachment. (See parts two, three and four.)
The impeachment of President Donald Trump has dominated much of the news in the nation and the world. His upcoming Senate trial will do the same. How it will end and what the ramifications will be for next year’s elections is unknown. However, one thing seems clear, whatever happens in the Senate trial, harsh feelings, partisanship, and anger will certainly still be with us. Our nation is seriously divided about this president. Though his job approval rating has always been low (36%-44%), the impeachment process so far has not caused it to seriously dip. His supporters are still with him. Furthermore, the impeachment process seems to provide no clear direction of how Americans will vote next year. Donald Trump won the election in 2016 with just 46 percent of the popular vote (62,945,828 million votes) as opposed to Hillary Clinton who won 48 percent of the popular vote (65,853,514 million). However, as the 2000 and 2016 elections have shown us, it is the Electoral College that decides elections and Trump defeated Clinton 304 to 227. Few are predicting next year’s results.
Nevertheless, impeachments have consequences. With the trial looming, I thought it might be helpful for readers to get a better understanding of this impeachment by looking at the three previous ones that have occurred in our country. Two impeachment processes went all the way to trial, a third one barely got started. I have no intention of using the previous impeachments to predict the outcome of the current one. I write only to help the reader place the current process into historical perspective and thereby provide a better understanding of what is going on and why.
I will discuss the three times that the impeachment process either ran its course (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) or at least got started (Richard Nixon). First let’s look at the United States Constitution and see what it states about this important but rarely used constitutional tool.
What Does the Constitution Say?
The Constitution of the United States consists of seven articles. The first article creates the legislative branch of government and gives that body its powers. There are two sections in Article 1 referring to impeachment. Each section specifies the power each branch of congress has. Section 2 states, “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Section 3 states the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
Article 2 of the Constitution creates the executive branch and provides for its powers. In section four of the article, it states: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” A very long discussion could be given concerning what the words “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” mean but a very good short answer was given by President Gerald Ford when he was the minority leader in the House of Representatives, “It means whatever the U.S. House of Representatives says it means at that time in history.” The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first draft articles of impeachment and then pass each of them by simple majority vote. These articles are then sent to the Senate where a trial is held, each senator being a member of the jury and voting on each article separately.
With an understanding of what the Constitution tells us, we’ll next look at the history of impeachment through three presidents: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.
President Andrew Johnson: 1865-1869
Andrew Johnson Background. Born December 29, 1808 in North Carolina to poor and illiterate parents, Johnson’s mother apprenticed her son to a tailor at age 10 with a contract obligating him to work until age 21. Unable to stomach his overseer, Johnson ran away at age 15 and ultimately settled in Greenville, Tennessee where, over time, he established a very successful tailoring business of his own. Knowing the handicap his parents faced being illiterate, he became a voracious reader and a powerful but often strident speaker. As an adult, he served in the Tennessee militia, rising to the rank of colonel. Johnson was an impressive man in many ways being elected to both the state House of Representatives and Senate, then later to the U.S. House and Senate as a Democrat.
When Johnson’s home state of Tennessee seceded from the union, he surprisingly refused. Though his sympathies lay with the South and its cause, his strong nationalist feelings would not allow him to follow his state and he remained in Washington D.C. As a reward for his action, Abraham Lincoln chose Johnson to be his running mate in Lincoln’s successful reelection bid in 1864. Then tragedy struck at Ford’s Theater the evening of April 14, 1865, and with one vengeful and tragic shot, Abraham Lincoln was mortally wounded and died the next day. Johnson immediately became president.
Origins of Impeachment. Andrew Johnson was at heart a southern Democrat though he ran on the Republican ticket with Lincoln. These southern sympathies included racism and states’ rights. He spoke not of “reconstruction”, but of “restoration.” He wanted the southern states back into the nation as fast as possible and in control of their fate. He once said, “White men alone must manage the South.”[i]
A Republican Congress faced Johnson head-on. In the words of historian Jon Meacham, Republicans believed “that the North’s triumph had indeed amounted to what Lincoln had, at Gettysburg, called a ‘new birth of freedom.’”[ii] In addition to this belief in freedom (meaning freedom for former slaves) the Republicans felt strongly that the federal government was superior to the states and could impose its will on them when needed. In addition to these cavernous differences of opinion, Johnson and Congress proved to be immovable in their positions. A clash between the president and congress was inevitable, only the outcome was in doubt.
Johnson & Congress Collide – 1866. About a year after he became president, the differences between Johnson and congress erupted. Johnson vetoed an extension of Freedman’s Bureau, a bureau created in 1865 and designed to help former slaves with food, clothing and other provisions. The bill was to last for one year after the end of the war. He also vetoed a sweeping civil rights bill. Congress overrode Johnson’s veto on the civil rights bill and then passed an amended Freedman’s Bureau Act. Both bills angered Johnson’s southern sympathies.
Johnson went on a campaign in the 1866 mid-term elections in hopes of getting voters to elect persons to congress that would support him and his agenda. Unfortunately for the president, his angry and fiery speeches backfired and Republicans increased their majorities to veto-proof levels in both Houses.
Johnson & Congress Continue Fighting – 1867. With the increased power from the midterm election, congress, in 1867, passed a series of reconstruction acts over the president’s veto. The acts: 1) Divided southern states into five military districts with appointed governors; 2) Required states to draft new constitutions, ratifying the 14th Amendment which gave citizenship to former slaves, and 3) Required states to guarantee the voting rights of black males. To add insult to injury, congress passed the Tenure of Office Act which prevented the president from firing any person in the executive branch who had been confirmed by the Senate.
