The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868) President of the United States

Brief History of the Case

During the years immediately following the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson clashed repeatedly with the Republican-controlled Congress over reconstruction of the defeated South. Johnson vetoed legislation that Congress passed to protect the rights of those who had been freed from slavery. This clash culminated in the House of Representatives voting, on February 24, 1868, to impeach the president. On March 5, the trial began in the Senate, where Republicans held more seats than the two-thirds majority required to remove Johnson from office. When the trial concluded on May 16, however, the president had won acquittal, not because a majority of senators supported his policies but because a sufficient minority wished to protect the office of the president and preserve the constitutional balance of powers.

Born into poverty in North Carolina in 1808, as a young boy Andrew Johnson became apprentice to a tailor. He had no formal schooling, but through the sheer force of will became a self-educated man. While still in his teens, Johnson moved with his family to Tennessee, settled in Greeneville, and married a shoemaker's daughter named Eliza McCardle. Aiding Johnson in his self-education, Eliza helped to improve his social status and political opportunities.

Andrew Johnson may have lacked a formal education, but he possessed an innate talent for debate and oratory. His political career began when he was elected alderman of Greeneville in 1829, and five years later he became the small town's mayor. In 1835 he joined the Tennessee state legislature, only to lose reelection two years later. He returned to state politics in 1839, moved to the state senate in 1841, and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1843. Johnson's humble beginnings and populist style endeared him to the working-class poor but put him at odds with the wealthy landowners who controlled state politics. In 1853 his opponents gerrymandered him out of office. He retaliated by being elected governor—twice. By 1857 Johnson had gained enough support in the state legislature to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

Johnson proved to be an independent thinker. This was most evident following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States, when Southern states began to secede. While the secession convention met in Charleston, South Carolina, Johnson addressed the Senate and proclaimed his allegiance to the Union. Tennessee seceded, but Johnson remained in Washington. In March of 1862, President Lincoln rewarded Johnson's loyalty with appointment as military governor of Tennessee. When Lincoln sought a second presidential term in 1864 and needed the support of "Union Democrats," he chose Johnson as his running mate. Johnson became vice president on March 4, 1865. Forty-two days later, he was president of the United States.

The initial response to a Johnson presidency was optimistic. Even the so-called Radical Republicans, who would pursue impeachment proceedings three years later, supported the new president. "By the Gods," proclaimed Senator Ben Wade of Ohio, "there will be no trouble now in running this government." Such good relations quickly soured, however, as Johnson's views on Reconstruction surfaced. Within weeks, Johnson opposed political rights for freedmen and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders. The president looked for every opportunity to block action by the Radical Republicans. He had no interest in compromise. When Johnson vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau bill in February of 1866, he broke the final ties with his Republican opponents in Congress. They responded with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, promising political rights to African Americans. In March of 1867 they also passed, over Johnson's presidential veto, the Tenure of Office Act which was designed to limit the president's ability to shape his cabinet by requiring that not only appointments but also dismissals be approved by the Senate.

By mid-1867, Johnson's enemies in Congress were repeatedly promoting impeachment. The precipitant event that resulted in a third and successful impeachment action was the firing of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a Lincoln appointee and ally of the Radical Republicans in Congress. Stanton had strongly opposed Johnson's Reconstruction policies and the president hoped to replace him with Ulysses S. Grant, whom Johnson believed to be more in line with his own political thinking. In August of 1867, while Congress was in recess, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed Grant as secretary of war ad interim. When the Senate opposed Johnson's actions and reinstated Stanton in the fall, Grant resigned, fearing punitive action and possible consequences for his own presidential ambitions. Furious with his congressional opponents, Johnson fired Stanton and informed Congress of this action, then named Major General Lorenzo Thomas, a long-time foe of Stanton, as interim secretary. Stanton promptly had Thomas arrested for illegally seizing his office.

This musical chair debacle amounted to a presidential challenge to the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act. In response, having again reinstated Stanton to office, Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives, backed by key allies in the Senate, pursued impeachment.

