Andrew Johnson Convicted

Andrew Johnson was the first President to be impeached in the House and only escaped conviction by a single, solitary, vote. But what if that vote had gone the other way, and Johnson had been convicted? How would that impact relations between Congress and the Presidency going forward? What would Benjamin Wade be able to do as acting President? Would Johnson's conviction open the door to further abuse of the impeachment process?
 
possible earlier universal suffrage, depending on who becomes president of course. IMO: He was a racist and stopped equality for being reached for 100 years.
 
possible earlier universal suffrage, depending on who becomes president of course. IMO: He was a racist and stopped equality for being reached for 100 years.


Johnson was acquitted in June 1868. By then, the South already had universal suffrage, imposed by the 1867 Reconstruction Acts. It would not be extended to the whole country until the 15th Amendment (submitted 1869, ratified 1870) but this delay had nothing to do with Johnson, who had no veto on Constitutional Amendments.

Johnson's conviction would probably have made little difference. Wade couldn't have done much in nine months, and AJ did not interfere seriously with Reconstruction during the time that remained to him. Really, the impeachment was in the nature of a political "temper tantrum". Once Congress had got it out of their system, things went back to normal. It is rare for a POTUS to have two thirds of the Senate against him, so the long term effects would be slight. Storm in a teacup, really.
 
Johnson was acquitted in June 1868. By then, the South already had universal suffrage, imposed by the 1867 Reconstruction Acts. It would not be extended to the whole country until the 15th Amendment (submitted 1869, ratified 1870) but this delay had nothing to do with Johnson, who had no veto on Constitutional Amendments.

Johnson's conviction would probably have made little difference. Wade couldn't have done much in nine months, and AJ did not interfere seriously with Reconstruction during the time that remained to him. Really, the impeachment was in the nature of a political "temper tantrum". Once Congress had got it out of their system, things went back to normal. It is rare for a POTUS to have two thirds of the Senate against him, so the long term effects would be slight. Storm in a teacup, really.
The precedent it would establish, however, would permanently weaken the office of the president. How much is hard to say, but the successful removal of a president for more or less political reasons would say a lot about who is boss.
 
the politics of the afterwar would have been even more congress-dominated than in OTL. no doubts that presidents such as TR could have regained some prestige to the presidential office, but the congress would have established a dangerous precedent
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
the politics of the afterwar would have been even more congress-dominated than in OTL. no doubts that presidents such as TR could have regained some prestige to the presidential office, but the congress would have established a dangerous precedent

Yeah, you'd see less of the "Imperial Presidency" cropping up.
 
It would make impeachemnt more akin to a parliamentary vote of no confidence then, would it not?

Yes, impeachment and removal from office (2 separate votes by 2 separate legislative bodies) is similar to a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Impeachment alone sort of is, but an impeached president can stay in office, whereas a prime minister who has lost a no confidence vote cannot (as far as I know).
 
Yes, impeachment and removal from office (2 separate votes by 2 separate legislative bodies) is similar to a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Impeachment alone sort of is, but an impeached president can stay in office, whereas a prime minister who has lost a no confidence vote cannot (as far as I know).
Well, the custom could evolve to the point where a President who has been impeached by the House is seen as too damaged to hope to retain political office, and so resigns.
 
Yes, impeachment and removal from office (2 separate votes by 2 separate legislative bodies) is similar to a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Impeachment alone sort of is, but an impeached president can stay in office, whereas a prime minister who has lost a no confidence vote cannot (as far as I know).
Well no, what I meant is that it would be more overtly politicized. Granted it was very politicized historically, but it would be more common as a result. If it is made acceptable to impeach and subsequently remove a president from office for political rather than criminal reasons I'm sure it would happen more frequently, and so be seen as more an uncommon but ordinary turn of events rather than an extraordinary event.
 
Well, the custom could evolve to the point where a President who has been impeached by the House is seen as too damaged to hope to retain political office, and so resigns.

