The weight of historical evidence leans against Mr. Pence’s historical analogy

At HistoryBehindNews.com (see more stories here) we search for news with a thread of history that may lead to confirmation of, or comical relief for, or counterargument to a current policy, political position or event. But sometimes, on rare occasions, we discover that a prominent politician, in this case the United States Vice President, has harked back to history to illuminate a current event, in this case the impeachment trial of the United States President. On such rare occasions, we care — we all should care, about the weight and veracity of the history that has been summoned.

It should be noted that the purpose or politics of Mr. Pence’s op-ed is not examined here. He is the U.S. Vice President, after all, and his expression of opinion regarding current politics is expected and his support for the President is not at all unusual or at issue. Rather, it is his selection of history that is under examination, because it’s both curious and dubious.

First, historical evidence suggest that Senator Edmund Ross, the U.S. Senator that Mr. Pence exemplifies as a profile in courage, may have been bribed for his vote to acquit President Andrew Johnson.

But what about JFK’s book that also glorifies Senator Ross as a profile in courage, which Mr. Pence relied upon in his op-ed? At least one historian has addressed this question:

“Singling out Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, Kennedy soft-pedaled the fact that Ross may have been bribed to acquit Johnson — or if he wasn’t exactly bribed, he successfully importuned Johnson for favors, perks, and position shortly after his apparently courageous vote.” ¹

Regardless of whether or not historical evidence is dispositive of bribery allegations against Senator Ross, evidence trails the path of how powerful supporters of President Johnson engaged in bribery scheming, how they reached the White House and met with the President, how Senator Ross vacillated till the last hour and was missing the night before his fateful vote - a vote that was contrary to his prior position, how Senator Ross’s companions were the embodiment of corruption in 1868, how tips poured from across the nation about the bribery, and how the President’s supporters had “assembled at least one war chest, and probably more, to buy senators’ votes.” ²

As the title of one history article proposes, “Edmund G. Ross Was a Profile in Impeachment Corruption, not Courage”. ³

Second, Mr. Pence’s op-ed omits Andrew Johnson’s character and conduct that glaringly hung as the crucial backdrop to his impeachment trial, and it defines the crescendo of criticism that led to the President’s impeachment trial as a “plot” that was hatched against him. But this is a neglectful understatement of pertinent facts in history. And it’s dangerous because if a person unfamiliar with history reads this op-ed, he or she would come away with a mistaken belief that President Johnson was an innocent victim of a “plot”.

“In 1868, the highly unlikeable President Johnson was impeached and then brought to trial in the Senate by men who could no longer tolerate the man’s arrogance and bigotry, his apparent abuse of power, and most recently, his violation of law. Johnson’s impeachment was thus not a plot hatched by a couple of rabid partisans…” ¹

In his Pulitzer prize-winning biography of President Lincoln, David Herbert Donald narrates the opening scene of Mr. Johnson’s Vice Presidency — perhaps a preview of his character to come. He showed up drunk to his swearing in. To Mr. Johnson’s credit though, he was specially sensitive to alcohol and had had whiskey to clam his nerves. Regardless, alcohol’s effect on him was in full display as he gave a long, maudlin and rambling speech that embarrassed those in the Senate chamber, where the event was taking place. President Lincoln sat silently, closed his eyes and endured it. But as soon as Vice President Johnson was finished, President Lincoln told the inauguration parade marshal: “Do not let Johnson speak outside.”⁴

Within six weeks of this incident, Andrew Johnson took the oath of the office of the Presidency.

President Johnson’s arrogance in his interactions with Congress are well recorded. And perhaps they can be discounted as consistent with the partisanship and politics of that time. What horrifies the senses, however, is President Johnson’s barely disguised racism.

Ron Chernow, the Pulitzer prize-winning author of “Washington” and “Alexander Hamilton” (the Broadway show “Hamilton”, attended by Mr. Pence in New York, was based on Mr. Chernow’s book), sums up President Johnson’s bigotry as such:

“No American president has ever held such openly racist views. ‘This is a country for white men,’ he declared unashamedly, ‘and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.” ⁵

Mr. Chernow provides several powerful examples of President Johnson’s racism, which I read with difficulty and incorporate here, with considerable reluctance, only because they expose President Johnson’s character.

