WI Andrew Johnson had lost the 1868 impeachment vote?
ae597
On this day the eighteenth President of the United States Schuyler
Colfax, Jr. was born in New York City.
The article continues at
http://www.todayinah.co.uk/index.php?story=39530-O
David Tenner
news:b2209ce7-d720-438f...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com :
"The closeness of the balloting may in itself be deceiving. Considerable
evidence exists that other senators stood ready to vote for acquittal if
their votes had been needed. As early as May 18 the Chicago *Tribune*
asserted that the President's friends laid claim to four more votes in case
of necessity, and the substance of the story was confirmed shortly after
the trial by Samuel Randall, the Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania.
On August 3, Johnson himself wrote to Benjamin Truman that [Edwin D.]
Morgan [of New York] had been one of the Republicans in question. In 1913,
Senator Henderson also asserted that Morgan had been the reputed swing
voter. Because of the intense pressure, he voted to convict, but would not
have done so had his vote made any difference. Some years earlier the
Missouri senator told William A. Dunning that [Waitman T.] Willey [of West
Viriginia] had also been ready to switch, a point he later reiterated to
Trumbull's biographer, Horace White. He also mentioned Sprague as one of
the senators willing to change, and John Bigelow learned that [James W.]
Nye [of Nevada] had been another. In short, Johnson's victory was assured
long before the vote was taken. A sufficient number of moderate
Republicans stood ready to acquit him, come what might." Hans L.Trefousse,
*Impeachment of a President: Andrew Johnson, the Blacks, and Reconstruction*
(Knoxville: Univeristy of Tennessee Press 1975), p. 169.
In any event, if Johnson had been convicted, the next in line under the
Presidential Succession Act of 1792 was not the Speaker of the House but the
President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Benjamin Wade of Ohio).
--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net
troll
> March 23, 1823
>
> On this day the eighteenth President of the United States Schuyler
> Colfax, Jr. was born in New York City.
>
I looked that up a little earlier when thinking through
various phenomena in the absent Johnson thread.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that one newspaper
may have written at the time, "Andrew Johnson is
innocent because Ben Wade is guilty of being his
successor."
Graham Truesdale
under a train during the impeachment proceedings?
The Senate could then hand-pick a PPT, based on which
of their number they wanted to be the next President, before
voting to impeach Johnson, if 2/3 of them saw fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_United_States_Congress#Members
(I see that future Vice-President Wilson and future
Secretary of State Freylinghusen were among that
number). In
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/3379bb9f91ad36dc?hl=en
Mike Stone said 'One obvious possibility is Henry B
Anthony of RI, who replaced Wade as PPt
after his departure from the Senate in 1869.'
Might the fact that Wade was not going to step up,
provide the necessary extra vote? I note what DT
says upthread about other Senators who would have
voted to acquit if their votes had been decisive -
but was this because they did not want to remove
Johnson, or because they did not want to elevate
Wade?
--
Treasure in Heaven is exempt from Death Duties.
David Tenner
news:it0sp5$k5m$1...@dont-email.me :
I know that at least the Chicago Tribune, though still strongly
anti-Johnson, eventually came out aginst his conviction because of Horace
White's dislike of Wade's protectionism. (White was a strong free
trader, who having taken over the Tribune in 1865 from Joseph Medill,
gradually reversed the Tribune's former protectionist position.) Whether
this made any diference in Lyman Trumbull's vote for acquittal, I do not
know. Trumbull's biographer, Mark M. Krug, in *Lymann Trumbull:
Conservative Radical* (p. 268) argues that "Taking into account Trumbull's
integrity and courage, his long training and experience as a judge and a
lawyer, and his devotion to the principle of separation of powers, it
cannot be argued that had it not been for the *Tribune*'s dramatic switch
on Johnson's impeachment, he would have voted for convinction and thus
brought about Johnson's removal. What can be argued, however, is that the
Tribune's stand for acquittal made it immeasurably easier for him to reach
his decision, because it considerably minimized the political risk
involved and softened the effectiveness of the barrage of denunciation
that immediately descended upon his head." (A rival newspaper, the
Chicago Republican, thought that the Tribune was concerned to stop Grant
from naming Wade as his running mate, the Tribune preferring a Grant-Colfax
ticket. The idea of a Grant-Wade ticket after Johnson's conviction is
interesting--it would AFAIK be the only case in history of a sitting
president running for vice-president!)
Krug also (p. 260) mentions that another pro-acquittal Republican,
Fessenden of Maine, greatly disliked Wade. And both Trumbull and
Fessenden were influential among undecided Republicans.
The problem is that Trumbull and Fessenden, apart from their feelings
about Wade personally, were beginning to have doubts about the Radicals in
general, so if Wade's replacement was another Radical, I'm not sure how
that would help. And I am not certain that the Radicals would be willing
to accept a moderate as Johnson's immediate successor simply because that
*might*--no one could be sure--make the difference between conviction and
acquittal. (It was generally expected that Grant, whom the Radicals
viewed with some suspicion--though they recognized he had to be
nominated--would win the nomination and election in 1868 anyway, so the
Radicals had to make use of the window of opportunity to have one of their
own in the White House for some crucial months. Once Grant and Colfax
were inaugurated, the office of the President Pro Tempore was of course
considerably less important, so even if the Radicals willingly voted ror
Anthony in 1869, that would not prove much.) Anyway, it is perfectly
possible that Trumbull and Fessenden were honestly convinced that Johnson
was not guilty, and would have felt that way regardless of the identity or
ideology of his successor.