Johnson wanted to fire Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War and a Lincoln appointee. He believed that Stanton was colluding with Republicans to undermine his presidency. The new Tenure of Office Act prevented him from removing Stanton without Senate approval. This infuriated Johnson who believed the law was unconstitutional (it was repealed in 1887). In August 1867 Johnson removed Stanton and replaced him with General Ulysses S. Grant by way of a loophole in the law allowing for removal while congress was in recess. Congress came back from recess in December, passed a non-concurrence resolution of Stanton’s dismissal and in January, voted to reinstate Stanton. Grant, not interested in being a pawn in this struggle, stepped down. In response, Johnson ignored congress and appointed another person to the position. The president had laid down the gauntlet. Now even moderate Republicans sided with the radicals in their party.
Impeachment in House February 24 – March 3, 1868.
The House of Representatives voted 126-47 (with 17 abstaining) in favor of a resolution to impeach the president on February 24. This, before any articles of impeachment had even been passed, indicated the confidence the Republican Party had in impeaching the president. About a week later the House passed 11 articles of impeachment. Most of the articles focused on violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Another cited three of the president’s speeches in his 1866 campaign as intent “to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the congress of the United States.” The last article stated that the president brought “disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions.”[iii]
Where Was the Public on Impeachment? No professional public opinion polling existed at this time, nevertheless, it is safe to say Southern states strongly supported Johnson as the protector of their way of life. In the North, the story was very different. The New York Tribune reported that in an interview, General Ulysses S. Grant made his views clear. “He feels national security demands the removal of the President … When the General of our armies entertains this conviction, there is no room for doubt as to the duty of the Senate.” The Chicago Tribune wrote that, “Like an aching tooth, everyone is impatient to have the old villain out.”[iv]
Trial in the Senate March 4-May 16, 1868. The Senate consisted of 54 senators at this time, 45 Republicans and 9 Democrats representing 27 states. Tennessee was the only one of the 11 seceding states that had been accepted back into the union by 1868. The other 10 came back in between 1868 and 1870. With the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority to convict, Senate Republicans needed 36 votes. No Democratic votes were needed. They just had to hold on to 36 of their 45 caucus members and Johnson would be removed. On March 4, 1868, 11 articles of impeachment passed by the House were presented in the Senate. The trial began two days later with Chief Justice Salmon Chase presiding. The Senate agreed to delay the trial upon the request of the defense which claimed it needed time to prepare. On March 30, Senator Benjamin Butler opened the trial with a 3-hour harangue for the prosecution focusing on the president’s violation of the Tenure of Office Act. With 35 Republicans solidly on board, the focus centered on the 10 Republicans that seemed soft on conviction. The Republican Party in congress and at home placed enormous pressure on this small handful of senators. Bribes and threats were plentiful.
The Senate voted on the first article May 16. It went down in defeat 35-19. Thirty-five Republicans voted to convict and all nine Democrats and 10 Republicans voted to acquit. Senate leadership decided to postpone the vote on further articles for 10 days to try to get one Republican to switch his vote. Despite this pause to pressure the 10, the next two articles were voted down by the same count as the first. The trial was over — Johnson survived. He remained in office the remainder of his term which ended March 4, 1869, only eight months later.
Summary of Johnson Impeachment and Trial.
Johnson’s impeachment and trial was the result of a president and Republican congress that hated each other and fundamentally disagreed on: 1) the method and goals of bringing the southern states back into the union; 2) racial equality; and 3) federal v. state powers. Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act expecting the president to disobey it, thus giving pretext to impeach and remove Johnson from office and allowing congress to move forward with their reconstruction policies in the south without opposition from the executive branch.
Lessons of 1868 Impeachment.
The process of impeachment and removal of President Johnson was: 1) a passionate and divisive process involving pressure, threats, and bribes; 2) dominated by partisanship and bitterness; 3) a policy dispute exacerbated by hatred on both sides; 4) more political than legal.
The Senate’s failure to convict and remove Johnson probably saved the independence of the presidency. Most importantly, it showed that a very unpopular and politically inept president that is hated by the party that controlled both Houses can be prevented from removal from office by a handful of courageous members of the majority party. Years after the trial, public opinion shifted in Johnson’s favor with even some senators who voted for conviction admitting that they had since changed their minds.
This impeachment trial was not about corruption or abuse of power. It was about a fundamental difference between Johnson (and the Democrats) on one hand and the Republicans on the other, on how southern states should come back into the union. The president wanted them back under easy terms requiring southerners to accept the abolishment of slavery and pledge an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. The Republican Party wanted to rebuild the south not just economically, but culturally. The Republican congress decided that the best way to get what they wanted was just to get rid of the president.
The 10 Republicans and nine Democrats preserved an incredibly important aspect of our constitution – the separation of powers principle. If Congress can intimidate a president into following its wishes by threatening impeachment then there is no balance between these two branches – a truly huge blow to the concept of representation.
Dr. Michael Christensen is the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Scholar in Residence. Dr. Christensen has spent over 35 years in the public policy arena. He served as Governor Norm Bangerter’s deputy director of the Office of Planning and Budget and State Planning Coordinator. He then directed the Utah Foundation, a private-public policy think tank, for nine years authoring over 100 papers. He was an editor and/or co-author of two books: “State and Local Government in Utah” and “Financing Government in Utah.” From 2000 until his retirement in 2017, he worked for the Utah Legislature as director of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. He holds bachelors and masters degrees from Utah State University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Utah.
[i] Impeachment: An American History, Meacham, Jon, and others, p.49.
[ii] Impeachment: An American History, p.57.
[iii] Wikipedia, “Impeachment of Andrew Johnson”, under the section “Impeachment”. Also Impeachment: An American History, p.72.
[iv] Impeachment: An American History, p.76-77.
