The Hypocrisy of Andrew Johnson’s Impeachment

Scholars have debated the merit of Andrew Johnson’s impeachment since the time of its occurrence in 1868.  These debates typically conclude that the impeachment was either justified yet unsuccessful or, as Michael Les Benedict puts it, “the most insidious assault on constitutional government in the nation’s history.”[1] Within these arguments, the Johnson IIlaws implemented by the 40th Congress of the United States are typically addressed by scholars of the Civil War and the Reconstruction; However, the authority to implement such laws, and the method in which these laws were either executed or ignored by the President continue to be the point of disagreement among those scholars.

President Johnson had precedent and Constitutional authority to execute or ignore the laws established by the 40th Congress.  In many cases, the 40th Congress generated legislation designed to strip the President of his Constitutional authority, or to provoke him into action that might warrant impeachment.  Without the ratification of required Constitutional Amendments, which wouldn’t arrive until after the impeachment proceedings, the Radical Republicans had no Constitutional authority to execute a plan for Reconstruction or implement many of the Reconstruction laws that they did.  The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was unjustified, a power-grab for both the Legislative Branch and the Radical Republicans, and an attempt to usurp the President’s authority of executing policy for the Reconstruction.

Prior to his presidency, Johnson held a long political career.  The future President had developed an extensive résumé in public service.  Johnson held the office of mayor, as well as a House of Representatives member and a member of the Senate.  Abraham Lincoln also appointed Johnson to the position of Tennessee’s Military Governor during the President’s first term.  According to the White House biographers Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey, Andrew Johnson was “an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states’ rights views.”[2]   Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)

When Tennessee seceded from the Union, many of Johnson’s constituents branded him as a traitor for failing to identify himself as a Confederate. It also did not serve Johnson well to be the only remaining Senator from a Confederate state in Congress.  Despite his successful political career serving the constituents of Tennessee throughout the 1840s and 50s, his decision to stay in the United States Senate derided him as a turncoat to the state of Tennessee and a hero to Radical Republicans.  Johnson ran as Lincoln’s (a moderate Republican) Vice-President as part of the “National Union Party” ticket in the 1864 presidential election.

Both Lincoln and Johnson would fight an uphill battle to win the nomination and the election; however, The National Union Party would ultimately choose them as the potential hopefuls to reunite the polarized nation.  Many Radical Republicans viewed Lincoln as too moderate, and sought Ulysses S. Grant for the nomination to the Presidency under the National Union Party ticket.[3]  The faction of Radical Republicans that abstained from joining the National Union Party would choose John C. Frémont for their presidential nomination for the same reason.[4]

Lincoln & JohnsonAndrew Johnson did not receive the support of the Southern Democrats for the Vice Presidency in the 1864 election, as they were in rebellion against the Union.  The newly formed National Union Party considered Hannibal Hamlin, Daniel Dickinson, Benjamin Butler, Lovell Rousseau, Schuyler Colfax, Ambrose Burnside, Joseph Holt, Preston King, and David Tod as potential Vice-Presidential Candidates.[5]  Those Radical Republicans that remained with the party had selected John Cochrane for the Vice-Presidency.[6]  Although not unanimously favored by the Radical Republicans, by 1864 the party had determined that the National Union Party was “for all loyal men” and nominated Abraham Lincoln, the Moderate Republican, for the Presidential candidate and Andrew Johnson, the War Democrat, for Vice-President.

Andrew Johnson ascended to the Presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865.  Thrust into the seat of the Presidency, Johnson intended to follow through with Lincoln’s intentions of “a generous peace;” hoping to “harmonize ‘disorganized and discordant elements’” as his own method for Reconstruction.[7] To accomplish a swift and easy reconstruction, Andrew Johnson intended to return the seceded states to the Union as quickly and effortlessly as possible.  Johnson granted amnesty to ex-Confederate soldiers, granted special Presidential pardons for high-ranking Confederate officers and thwarted efforts to investigate perjury of former Confederates’ oaths of allegiance.[8]

Early into Andrew Johnson’s presidency, hostilities were already growing with the 39th Congress, as partisan ideologies concerning Reconstruction policy continued to polarize.  Regardless, Johnson began working to reinstate ex-Confederates and reunite the Union during the Congressional recess.  Johnson’s ill-fated attempts at Reconstruction angered the Legislative Branch, the Radical Republicans and large portions of the national voter base.  These hostilities would only increase once the Radical Republicans became the Johnson IIImajority of the 40th Congress in 1867.  The Historian David Miller Dewitt noted that key members of the new Congress had already proven to be against Andrew Johnson, stating “[Thaddeus] Stevens [Radical Republican leader of the House of Representatives] had been hostile to Johnson from the beginning.”[9] Not only did Johnson further alienate the oppositional party with his eagerness to reinstate the South to the Union, the outcome of his actions emboldened former Confederates and created a “spirit of determined resistance in the South.”  However, President Johnson had not violated the law in doing so.[10]