Well no, what I meant is that it would be more overtly politicized. Granted it was very politicized historically, but it would be more common as a result. If it is made acceptable to impeach and subsequently remove a president from office for political rather than criminal reasons I'm sure it would happen more frequently, and so be seen as more an uncommon but ordinary turn of events rather than an extraordinary event.

Sorry, I've been doing several policy reviews this week and so am very "nuts & bolts" focused. :p Yes, you both are spot-on. Impeachment would occur more frequently and when imposed would become the death knell of the impeached person's presidency. This might also have happened had Johnson resigned after he was impeached and prior to the trial in the Senate.
 
I have to ask those more versed in the impeachment drama than I, did the radicals pushing Johnson's impeachment have distinct plans in the event of conviction? That is, was there a plan for Benjamin Wade to be nominated for the Presidency in 1868 in the event he became Acting President? That seems unlikely, given how perfect a candidate Grant is. That is, just what did the radicals expect to accomplish by removing Johnson from the Presidency a year ahead of time?
 

Japhy

Banned
I've read some sources that suggest that Wade would be in a position to get renominated if Grant couldn't be convinced to join up, or that Wade's position would mean the Radicals (By the way, always a stupid name) could trade planks on the platform for giving the nomination to Grant/a mainstream Republican while blocking a "Liberal" from getting the nod.
 
I've read some sources that suggest that Wade would be in a position to get renominated if Grant couldn't be convinced to join up, or that Wade's position would mean the Radicals (By the way, always a stupid name) could trade planks on the platform for giving the nomination to Grant/a mainstream Republican while blocking a "Liberal" from getting the nod.

I'd be interested in what planks the radicals could trade for according to your sources, because from what I have read the 1868 Republican Platform was already fairly Radical friendly. It condemned Johnson and endorsed Congressional Reconstruction efforts. Again, from what I've read, the more extreme aspects of Radicalism were not the consensus viewpoint even within the faction, so it's hard to see Benjamin Wade forcing Grant to allow an endorsement of Steven's redistribution plan or something akin to that. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious as to how the platform could be much more friendly to the Congressional Republicans.

I agree that if Grant doesn't run, Benjamin Wade would be in a good position to be nominated. However, I am not sure that Grant would be so offended by Johnson's removal to refuse to run. Assuming he does run, there's no risk of a "liberal" getting the nomination assuming the convention's outcome is as per historical reality. I haven't read anything that would suggest that Colfax was unacceptable to the Radical faction, so I don't think Wade would have a problem with placing Colfax on the ticket with Grant.
 
I have to ask those more versed in the impeachment drama than I, did the radicals pushing Johnson's impeachment have distinct plans in the event of conviction? That is, was there a plan for Benjamin Wade to be nominated for the Presidency in 1868 in the event he became Acting President? That seems unlikely, given how perfect a candidate Grant is. That is, just what did the radicals expect to accomplish by removing Johnson from the Presidency a year ahead of time?


I'm not sure they had any definite objectives. They had just been driven to distraction by Johnson's continual (if futile) opposition, and wanted to sock him one.

This is why there were no further attempts to remove him. Only weeks after his acquittal, half a dozen Southern States were readmitted under Radical governments, and returned Senators most of whom would surely have voted for conviction. Yet nobody took advantage of this to bring any new charges.. They'd had their temper tantrum and had "got it out of their system" so they did now what they could have done anyway - just sat it out and waited for Jonson to go away of himself when his term ended.
 
I've always thought that, if you wanted a true radical reconstruction, you'd need to circumvent Johnson completely, and have Lincoln run with Joseph Holt as his VP in '64 (which came very close to happening in OTL).

Not, of course, that I'm researching this for a TL of my own ... ;)
 
I've always thought that, if you wanted a true radical reconstruction, you'd need to circumvent Johnson completely, and have Lincoln run with Joseph Holt as his VP in '64 (which came very close to happening in OTL).

Not, of course, that I'm researching this for a TL of my own ... ;)


Not sure I follow. Holt sounds a worthy enough guy, but as POTUS would he have been hugely different from Johnson? A quick look-up makes him sound a rock hard Unionist but not particularly pro-Black - which is exactly what Johnson was.
 
Top