In December 1867, President Johnson sent a defiant message to Congress, accusing it of “burdening southern states with black rights even though blacks demonstrated little capacity for government and ‘wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism’.”⁵ (Emphasis added. Offensive language in original.) This is how Mr. Chernow rated the President’s message to Congress:

“the most racist such message ever penned by an American president.”

Privately, President Johnson referred to blacks as “niggers”. (Offensive language in original.) And when Frederick Douglass came to the White House with a black delegation, Johnson turned to his secretary afterward and sneered: “He’s just like any nigger, & would sooner cut a white man’s throat than not.”⁵ (Offensive language in original.)

Third, President Johnson attempted to inflict way more damage on Reconstruction and the black cause than the mere vetoing of “several pieces of Reconstruction legislation,” as is subtly suggested in the WSJ op-ed penned by Mr. Pence. The op-ed blandly states that “Johnson made clear that he would continue Lincoln’s policies,” but “Republicans in Congress wished to impose a far harsher penalty on the former confederacy.” (Emphasis added.) Regrettably, this statement is detached from the realities of the postbellum South.

This is how a local Charleston historian describes the realities in Reconstruction Charleston: “Nothing would satisfy the whites except a return to slavery, or failing that, a form of pseudoslavery in which blacks would be controlled by whites.” ⁶ (Emphasis added.)

Allen C. Guelzo, whose book on the Emancipation Proclamation won the Lincoln Prize in 2005, an annual award that is administered by Gettysburg College for the best non-fiction work of the year on the American Civil War, tells us what happened to Lincoln’s policies:

“Virtually from the moment of Lincoln’s death on the morning of April 15, 1865, all the possibilities bound up in the Emancipation Proclamation began rapidly to unravel,…” ⁷

Although ex-Confederates may have conceded the end of slavery, they refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, and passed “black codes”, which were de facto slavery reimposed on blacks. And they suppressed former slaves by lynching, beating, poll taxes and literacy tests. One former Confederate treasury secretary submits how this was possible after the Emancipation Proclamation:

“Johnson’s plan ‘held up before us the hope of a ‘white man’s government’, and this led us to set aside negro suffrage… it was natural that we should yield to our old prejudices.” ⁷

President Johnson’s plan was to ensure “‘poor, quiet, unoffending, harmless’ whites of the South weren’t ‘trodden under foot to protect niggers’.” ⁵ (Offensive language in original.) This is hardly a continuation of Lincoln’s policies.

On March 27, 1866, President Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights bill, denigrating “it for surpassing anything the federal government ‘has ever provided for the white race’.” He labeled it as “reverse discrimination ‘made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race’.” ⁵ (Emphasis added.) For the record, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first United States federal law to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law.

Later, President Johnson opposed the 14th Amendment, which extends citizenship to every person born in the United States, and urged southern states to reject it, which they did. It was ratified in July 1868 in spite of President Johnson and ex-Confederate, white Southerners. ⁵

What to remember

We cannot correct our present errors or compensate for our past errors if we don’t appreciate history’s fullness and flavors. And we cannot urge present action based on a misunderstood version of the past. Accordingly, it behooves us, as well as Mr. Pence, to appreciate the overarching circumstances of President Johnson’s impeachment trial as we draw parallels to our current circumstances.

History is not a chronicle of dates and dead persons. History is about trends and developments that ebb and flow through human struggles and triumphs. That’s why we must learn to preserve history — so that in times of great struggles it guides us through to our triumphant future.

For weekly examination of news against history, click HistoyBehindNews to sign up for newsletters.

Sources:

Unless specifically linked to a source, the contents of this post were gleaned from the sources below. Please note that the author of this post has no affiliation with the authors and/or publishers of the cited works, and does not have any financial incentives in citing them.

¹ “The Impeachers, The trial of Andrew Johnson and The Dream of a Just Nation”, Brenda Wineapple, 2019.

² “Impeached, The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and The Fight For Lincoln’s Legacy,” David O. Stewart, 2009.

³ “Edmund G. Ross Was a Profile in Impeachment Corruption, not Courage,” by David O. Stewart on 12/15/2019 in History News Network, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences, The George Washington University. See online article here.

⁴ “Lincoln,” David Herbert Donald, 1995.

⁵ “Grant,” Ron Chernow, 2017.

⁶ “A Short History of Charleston,” by Robert Rosen, 1982.

⁷ “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation — the end of slavery in America,” by Allen C. Guelzo, 2004.