Led by an aging and ailing Thaddeus Stevens, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction rapidly drafted a resolution of impeachment, which passed the House on February 24, 1868, by a vote of 126 to 47. Immediately, the House proceeded to establish an impeachment committee, appoint managers, and draft articles of impeachment.

The committee quickly produced charges that eventually became eleven articles of impeachment. Some of the charges were petty, but most centered on the president's alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Article 1 stated that Johnson ordered Stanton removed with the intent to violate the act. Articles 2, 3 and 8 alleged that the appointment of Thomas, to replace Stanton, without the advice and consent of the Senate was a further violation of the Constitution. Articles 4 through 7 accused Johnson of conspiring with Thomas to remove Stanton, citing such conspiracy as a "high crime in office," thus illegally depriving Stanton of his rightful position. The 8th article charged Johnson with conspiring to deprive Stanton of his rightful possessions. Article 9 accused Johnson of diverting orders and instructions related to military operations through the general of the army, bypassing Secretary Stanton. Another article, proposed by Massachusetts representative Benjamin Butler, charged Johnson with making speeches "with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues" with the intent to disgrace Congress. This article was initially rejected, but later adopted as Article 10. The final article was championed by Thaddeus Stevens, accusing Johnson of declaring the 39th Congress unconstitutional, since it was a Congress of only part of the states, and therefore did not have legislative powers nor the power to propose constitutional amendments. This, argued Stevens, placed Johnson in violation of his presidential oath requiring him to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."v

On March 2, 1868, the House approved the first nine articles of impeachment with the final two articles approved the following day. Amidst tremendous public attention and press coverage, the case moved to the Senate.

Quickly, the Senate debated and adopted an updated set of 25 impeachment rules, setting the stage for the first presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. With Chief Justice Salmon Chase presiding, the trial began on March 5, 1868. On the advice of counsel, the president did not appear at the trial, although he did agree to a number of press interviews during the trial process.

Leading the president's defense team was Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who resigned his post to devote all of his attention to the trial. Four well-known and highly respected lawyers also donated their services, including William M. Evarts of New York, Benjamin R. Curtis of Boston (best known for his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case), Judge Thomas A. R. Nelson, an old friend of Johnson's from Tennessee, and William S. Groesbeck of Ohio.

The defense presented a complicated argument, designed to raise doubt in the senators' minds about Johnson's intent and to question the role of criminality in impeachable offenses. They argued that Johnson's actions had not violated the Tenure of Office Act. Since Stanton had been appointed by Lincoln, Johnson was not obligated to continue his service. Even if the senators accepted the act as constitutional, the defense team insisted, Johnson could not be impeached for a mistaken interpretation of the law. Furthermore, they claimed that Johnson's intent was to test the very constitutionality of the act before the Supreme Court, which he had a right to do. The president, they insisted, should not be convicted and removed from office for misconstruing his constitutional rights. On the issue of appointing Thomas as interim officer, the defense team noted that Johnson was attempting, by necessity, to keep the War Department staffed and operational. The president's action, they noted, had resulted in no public injury sufficiently grave to warrant removal from office.

***

The trial of the president, including testimony of 25 prosecution and 16 defense witnesses, became a public spectacle as well as a constitutional crisis. It gave the grand orators of the Senate a chance to dazzle the public with their speaking skills, and the trial was conducted mostly in open session before a packed gallery. During final deliberations on the 11 articles of impeachment, however, the Senate cleared the gallery and closed the doors.

Acknowledging the spectacular nature of the trial, the Senate opted to manage the overflow crowds by strictly controlling access to the visitors' gallery through a ticket system. For each trial day, 1,000 tickets were printed, allowing admission for a single day. Social and political protocol dictated the distribution of tickets, with 40 going to the diplomatic corps, 20 to the president, 4 to each senator, 4 to the Chief Justice, and 2 to each representative, with the few remaining tickets to be distributed to the public. Members of Congress received hundreds of requests each day for the highly coveted tickets.

