Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy

by David O. Stewart

  That reasoning provoked: One of the principal political sports of the day was speculating about what Grant’s political views really were. New York Herald, November 12, 1867. Jacob William Schuckers, The Life and Public Services of Salmon P. Chase (1874), p. 548; Trefousse, Andrew Johnson, p. 303.

  If that argument could not be sustained: That Boutwell had the better of the legal argument was reinforced a few days after the vote, when a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania and former chief justice of that state’s supreme court rose to speak. Having been persuaded by fellow Democrats to hold his tongue before the vote on the impeachment resolution, George Woodward seized the moment to outline his complete agreement with Boutwell’s definition of an impeachable offense. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 177–79 (December 13, 1867); Chicago Tribune, December 14, 1867.

  As a Republican remembered: Anti-Slavery Standard, December 9, 1867, reprinted in New York Times, December 13, 1867; Blaine, vol. 2, p. 347. With one eye fixed on posterity, Stevens continued sitting for the teenage sculptress from Kansas, Vinnie Ream. Because he could no longer manage stairs, he asked her to come to his home. Stevens to Vinnie Ream, December 10, 1867, Stevens Papers.

  No one ever accounted: Impeachment Money, pp. 2–3.

  10. IMPEACHMENT, ROUND THREE

  I regard [the president]: John Sherman to W. T. Sherman, March 1, 1868, John Sherman’s Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate, and Cabinet: An Autobiography, Chicago: Werner Co. (1895), p. 424.

  The Freedmen’s Bureau: Chicago Tribune, January 4, 1868.

  In New York, financial titans: Stephen Ambrose, Nothing Like It In The World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad, 1863–1869 New York: Simon & Schuster (2000), pp. 261–306; New York Times, March 31 and April 16, 1868; Maury Klein, The Life and Legend of Jay Gould, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1986), pp. 77–87.

  Soon Congress would have to appropriate: Trefousse, Andrew Johnson, p. 288.

  New York newspapers: New York World, November 21, 1867; Boston Daily Advertiser, December 10, 1867.

  To speed his manager’s recovery: Washington Daily National Intelligencer, January 11, 1867; Washington Star, January 10, 1867.

  The army arrested: Richard G. Lowe, “Virginia’s Reconstruction Convention,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80:341, 342 (1972); New York Herald, November 13, 1867. A delegate to the South Carolina Convention reported being “grossly insulted at the dinner table for being a member of a Yankee and Negro convention.” C. Hopkins to T. Stevens, January 3, 1868, in Stevens Papers. The voting statistics for the elections of each Southern state convention are reproduced in an appendix in Perman, Reunion Without Compromise.

  State constitutional conventions: New York World, November 16 and 20, 1867; Joseph B. James, The Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press (1984), pp. 234–35, 269; James E. Bond, No Easy Walk to Freedom: Reconstruction and the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers (1997), pp. 90, 108, 131; Bond, pp. 242–43.

  The state conventions: Foner, pp. 316–33; Peggy Lamson, The Glorious Failure: Black Congressman Robert Brown Elliott and the Reconstruction of South Carolina, New York: W. W. Norton & Co. (1973), pp. 47–67; Jack B. Scroggs, “Carpetbagger Constitutional Reform in the Southern Atlantic States, 1867–68,” Journal of Southern History 27:475 (1962).

  The injury did not limit: Cowan, p. 8; Trefousse, Andrew Johnson, pp. 229, 285; Hearings of Select Committee on Alleged Private Meetings of Members of the House with a View to a Corrupt Bargain with the President National Archives, HR39A-F28.1; Testimony of William Warden, February 21, 1867, pp. 46–48; Testimony of Jerome Stillson, February 8, 1868, pp. 2–5, in Archives, Impeachment: Various House Papers; Glenna R. Schroeder-Lein and Richard Zuczek, Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio (2001), pp. 138–39.

  It is a misnomer: Pope to Grant, December 30, 1867, Grant Papers 18:95–96; Peter Cozzens, General John Pope: A Life for the Nation, Urbana: University of Illinois Press (2000), pp. 294–95.

  “The rebels are rejoicing”: Foster Blodgett to Benjamin Butler, December 30, 1867, in Butler Papers, Box 44. For Pope’s Reconstruction experiences, see Cozzens, pp. 276–95.

  In both Houses: Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 242 (December 19, 1867); Smith, Grant, pp. 444–45; Clemenceau, p. 139 (January 3, 1868).

