Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy by David O. Stewart (Review)
Prior to reading Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy by David O. Stewart, I ranked Andrew Johnson as the worst president in U.S. history. There was nothing in Stewart’s book that dissuaded me of my opinion. After reading Grant by Jean Edward Smith, I was horrified at Johnson’s opposition to Lincoln’s ideals: malice for the south while inflicting more wounds, particularly in relation to the freed slaves.
Stewart’s book focuses on the portion of Johnson’s story where he faced the impeachment consequences of his policies during Reconstruction. The book was another reminder that I prefer full biographies far more than partial biographies. Even for uninspiring characters like Johnson, I like to know more about what makes the person tick than what is possible in a biographical sketch. For instance, there was a reference in Impeached to Johnson’s journal, yet there was very little that revealed what Johnson was thinking and feeling throughout the impeachment.
Still, there was plenty to support the idea that Johnson deserves to be on the shortlist of worst presidents, as was demonstrated by his introduction to the executive branch. Johnson tried to skip his own inauguration as Vice President due to not feeling right due to nerves or a night of hard drinking. Lincoln’s response was to note, “This Johnson is a queer man.” Johnson was the only southern senator who voted against secession and thus had great familiarity with showing boldness in the senate. Yet when he showed up for his inauguration, he downed three tumblers of whiskey and entered the chamber outright drunk. Quite the auspicious start.
I’m likely a bit biased by Grant’s efforts during Reconstruction, which make Johnson that much more reprehensible. As Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. Dana observed, “[Grant was] the most honest man I ever knew, with a temper that nothing could ever disturb, and a judgment that was judicial in its comprehensiveness and wisdom. Not a great man, except morally, not an original or brilliant man, but sincere, thoughtful, deep, and gifted with courage that never faltered.” When someone shines like that, others pale by comparison, and Johnson was undoubtedly dim.
I offer this background to set up my analysis of Impeached. Going back to my point on biographical sketches, I think I would have had a harder time tracking the story if I did not have my experience as a lawyer and the background of reading other history books about the postbellum era. That is not to dissuade anyone from reading Impeached, but a bit of context is helpful.
The House—led by Radical Republicans—impeached Johnson on eleven counts, including a charge of violating the Tenure of Office Act due to removal of Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War. When the idea of impeaching President Johnson first began circulating and the House launched its first impeachment inquiry, Representative James Wilson of Iowa served as chair of the committee. While the committee recommended impeachment, Wilson filed a minority report arguing that “political unfitness and incapacity must be tried at the ballot box, not in the high court.” James expressed his concern over the presidency becoming a footstool to the dominant party in the House—always bending to the whims of politics.
Though the Senate eventually acquitted, it the final vote came down to the very end of the trial with much uncertainty as to the outcome. Through it all, it is easy to wonder how much stark contrast between Lincoln and Johnson’s makeup and character spurred the Legislature to proceed. Yes, politics and policy played a role, but Lincoln’s greatness surely revealed Johnson’s inadequacies in the worst of ways.
Still, despite the Johnson’s rigid and surly nature, the Senate’s acquittal preceded hundred-gun salutes across the nation celebrating Johnson’s acquittal. This raised a question that is probably my main critique of the book: what caused anyone to celebrate Johnson’s political survival? There was nothing in the book that showed character in Johnson or even a clear reason to cheer for Johnson. Impeached could have used more insight into what redeeming traits Johnson offered.
Despite this missing piece, I’m glad to have a bit more insight into Andrew Johnson, even if it aligned with my earlier views on Johnson’s deficiencies. In Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy, Stewart wrote an engaging and well-researched book that explained the legal and political context for Johnson’s impeachment. The book would have improved with a bit more insight into those who found Johnson to be good man or even a defensible politician. In its absence, Johnson affirms his place as the worst president in U.S. history.