Upset by the failures of the first two years of Reconstruction, the voters of the United States elected a Radical Republican majority in the House of Representatives and Senate of the 40th United States Congress.  As Congress assembled in March, their first order of business became to strip the President of his authority over Reconstruction by establishing the Reconstruction Acts.[11]  Now that the Radical Republicans held the majority in Congress, they had enough power to override Presidential vetoes, crippling Johnson’s ability to resist encroachment of his executive authority.  President Johnson continued to veto Congressional Reconstruction bills.  Nevertheless, Johnson’s veto had been heavily stifled by the Radical Republican majority in Congress.  All total, Johnson vetoed twenty-nine bills (twenty-one through regular veto, eight by pocket veto); however, the 40th Congress overrode fifteen of them.[12]

Reconstruction was proving to be an ongoing military effort.  Johnson continued to flex his executive authority of discretionary powers as commander-in-chief, rendering many of the Reconstruction laws moot in their application to the eyes of the Radical Republicans.  As part of the Reconstruction acts, the Radical Republicans attempted to make the oath of allegiance to the Union an enforceable law, known as the “Test Oath Law,” which would require an oath declaring that one had never been played a role in the Confederacy, which “would have effectively barred former Confederate military or civic officers from receiving appointments.”[13]

Despite the efforts of Congress, the Supreme Court declared the Test Oath Law to be unconstitutional in Cummings v. Missouri in 1867. [14]  Article two, section two of the United States Constitution clearly states, “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several states…he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.”[15] The Cummings v. Missouri decision ultimately backfired for Congress because a Test Oath law would undermine the President’s discretionary powers regarding his plan for granting reprieves and pardons as Commander-in-Chief.

oath
A Confederate Oath of Allegiance from Fredericksburg, VA.

Andrew Johnson’s decision to essentially ignore the oaths of allegiance were not only lawful, enforcing them would have been unconstitutional.  Ignoring oaths of allegiance were lawful for the President, as it is part of his discretionary powers to determine how he will execute the provisions found in article two section two of the United States Constitution.  The Cummings vs. Missouri decision also determined that test oaths violated the ex post facto provisions of the Constitution “under the form of creating a qualification or attaching a condition… in effect, inflict[ing] a punishment for a past act which was not punishable at the time it was committed.”[16]  When not legislating unconstitutional laws, the first year of the 40th congress would prove to be a struggle between Congress “patch[ing] the torn netting of the law,” and Johnson finding new outlets within those patchwork laws in which to exercise his executive authority.[17]

The 40th Congress continued generating new legislation as part of the Reconstruction acts, despite the best efforts of President Johnson to veto the unconstitutional legislation.  The Tenure of Office Act was established by Congress and intended to keep President Johnson from dismissing anyone that worked in the Executive branch that had previously been approved by the Senate, without first seeking Congressional approval.  Andrew Johnson believed that the law had been implemented unconstitutionally and encroached on executive authority.  Although Johnson vetoed the legislation, his veto would be overridden by the Radical Republican Congress.  To challenge the law, Johnson removed Edwin Stanton from the office of Secretary of War anyway; the office that the Tenure of Office Law was primarily intended to protect.[18]

Stanton had originally been appointed to the position of Secretary of War under Abraham Lincoln and continued to serve under Johnson after Lincoln’s assassination.  However, Stanton was at political odds with Johnson.  The President believed that the authority of Reconstruction was the duty of the Executive, while Stanton believed that Reconstruction policy was the responsibility of Congress.  Additional Reconstruction Acts had recently placed the authority of Reconstruction in the South to the hands of General Ulysses S. Grant, who also supported the Radical Republican cause of Congressional Reconstruction.[19]

To maintain control over Reconstruction and challenge the Tenure of Office Act, Johnson decided to replace Stanton with Ulysses S. Grant as Secretary of War while Congress was out of session.  Unfortunately for Johnson, the Supreme Court declined to review the legislation, resulting in Grant stepping down from office to allow Stanton to return.  Johnson then decided to remove Stanton a second time, to be replace by General Lorenzo Thomas.[20]

Upon return to session, Congress immediately sought to undo Johnson’s changes.  The Bill passed by Congress to undo Johnson’s actions, discussed by The Courier, essentially reversed the President’s actions, returning Grant to his position as “dictator” of the South.[21] The actions of Johnson would result in Congress accusing the President of violating the Tenure of Office Act; it would serve as the most serious of charges during Andrew Johnsons impeachment.[22]

The Radical Republicans ultimately decided to begin impeachment proceedings of Andrew Johnson on February 24, 1868; just nine months prior to the next Presidential election. The U.S. House of Representatives voted on 11 separate articles of impeachment.[23] The trial began on the 13th of March and ended on the 26th of May, with “Johnson’s opponents narrowly failing to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to convict him.”[24]

