The Acquittal of Andrew Johnson and the Decline of the Radicals

THE ACQUITTAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE DECLINE OF THE RADICALS Hans L. Trefousse Few events in the history of the United States have been as dramatic as the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. A nation of nearly forty million people attempting to depose its chief executive by legal process—this was an unprecedented spectacle. Yet no matter how much controversy has been engendered by the origins of the split between the President and Congress, in assessing the results of the failure to convict Johnson there has been an astonishing degree of consensus. Emphasis has generally been placed upon constitutional implications: the tripartite system of government was preserved and the executive branch retained its independence; by one vote, the country not only escaped from a grave miscarriage of justice, but preserved its traditional institutions as well. This point of view found its best expression in 1903 in David Miller DeWitt's authoritative book, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, and hardly anyone has questioned it since. To be sure, W. R. Brock, in one of the recent studies of reconstruction, has added another dimension by calling the trial a turning point in the history of post-Civil War America—a dividing line between a prevailing interest in first principles and a return to concern with more mundane matters, especially the tariff and finance. But he has not pursued the subject further, and the thesis expressed by DeWitt has remained standard.1 That the constitutional results of the trial were important cannot be denied. As DeWitt predicted, no other President has been impeached for political causes, and it is not likely that such will occur in the foreseeable future. But was there another consequence of the trial which has perhaps been overlooked? Did the acquittal have any 1 David Miller DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (New York, 1903), pp. 578-579 and passim; W. R. Brock, An American Crisis: Congress and Reconstruction, 1865-1867 (London, 1963), p. 277. Cf. Milton Lomask , Andrew Johnson: President on Trial (New York, 1960), pp. 235 ff. 148 effect upon the experiment of reconstruction in the South, the most controversial issue of the day? Since newspapers and observers of various shades of opinion at the time thought so, it would seem necessary to re-examine the question.2 Because Radical mie in the South substantially followed rather than preceded the end of the trial, at first sight it might appear unrealistic to seek any connection between the failure of the impeachment and the reconstruction problem. But congressional reconstruction was closely connected with the fortunes of the Radical wing of the Republican party, and the Radicals, though seemingly in full control in 1868, were in reality not as strong as we have been led to assume. If the trial contributed further to their impending decline, its effects may have been more far-reaching than has generally been believed. The advanced section of the Republican party encountered increasing difficulties after it assumed control of Congress in 1866, following the party's break with the President. Determined to bring about a modicum of justice for the freedmen, the Radicals found themselves constantly struggling against the ingrained prejudices of the voters. Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and Kansas all rejected Negro suffrage during the years following the Civil War, and the passage of time did not soften the racial antipathies of the electorate. Nevertheless, the ultras passed measure after measure to improve the Negroes' status, and in 1867 succeeded in enacting the Reconstruction Acts which provided for impartial suffrage in the South. Despite persistent warnings from constituents, the ultras gradually sought to extend the reform to northern states as well.3 Sooner or later, their defiance of popular prejudice was bound to undermine the Radicals' influence. As early as December, 1866, when they were allegedly at the height of their power, they had been shown to be far from secure. If any one member of Congress typified the Radical spirit, that representative was Thaddeus Stevens. Generally regarded as the ultras' spokesman in the House, if not in the country, his skill, his determination, and his tenacity of purpose were universally conceded. Andrew Johnson, in his tactless remarks on...