|
Book Reviews The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew John- son. By MICHAEL LES BENEDICT. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1973. x + 212p.; notes, appendix, biblio- graphical essay, and index. Cloth, $6.95; paper, $2.45.) Among the countless studies of American political institutions few have dealt with im- peachment. Historians and political scien- tists writing about Reconstruction or Presi- dent Andrew Johnson have avoided treating his impeachment in depth. Although few scholars any longer accept the once com- monly held view that there were seven Re- publican "martyrs"' who destroyed their po- litical careers by voting to acquit Johnson, many have agreed with the late President John F. Kennedy's assessment that Senator Edmund G. Ross-joined by six other Re- publicans-"may well have preserved for ourselves and posterity constitutional gov- ernment in the United States" (Profiles in Courage (1955),
p. 126). In recent years the Reconstruction era has been subjected to searching new analyses that have justified much of Radical Republican Reconstruction legislation. Notwithstanding these en- hanced views of Radical Reconstruction, un- til now there has not been a significant re- evaluation of Johnson's impeachment, and David Miller DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson . . . (1903), re- mained the standard study. Ohio State Uni- versity Professor Michael Les Benedict has persuasively rectified this oversight of sev- enty years. In his refreshing analysis of Johnson's im- peachment and trial Benedict concludes there were good, compelling, and persuasive reasons for the removal attempt. After a thorough examination of the legal and con- stitutional bases for impeachment, Benedict insists, convincingly, that it was intended to be a political remedy for removing a dan- gerous President before the end of his term |
|
for reasons that might not necessarily be considered criminal in the courts. Impeach- ment, in Benedict's view, is a political rem- edy grounded in constitutional law. The basis for Johnson's impeachment was his consistent refusal to execute the laws of Congress and his insistence on reconstruct- ing the southern states along lines repugnant to the expressed will of Congress. By refus- ing to cooperate with Congress and acting in defiance of its will, by refusing to take ade- quate steps to protect loyal southerners and his insistence on working with suspect south- ern leaders, by leaving southern blacks and white loyalists at the mercy of state action, Johnson was negating, in part, the results of the Civil War. Added to these "sins," John- son was attempting to build a new political coalition that would return him to office. His unsuccessful attempt to remove Secre- tary of War Edwin M. Stanton was the spark that ignited the impeachment fire which had long been smoldering. Examining charges against the President and arguments advanced by leaders on both sides of the question, Benedict concludes that the impeachment proceedings were "one of the great legal cases of history, in which American politicians demonstrated the strength of the nation's democratic in- stitutions by attempting to do what no one could justifiably expect them to do-to give a political officer a full and fair trial in a time of political crisis" (p. 143). He doubts there was ever any real danger that conviction of the President would have broken down the separation and balancing of powers in the national government and resulted in a Brit- ish style parliamentary system. It was the President, Benedict alleges accurately, who overstepped his authority and threatened the separation of powers. Despite the Presi- dent's transgressions, however, the failure of conviction demonstrated that impeachment was a poor weapon and "the only effective recourse against a president who ignores the |