  He concluded with the incontestable: Johnson’s report was printed in the Senate Executive Journal, vol. 16, pp. 95–105 (December 12, 1868). His assertion about Lincoln’s approach to reconstruction is accurate, but quite incomplete. Johnson implies that the black codes and racial violence in the South would not have caused Lincoln to revise his policy—as, indeed, they had not caused Johnson to reevaluate his. It also assumes that Lincoln would have alienated congressional Republicans in the same fashion that Johnson had. On the New Orleans episode, Stanton acknowledged that he did not send to Johnson a message from the Louisiana army commander outlining his plans and asking for additional instructions. In arbitrary Stanton fashion, he did not respond to that commander because he could not think of any other action that should be taken. Stanton’s biographers criticize him for this lapse, though it was consistent with the war secretary’s practice of acting without consultation with superiors or colleagues. Thomas and Hyman, p. 496.

  On January 10, a Senate committee: Chicago Tribune, December 15, 1867 January 11, 1868.

  Or, if Grant returned: Johnson to Grant, January 31, 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:508–9; Simpson, p. 203.

  After discussing the law’s penalties: Grant to Johnson, February 3, 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:523; Welles Diary, vol. 3, pp. 259–60 (January 14, 1868); Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman, p. 421.

  The full dimensions: Grant to Johnson, January 28, 1868, Johnson Papers 13:502; Johnson to Grant, January 31, 1868, ibid., 13:508; Badeau, p. 111. Johnson’s version of the conversation was described in congressional testimony by a favored reporter, Jerome Stillson of the New York World, who had been called in to receive and republish the president’s side of the story. Archives, Impeachment: Various Papers, February 8, 1868.

  Grant and Johnson saw each other: Grant to Johnson, January 28, 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:502; Badeau, p. 111; Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman, pp. 421–22. Johnson’s interior secretary, Orville Browning, had proposed Governor Cox as war secretary several months before. Welles Diary, vol. 3, pp. 231–32 (October 8, 1867).

  Many Republican senators supported Stanton: Senate Executive Journal, vol. 18, pp. 129–30 (January 13, 1868); New York Herald, January 14, 1868; Clemenceau, p. 140 (January 18, 1868).

  There, Grant sent a letter: Ellis, p. 319; Badeau, pp. 111–12; Grant to Johnson, January 14, 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:468.

  Stanton spent the afternoon: Simpson, pp. 228–29; Thomas and Hyman, p. 570; Baltimore Sun, January 15, 1868. Edward Townsend, Anecdotes of the Civil War, New York: D. Appleton & Co. (1884), p. 124; Sherman to Grant, January 27, 1868, Grant Papers 17:106n; New York Herald, January 15, 1868; Cincinnati Gazette, January 15, 1868.

  Navy Secretary Welles thought: Browning Diary, vol. 2, pp. 173–75; Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 261 (January 14, 1868).

  When other Cabinet members sided: Gerry, p. 865; Badeau, p. 113.

  Stanton, master of the positive: Grant to Sherman, January 29, 1868, in Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman, p. 424; Simpson, pp. 231–32.

  Johnson preferred to leave: Moore Diary/AHR, p. 117 (January 26, 1868).

  As for the Cabinet meeting: New York Herald, January 15, 1868; Chicago Tribune, January 15, 1868; Archives, Impeachment: Various House Papers (testimony of Jerome Stillson, reporter for the New York World) (February 8, 1868), pp. 2–5. Another correspondent with access to Johnson reported that the president “has told me things that were not always in accordance with truth.” Ibid., March 5, 1868 (testimony of W. Scott Smith), pp. 9–10; Washington Daily National Intelligencer, January 30, 1868; Badeau, p. 112; McPherson, p. 283
; Johnson Papers 13:500.

  Another encouraged Johnson: Ewing to Johnson, January 29, 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:502; Robert W. Latham to Johnson, January 29, 1868, ibid., 13:503.

  Unimpressed by the massed moral power: Grant to Johnson, February 3 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:524.

  Even some who disliked Johnson: Clemenceau, p. 144 (January 24, 1868). Statements supporting Johnson from the Cabinet secretaries were read to the House of Representatives on February 11. The statement by Secretary of State Seward elicited laughter because of its evasiveness, while that of Navy Secretary Welles drew laughs because of its bellicosity. Chicago Tribune, February 12, 1868.

  In a question of veracity: New York Tribune, January 17, 1868. Similar views were expressed by the Boston Daily Advertiser on January 17, 1868, and the Chicago Tribune on February 11 and 18, 1868. The New York Times’s correspondent wrote on February 15, 1868, that if the dispute between Grant and Johnson were decided “as the Dutch Justice decided his cases, by counting up the number of witnesses on each side, and then deciding in favor of the party who had the greatest number, then unquestionably the President has the best of the case. But if it be decided according to the credibility of the witnesses, and the reasonable probabilities of what did occur,…then unquestionably General Grant stands fully vindicated.”

