The Effects of Impeaching and Acquitting Johnson and Clinton

The impeachments and acquittals of Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 were different in several respects. First, and foremost, Johnson was more vulnerable than Clinton. He was elected Vice President in 1864 as a Southern Democrat who had supported the Union during the Civil War and became President in 1865 when the Republican President Lincoln was assassinated. In 1868 the Republicans, who saw Johnson as a pro-Southern betrayer of their ideals, had more than a two-thirds majority in the Senate and Johnson was acquitted by a single vote. The reason for impeachment was his official Presidential actions. One hundred and thirty-one years later in 1999, Clinton was serving his second elected term as President and the Republicans had a slim majority in Congress. The reason for impeachment was Clinton’s private behavior.

The two impeachments and acquittals had important similarities. They were partisan actions by a Republican majority in Congress, attempting to punish and remove a Democratic President. Moral outrage and hatred of the President were expressed by the Congressional leaders of the impeachments. The legal basis was weak for both impeachments. The principal charge against Andrew Johnson was his defiance of the Tenure of Office Act, requiring the consent of Congress for him to replace a Cabinet minister. His opinion that the law was unconstitutional eventually was supported by a U. S. Supreme Court decision in 1926. The charges against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice. The purpose of these alleged crimes was to conceal private behavior that did not involve his Presidential duties.

The United States Constitution permits a majority of the House of Representatives to impeach and a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” A high crime and misdemeanor can be defined broadly. Congress therefore could remove a President because he advocates the policies of the opposing political party or because of objectionable personal behavior. The acquittal of Andrew Johnson established a precedent that the President should not be removed because of political disagreement. The acquittal of Clinton appears to have established a precedent that the President should not be removed because of personal sexual behavior.

The leaders of both impeachments expressed enormous hostility toward the President. Their irrationally fierce condemnation of the President’s behavior is consistent with the information and discussion in Milburn and Conrad, The Politics of Denial (1996). The authors suggest that denial and displacement of childhood rage against punishment are important sources of punitive political policies.

Bowen in Andrew Johnson and the Negro (1989) and Trefousse in Andrew Johnson: A Biography (1989) have emphasized the racist effect of Andrew Johnson’s effort to restore full citizenship to the Southern white leaders of secession. Johnson followed a policy of allowing the former slave owners to subjugate the Negroes and prevent most of them from voting. Despite the outrage of many Republicans at this policy and the policy of reconstruction, the Democrats forced the policies through for many decades. It is debatable whether harsher punishment of the leaders of secession and federal enforcement of Negro rights would have been better policies at that time. Andrew Johnson sincerely believed that the former slaves were not yet ready for full citizenship and that it was necessary to restore local control to the white leaders.

Grossly exaggerated moral outrage was also expressed by the leaders of the impeachment of Clinton. The purpose of his alleged perjury and obstruction of justice was to conceal private behavior that was publicized because of indiscreet behavior by Clinton and indiscreet talking by “that woman,” Monica Lewinsky. His erotic activity with her was consensual and did not include sexual intercourse. She was a sexually experienced adult.

The principal reaction to the impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson was a stronger and more unified Democratic Party. Prior to the Civil War, the Democrats were dominant in the South and a competitive minority in the North. The Southern states were disenfranchised

Page 31

following the Civil War, resulting in a huge Republican majority in Congress in 1868. The threat to the Democratic President solidified an alliance between the Southern white Democrats and the Northern urban poor Democrats to cooperate in resisting the power of the predominantly Republican business and financial leaders. After Johnson’s impeachment and acquittal, the alliance persisted for a longer time — the Democrats continued to be dominant in the South until well after World War II.

Another reaction to the impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson was a split in the Republican Party. Votes for acquittal by several Republican Senators prevented the Democratic President from being convicted and removed from office. After 1868, the Republican Party split into two factions, called the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds. A dissident group of reformist Republicans, called the Mugwumps, subsequently supported the Democratic reformer Cleveland. He was thereby elected President in 1884 and again in 1892.

In common with the reaction to the impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson, a strengthened and unified Democratic Party is likely to be the principal reaction to the impeachment and acquittal of Clinton. This Democratic President has initiated some traditional Republican policies, such as “reinventing government”, eliminating the federal budget deficit, and welfare reform. These Presidential programs are being accepted by most Democrats who represent liberal ideology and the interests of organized labor. The only prominent Democratic opponent of Gore in the election of 2000 appears to be Bill Bradley, who agrees with Gore on most issues. A split in the Republican Party is another probable consequence of the impeachment and acquittal of Clinton. The impeachment was led by a group of moralistic Christian Republicans. Many Republican legislators were reluctant supporters of their action. The impeachment and acquittal of Clinton has widened the rift between these two Republican factions. A sign of the split in the Republican Party might be the competition for the Presidential nomination in 2000 by numerous Republicans with diverse ideological positions. The Democrats therefore have a great advantage in the election of 2000.

Page 32