Sensational in every detail, the trial ended in a dramatic fashion. Johnson's fiercest opponents in the Senate maneuvered a vote on only 3 of the 11 articles of impeachment, believing those 3 offered the greatest chance to gain conviction. On May 16, 1868, in a dramatic call of the roll, 35 senators voted to convict the president of "high crimes and misdemeanors," while 19 senators voted to acquit. A clear majority voted against the president, but the tally fell one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority to convict. Ten days later, when the Senate voted on articles 2 and 3, the result was the same. Notable among the 19 senators who voted to acquit were seven "Republican Recusants" who defied their party to save the impeached president. "I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution," concluded recusant senator James Grimes of Iowa, "for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President."

Johnson served out his term as president, leaving office on March 4, 1869. In 1874 he ran a successful senatorial campaign and returned to Washington—to the very chamber where he had been tried and acquitted a few years earlier. He served just three months before his death on July 31, 1875.

Chronology

Mar 27, 1867 Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act. Feb 21, 1868 President Johnson ordered Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton removed from office. Feb 22, 1868 The House Committee on Reconstruction reported resolution of impeachment against Johnson. Feb 24, 1868 House voted 126 to 47 to impeach Johnson of high crimes and misdemeanors. Feb 25, 1868 House informed Senate of impeachment vote. Feb 28, 1868 Rules of procedure in impeachment trials reported in the Senate. Mar 2, 1868 House approved articles of impeachment. House managers appointed. Mar 2, 1868 Senate adopted updated rules of impeachment. Mar 4, 1868 House presented articles of impeachment to the Senate. Mar 5, 1868 With Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding, Senate trial began at 1:00p.m. Mar 7, 1868 Sergeant-at-arms presented summons to President Johnson, who chose not to appear at trial. Mar 30-Apr 9, 1968 Prosecution presented its case. Apr 15-20, 1868 Defense presented its case. May 7, 1868 Senate deliberated in closed session on articles of impeachment. May 16, 1868 Senate voted 35 to 19 to acquit on article 11. May 26, 1868 Senate voted 35 to 19 to acquit on articles 2 and 3. May 26, 1868 Senate acquitted Johnson and adjourned as court of impeachment.

Votes

Article 2: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty

Article 3: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty

Article 11: 35 guilty; 19 not guilty

House Managers

John A. Bingham of Ohio

George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts

James F. Wilson of Iowa

Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts (chief prosecuting attorney)

Thomas Williams of Pennsylvania

Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania

John A. Logan of Illinois

Defense Team

Henry Stanbery, former Attorney General

William M. Evarts, New York attorney

Benjamin Robbin Curtis of Boston, former Supreme Court Justice

Thomas A.R. Nelson, Judge from Tennessee

William S. Groesbeck, Ohio attorney

Procedural Issues and Precedents

First presidential impeachment Impeachment resolution passed prior to formal presentation of articles of impeachment.

Articles of Impeachment

ARTICLE 1. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office and of the requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been, therefor, duly appointed and commissioned by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States as such Secretary; and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1867, and during the recess of said Senate, having suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, on the 12th day of December, in the year last aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case, and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily, until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Senate therafterwards, on the 13th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, did refuse to concur in said suspension; whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled “an act regulating the tenure of civil officer,” passed March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there notice, and the said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21st day of February, was lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from the office of Secretary for the Department of War and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of their communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all books, paper and other public property now in your custody and charge. Respectfully, yours,

Andrew Johnson.

To the Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War

Which order was unlawfully issued, and with intent then are there to violate the act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, and contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said E. M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 2. That on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, without the advice and consent of the Senate, then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did appoint one L. Thomas to be Secretary of War ad interim , by issuing to said Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority, in substance as follows, that is to say:

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary of the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge. Respectfully yours,

Andrew Johnson.

To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General United States Army, Washington, D.C.

Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 3. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington in the District of Columbia, did commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this: That without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War, ad interim , without the advice and consent of the Senate, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which said appointment so made by Andrew Johnson of said Lorenzo Thomas is in substance as follows, that is to say:?

Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868.

Sir: The Hon. E. M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge. Respectfully yours,

Andrew Johnson

To Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General

United States Army, Washington, D.C.

ARTICLE 4. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there, the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of the United States, from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the provisions of an act entitled “An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,” approved July 31, 1861, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high crime in office.

ARTICLE 5. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and on divers other days and time in said year before the 28th day of said February, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons in the House of Representatives unknown, by force to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did attempt to prevent E. M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 6. That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the duties of his high office and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take and possess the property of the United Sates at the War Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,” approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office.

ARTICLE 7. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, and on divers other days in said year, before the 28th day of said February, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas to prevent and hinder the execution of an act of the United States, entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did unlawfully attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, under the laws of the United States, from holding said office to which he had been duly appointed and commissioned, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did there and then commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 8. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, to seize, take and possess the property of the United States in the War Department, with intent to violate and disregard the act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office.

ARTICLE 9. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 22nd day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in disregard of the Constitution and the law of Congress duly enacted, as Commander-in-Chief, did bring before himself, then and there, William H. Emory, a Major-General by brevet in the Army of the United States, actually in command of the Department of Washington, and the military forces therefor, and did and there, as Commander-in-Chief, declare to, and instruct said Emory, that part of the law of the United States, passed March 2, 1867, entitled “an act for making appropriations for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,” especially the second section thereof, which provides, among other things, that all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President and Secretary of War, shall be issued through the General of the Army, and in case of his inability, through the next in rank was unconstitutional, and in contravention of the commission of Emory, and therefore not binding on him, as an officer in the Army of the United States, which said provisions of law had been therefore duly and legally promulgated by General Order for the government and direction of the Army of the United States, as the said Andrew Johnson then and there well knew, with intent thereby to induce said Emory, in his official capacity as Commander of the Department of Washington, to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and receive, act upon and obey such orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General of the Army of the United States, according to the provisions of said act, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office; and the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibition, at any time hereafter, any further articles of their accusation or impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and also or replying to his answers, which will make up the articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article, accusation or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said Andrew Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be thereupon had and given had and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.

ARTICLE 10. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:

"Specification First. In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, In the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1866, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

"So far as the Executive Department of the government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and, to speak in a common phrase, to prepare, as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character and co-extensive with the wound. We thought and we think that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and moving element opposing it. In alluding to that element it shall go no further than your Convention, and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered the report of the proceedings, I shall make no reference that I do not believe, and the time and the occasion justify. We have witnessed in one department of the government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called or which assumes to be the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only part of the States. We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of States inevitable. We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon constitutional rights, and violate day after day, and month after month, fundamental principles of the government. We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself."

"Specification Second. In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore to wit: On the third day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

“I will tell you what I did do? I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the government. In conclusion, beside that Congress had taken much pains to poison the constituents against him, what has Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the union of the States? No. On the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it: and because he stood now where he did when the Rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor, Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factions and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people."

"Specification Third. In this case, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit: On the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of acts concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:?

"Go on; perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out “New Orleans.” If you will take up the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source and its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its powers having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, and who had been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population, the black population, to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the organized authorities in the State of Louisiana, which had been organized by the government of the United States, and every man engaged in that rebellion, in the convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the Radical Congress. So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have been introduced here and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise. I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance of me here, as elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting, and did arrest for a time, that which was called a “Freedmen’s Bureau” bill. Yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced; I have been slandered; I have been maligned; I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen, here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out traitor, but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot? Judas! There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve Apostles. O, yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Savior, and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and tries to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as a Judas. Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance, soldiers and citizens, to participate in these office, God be willing, I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can. Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said is what I intended to say; I was not provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bullied by enemies, nor overawed by my friends. But, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me."

"Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.