  Within days, Stevens: Chicago Tribune, February 5, 7, and 8, 1868; New York Times, February 5, 1868; Brodie, p. 333, citing Philadelphia Ledger February 10, 1868; New York Times, February 6, 1868.

  He persuaded the House: Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d sess., p. 1087 (February 11, 1868).

  Now the Pennsylvanian: The Judiciary Committee had taken testimony from the Washington correspondent of the New York World, a pro-Johnson paper, about how the president leaked information during the nasty exchanges with Grant. Archives, Impeachment: Various House Papers, Testimony of Jerome Stillson (February 8 and 11, 1868).

  After brandishing correspondence: New York Times, February 15, 1868, reprinting from Cincinnati Commercial, February 10, 1868 (interview with “Mac,” Joseph B. McCullagh).

  As summed up by old Thomas Ewing: Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 269 (February 5, 1868); Johnson to Grant, February 10, 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:547. The letters from Secretary of the Interior Browning, Treasury Secretary McCulloch, Postmaster General Randall, and Secretary of State Seward are in Johnson Papers 13:526–31, 532–34. Ewing to Ellen Ewing Sherman, February 15, 1868, in Ewing Family Papers. Ewing implored the president to take no action against Stanton. “It is better to let Stanton alone,” he argued. “Public opinion is against him and his backers and by an imprudent act you may turn it in his favor.” Ewing to Johnson, January 29, 1868, in Johnson Papers 13:502–3.

  As for “the question of veracity”: Undated memorandum, Stevens Papers, Box 6; New York World, February 14, 1868; New York Herald, February 14, 1868.

  His motion won: Cincinnati Gazette, February 13, 1868; Philadelphia Press, February 13, 1868; Jerome Stillson to Samuel Barlow, February 12 1868, in Barlow Papers, Box 68.

  Once more, he pronounced: Cincinnati Gazette, February 14, 1868; New York Herald, February 14, 1868. Stevens also made more philosophical statements to the press about the loss, promising to revive impeachment when events warranted. Philadelphia Press, February 14, 1868; New York Times, February 14, 1868.

  His failure was so plain: Chicago Republican, February 19, 1868. As Stevens pressed his impeachment initiative, the House of Representatives was taking initial steps to consider impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Steven Field. At issue was a dinner-table conversation during which the judge was supposed to have stated that he opposed Negro suffrage and thought the government should follow a more “conservative” course. This was alleged to show prejudgment of the legal issues surrounding the Reconstruction Acts, which would be reviewed by the Supreme Court later that year. Chicago Tribune, February 5, 1868. The inquiry into Field’s impeachment was dropped. Cincinnati Gazette, February 8, 1868; Chicago Republican, February 8, 1868; New York Times, February 5, 1868.

  Stevens’s Reconstruction Committee: Clemenceau, p. 138 (January 3, 1868); Chicago Tribune, January 12 and 24, 1868; New York Herald, January 19, 1868. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 476–89, 664; (January 13, 1868); New York Herald, February 13 and 19, 1868.

  A reporter who visited: Stillson to Barlow, February 12, 1868, in Barlow Papers, Box 68.

  To many Americans: The Boston Daily Advertiser wrote on February 6, 1868, that Johnson’s dispute with Grant was a “petty attempt to raise an issue of personal veracity on a collateral incident.” Presidents, the newspaper continued, “have usually found more important and creditable business to occupy their time and thoughts.” The Chicago Tribune wrote on that day that a “more miserable exhibition of official turpitude and littleness is not to be found in the history of the United States.”

  11. SHOWDOWN ON SEVENTEENTH STREET

  The President called upon: Clemenceau, p. 151 (February 28, 1868).

  His terms were so magnanimous: Simpson, p. 96; Charles Bracelen Flood, Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won The Civil War, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux (2005), pp. 337–46.

  One Cabinet member: Michael Fellman, “Lincoln and Sherman,” in Gabor S. Borritt, ed., Lincoln’s Generals, New York: Oxford University Press (1994), pp. 141, 142 (citing Sherman to John Sherman, April 26, 1863, in Sherman Papers); Lloyd Lewis, Sherman: Fighting Prophet, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. (1932), p. 303; Sherman to Salmon P. Chase, January 11, 1865, in Brooks D. Simpson and Jean V. Bertin, eds., Sherman’s Civil War: Selected Correspondence of William T. Sherman, 1860–1865 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press (1999), p. 795; Sefton, p. 23, quoting Army and Navy Journal, 4:514 (March 30, 1867), as reprinted from the Worcester (MA) Spy; W. Sherman to J. Sherman, February 23, 1866, in Thorndike, Sherman Letters, p. 263; Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 163 (October 9, 1867). Sherman’s racist views—which he mostly recanted at the end of his life—are discussed at length by Michael Fellman in Citizen Sherman: A Life of William Tecumseh Sherman, New York: Random House (1995).