It would be interesting, though, to know the effects of
Anthony-as-succesor on his fellow Rhode Islander Sprague, who is often
listed as one of the Republicans who would have voted for acquittal if his
vote had been needed. I don't know if it would make Sprague more or less
likely to convict--it is notorious that fellow senators of the same party
from the same state sometimes get along poorly, and this seems to have
been the case with Anthonty and Sprague:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Senator+Sprague+were+strained%22&tbm=bks
--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
>
> ... And I am not certain that the Radicals would be willing
> to accept a moderate as Johnson's immediate successor simply because that
> *might*--no one could be sure--make the difference between conviction and
> acquittal. (It was generally expected that Grant, whom the Radicals
> viewed with some suspicion--though they recognized he had to be
> nominated--would win the nomination and election in 1868 anyway, so the
> Radicals had to make use of the window of opportunity to have one of their
OTOH, if the Radicals realized how far they were from conviction,
would they sacrifice any chance of removing Johnson rather than
accept a moderate?
Let's say Wade has an accident and resigns during the trial.
The Senate must pause to elect a new Ppt; and the choice
will clearly impact the vote to convict.
The Senate will choose a Republican, but who? Not Wade's
new elected or appointed successor. Nor, IMHO, any of the
Republicans from Southern states, the Far West, Missouri,
Kansas, Nebraska, or West Virginia. Not Simon Cameron;
not Sprague (he was only 37), nor Conkling (NY) or Norton
(MN) (they were 38), nor Edmunds (VT; 39). Sumner and
Chandler were noted Radicals. That leaves this list:
ANTHONY, Henry Bowen 1815-1884 RI
CATTELL, Alexander Gilmore 1816-1894 NJ
CRAGIN, Aaron Harrison 1821-1898 NH
DIXON, James 1814-1873 CT
DOOLITTLE, James Rood 1815-1897 WI
FERRY, Orris Sanford 1823-1875 CT
FESSENDEN, William Pitt 1806-1869 ME
FRELINGHUYSEN, Frederick Theodore 1817-1885 NJ
GRIMES, James Wilson 1816-1872 IA
HARLAN, James 1820-1899 IA
HOWARD, Jacob Merritt 1805-1871 MI
HOWE, Timothy Otis 1816-1883 WI
MORGAN, Edwin Denison 1811-1883 NY
MORRILL, Justin Smith 1810-1898 VT
MORRILL, Lot Myrick 1813-1883 ME
MORTON, Oliver Hazard Perry Throck 1823-1877 IN
PATTERSON, James Willis 1823-1893 NH
RAMSEY, Alexander 1815-1903 MN
SHERMAN, John 1823-1900 OH
WILSON, Henry 1812-1875 MA
YATES, Richard 1815-1873 IL
Was there any figure in this group who would be
hard-line enough for the Radicals while still being
highly acceptable to the moderates?
David Tenner
news:08f6e385-846c-4929...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com :
Here's an outrageous idea: On Wade's death, have the Ohio state legislature
elect as his successor--General Grant! (Yes, he would have to change his
legal residence. To quote Miles O'Reilly, http://www.bartleby.com/78/26.html
"When asked what state he hails from,/Our sole reply shall be/He comes from
Appomattox/And its famous apple tree.")
Seriously, on your list, Howard and Wilson were probably too Radical to help
the prospects for getting Johnson convicted; this was also true of Morton,
who in addition had only partially recovered from a serious stroke. Richard
Yates was perhaps too Radical and definitely too hard-drinking (though after
Yates voted for convicting Johnson and Trumbull voted for acquitting him,
Congressman Elihu Washburne remarked that he "now prefers Yates drunk than
Trumbull sober." Quoted in Mark R. Krug, *Lymann Trumbull: Conservative
Radical*, p. 268.) Doolittle and Dixon were definitely out as pro-Johnson.
Grimes, as a close friend of Fessenden (and who, like him, would vote against
convicting Johnson) would be too conservative for the Radicals. Maybe this is
the one chance John Sherman gets to become President--though only briefly.
(He was often mentioned as a possible candidate, but Republican conventions
never warmed to him.) He'll be hard for the Radicals to swallow, though.
Justin Morrill is a possibility; well-respected and near the center of the
party, ideologically. As for Anthony, as I already noted, he didn't get
along too well with his colleage Sprague, who would be one of the crucial
votes on Johnson's conviction or acquittal...
--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote
> Here's an outrageous idea: On Wade's death, have the Ohio state legislature
> elect as his successor--General Grant! (Yes, he would have to change his
> legal residence...)
I thought of that too - Grant was born in OH. But
I think the residency issue could be a stumbling
OTOH, Grant hadn't _resided_ anywhere but
Washington since 1861, AFAIK.
ae597
Hi
Thanks for your comments and insights -:) Part 2 is posted up now
http://www.todayinah.co.uk/index.php?story=39539-V
Sincerely
Steve