Nine of the articles of impeachment related to Johnson’s attempt to remove the Edwin Stanton as a violation of the Tenure of Office act.[25] The remaining three articles alluded to ‘misdemeanors’ and ‘conspiracies’ related to Johnson’s attempt to remove Stanton after his Congressional reinstatement and replace him with General Lorenzo Thomas, and general issues of concern of the decorum of the President.[26]  The House of Representatives was unable to secure the necessary votes to remove President Johnson; however, they came close to doing so.  Johnson was spared by a single vote.

edmund-ross
Senator of Kansas Edmund G. Ross, a Radical Republican, broke party ranks and voted against prosecuting Andrew Johnson.  His vote was the single vote that spared the President.

The Senator of Kansas that cast a “crucial vote for acquittal,” Edmund G. Ross had not regretted his decision after thirty years; he “concluded emphatically that the prosecution was ‘partisan’.”[27] Although Congressional members claimed that impeachment had been a last resort[28], the fact that the 40th Congress moved forward with impeachment proceeding mere months before the next presidential election (that would be won by Ulysses S. Grant, a supporter of Congressional Reconstruction), suggested otherwise.

President Johnson’s Reconstruction efforts were not well received by much of the American voting base, as the election had shown.  Johnson had held to the belief that execution of Reconstruction lay in the hands of the President.  Fruitful or not, it was not the place of Congress to perform the duties of the Executive Branch.  As has often been the nature of the American political system, the blame of American failures typically rest on the head of the President.  Although the public differed about who to blame for the failures of Reconstruction, often Andrew Johnson bore most of the blame.

Public sentiment generally agreed that Reconstruction was going poorly. The people of Missouri placed the blame of Reconstruction’s failure heavily on Andrew Johnson.  The Constituency of Senator John B. Henderson (Senator of Missouri) threatened him with “political ruin” if he refused to vote for the impeachment of President Johnson.[29]  The voters of Missouri kept their word, as Henderson lost the next election; however, the Atchison Daily Globe reflected on his actions as a “display of moral courage” in 1889.[30]

Many people in Alabama felt that Reconstruction’s failures were not entirely the fault of Johnson.  However, despite appearing sympathetic to the rebel cause in the South, many of citizens of Alabama did not vote, despite “for the influence of the President, most of these votes would have been cast;” instead they implemented a “system of terrorism, [that] kept thousands of loyal [Republican] whites and blacks from the polls.” [31]

While Johnson assumed much of the responsibility for the failure of Reconstruction, the sentiments of the American people were not unanimous.  In the eyes of many citizens, President Johnson was not entirely to blame, nor was his impeachment the most pressing issue of the day.  In 1867, the Daily National Intelligencer claimed “that the President has done nothing which makes him amenable to impeachment, according to the spirit of the Constitution, every well informed and impartial reader knows.  That this movement to eject him from his office is the result of spite engendered by the President’s abandonment of the party which elected him, is equally apparent.”[32] New Orleans press echoed the sentiments of a Connecticut article in the Hartford Courant, a “radical” newspaper that wanted “Congress to do more for [the] economy and less about Andrew Johnson.”[33]

The Charleston Courier, Tri-Weekly of South Carolina took a more sympathetic tone with Johnson accusing Congress of the woes of Reconstruction stating “ever since Congress reassembled [in 1867]…it must have been noticed that the Radical majority are doing all in their power to exasperate and provoke the President in doing some overt act, by which good grounds could be obtained on which to build…impeachment forore [sic].”[34] Although The Courier seemed to sympathize with Johnson, the article refers to Johnson’s attempt to secure control over the military occupation of the South and the position of Secretary of War as the “Dictator Bill.”[35]

Reconstruction had proven to be a failure since it began.  The violent race massacres in New Orleans and Memphis would stand as evidence of Johnson’s failure in his Reconstruction efforts.  The New Orleans Massacre on July 30, 1866 (also known as the New Orleans Race Riot) “galvanized national opposition to the moderate Reconstruction policies of President Andrew Johnson.”[36] The Memphis massacre would also stand out to American voters as an inability to retain order between blacks and poor Irish in Tennessee.[37]  Radical Republicans would point to the massacres as key evidence of failure, ultimately shifting the tide of Reconstruction in the 1867 Congressional election.[38]