  Johnson’s attorney general: Ewing to Johnson, March 15, 1866, in Johnson Papers 10:257.

  “Washington is as corrupt as Hell”: Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, May 8, 1865, in Howe, The Home Letters of General Sherman, p. 352.

  Stanton would be gone: Moore Diary/AHR, February 19, 1868, p. 120 and January 26, 1868, p. 116.

  I have been with General Grant: Sherman to Johnson, January 31, 1868, Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman, p. 427.

  Johnson finally issued: Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 60 (March 6, 1867); Moore Diary/AHR, February 6, 7, and 8, 1868, p. 117; Johnson to Grant, February 12, 1868, in Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman, p. 426.

  When Johnson received: Sherman to Grant, February 14, 1868; Sherman to John Sherman, February 14, 1868; Sherman to Johnson, February 14, 1868, in John Sherman’s Recollections, pp. 418–19; Johnson to Sherman, February 19, 1868, in Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman, p. 433.

  To buoy his troops’ flagging spirits: Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life, New York: Henry Holt & Co. (1997), pp. 42–43.

  Johnson, Colonel Moore concluded: Moore Diary/AJ, February 16, 1868, p. 87. Another Johnson aide also reported the president’s fondness for Cato. Upon discovering that the aide knew the play, the president spoke more often with him. Cowan, p. 12. Though political leadership and literary taste are not necessarily related, Johnson’s enthusiasm for the wooden Cato contrasts with Lincoln’s devotion to Shakespeare’s complex tragedies Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear. Lincoln’s favorite speech from Shakespeare is delivered by Claudius, the uncle of Hamlet, as he despairs over how he murdered his brother. Johnson had no such taste for moral ambiguities.

  Navy Secretary Welles wondered: New York Times, February 4, 1868, reprinting report from New York Evening Post, February 3, 1868; Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 291 (February 24, 1868).

  Anticipating that both Potts: Moore Diary/AJ, February 17, 1868, pp. 87–89.
<
br />   [Johnson] said he was determined: Moore Diary/AJ, February 19, 1868, p. 93.

  One contemporary recalled Stanton: Piatt, p. 58. Newsman Noah Brooks reported encountering Thomas in 1863 “with all his glory and epaulets on.” Staudenraus, ed., p. 62.

  Stanton never flushed: Michael T. Meier, “Lorenzo Thomas and the Recruitment of Blacks in the Mississippi Valley, 1863–1865,” in John David Smith, Black Soldiers in Blue, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press (2003); Fellman, “Lincoln and Sherman,” pp. 141–42; Ezra Warner, Generals in Blue, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press (1994), p. 503; Handon B. Hargrove, Black Union Soldiers in the Civil War, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. (1988), p. 89.

  On February 13, the president: Globe Supp., pp. 136, 142 (April 10, 1868) (testimony of Lorenzo Thomas); Welles Diary, vol. 3, p. 279 (February 13, 1868); Johnson to Grant, February 13, 1868, in Archives, Impeachment: Various House Papers; New York Herald, February 15, 1868; Townsend, Anecdotes of the Civil War, p. 125. At the beginning of the Civil War, desperate for a command, Ulysses Grant wrote to Thomas for help, invoking their shared service in Mexico in the 1840s. Grant to Thomas, May 24 1861, in Grant, Memoirs, vol. 1, pp. 239–40. Thomas never responded to Grant’s plea. The delicacy of the adjutant general’s position, and the ease with which he could make enemies, was illustrated by his experience with General William Sherman in 1861, when Sherman’s erratic behavior led to his temporary removal from command. Sherman’s wife—the sister-in-law of a senator, the daughter of Washington power Thomas Ewing—wrote to Lincoln accusing Thomas of being part of a “conspiracy” against her husband. Ellen Ewing Sherman to Lincoln, December 19, 1861, Sherman Papers, cited in Fellman, p. 136; Flood, p. 76. Neither episode would have endeared Thomas to General Grant.

  With conscious dignity: Moore Diary/AJ, February 20, 1868, p. 93; ibid., February 21, 1868, p. 94; Globe Supp., p. 137 (April 10, 1868) (Thomas testimony). Johnson also ordered Moore to prepare papers promoting George H. Thomas to full general.