ReconstructionAlthough Reconstruction was failing during its infancy, Reconstruction continued to fail after it had been taken over by Congress.  Massacres continued to occur, despite Congressional attempts to handle the duties of the President.  The Colfax Massacre resulted in the deaths of roughly 150 black men as white Democrats “organized a white militia to directly challenge the mostly black state militia under the control of the governor,” who had narrowly won the Louisiana governor’s race of 1872.[39] The Hamburg Massacre occurred in South Carolina in 1876 killing seven and helping Wade Hampton win the Democratic nomination for Governor that fall, when the “community’s African American militia clashed with whites from the surrounding rural area.[40]  Although the Colfax and Hamburg Massacres occurred after the 40th Congress had been replaced, President Ulysses S. Grant would prove to be a supporter of still Radical Congressional Reconstruction, allowing the legacy of Congressional failure to continue.[41]

At the turn of the twentieth century, Andrew Johnson would be absolved once and for all in the Supreme Court decision of Myers v. United States in 1923.  The Supreme court ruled that the “President is empowered by the Constitution to remove any executive officer appointed by him [the President] by and with the advice of the Senate, and this power is not subject in its exercise to the assent of the Senate, nor can it be made so by an act of Congress,” unfortunately Johnson’s vindication wouldn’t arrive until fifty years after his impeachment.[42] The case involved the Presidential appointment of a Postmaster; however, the Supreme Court’s decision would reflect upon Andrew Jacksons historic case.  Unfortunately, the decision came long after the death of Andrew Johnson and the end of Reconstruction; none-the-less, the decisions proved that Johnson was acting within the bounds of the Constitution.

In many cases, the 40th Congress generated legislation designed to strip the President of his Constitutional authority, or to provoke him into action that might warrant impeachment.  The impeachment of Andrew Johnson would prove to be a power-grab for both the Legislative Branch and the Radical Republicans.  President Johnson had precedent and Constitutional authority to execute or ignore the laws established by the 40th Congress.  Without the ratification of required Constitutional Amendments, which wouldn’t arrive until after the impeachment proceedings, the Radical Republicans had no Constitutional authority to execute a plan for Reconstruction or implement many of the Reconstruction laws that they did.


Footnotes

[1] Michael Les Benedict. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly 113, (1998): 493.

[2] Frank Freidel; Hugh Sidey, “Andrew Johnson,” Whitehouse.gov, accessed 23 March, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/andrewjohnson.

[3] Bonnie Goodman. “1864 Presidential Campaign & Elections.” Presidential Campaigns & Elections Reference, July 5, 2011. https://presidentialcampaignselectionsreference.wordpress.com/overviews/19th-century/1864-overview/.

[4] Ibid

[5]Ibid

[6]Ibid

[7] Elizabeth R Varon, Appomattox: Victory, Defeat, and Freedom at the End of the Civil War. Reprint edition, (New York u.a.: Oxford University Press), 115-117.

[8] Michael Les Benedict. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly 113, (1998): 502.

[9] David Miller Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, Seventeenth President of the United States; New York, London, The Macmillan company, 1903, 42-43 http://archive.org/details/impeachmentandt00dewigoog.

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] US Senate. “Andrew Johnson.” Accessed 26 March 2017. 30. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/Presidents/JohnsonA.pdf

[13] Michael Les Benedict. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly 113, (1998): 502.

[14] “Cummings v. Missouri 71 U.S. 277 (1867).” Justia Law. Accessed March 25, 2017. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/277/case.html.

[15] U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2

[16] “Cummings v. Missouri 71 U.S. 277 (1867).” Justia Law. Accessed March 25, 2017. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/277/case.html.

[17] Michael Les Benedict. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly 113, (1998): 503.

[18] Eric Foner, John Garraty. “Tenure of Office Act – Facts & Summary.” HISTORY.com, 2009. http://www.history.com/topics/tenure-of-office-act.

[19] History.com Staff. “Edwin M. Stanton – American Civil War.” HISTORY.com. Accessed April 18, 2017. http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/edwin-m-stanton.

[20] Eric Foner, John Garraty. “Tenure of Office Act – Facts & Summary.” HISTORY.com, 2009. http://www.history.com/topics/tenure-of-office-act.

[21] Pink. “Our Washington Correspondence.” The Charleston Courier, Tri-Weekly. 4 February 1868. Charleston (South Carolina). GT3015733496 http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

[22] “The Trial of Andrew Johnson, 1868.” Accessed March 22, 2017. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/john.htm.

[23] “President Andrew Johnson Impeached – Feb 24, 1868.” HISTORY.com, 2010. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-andrew-johnson-impeached.

[24] Ibid

[25] US Senate. “Andrew Johnson.” Accessed 26 March 2017. 30. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/Presidents/JohnsonA.pdf

[26] “U.S. Senate. “The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868) President of the United States.” Accessed March 26, 2017. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm#7.

[27] James Sefton. “The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson: A Century of Writing.” Kent, Ohio. Kent State University Press, (1978). 121

[28] Les Benedict, Michael. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly 113, (1998): 511.

[29] Walter Wellman, “A Great Conference,” The Atchison Daily Globe, 5 June, 1889, Atchison (Kansas). Issue 4,587. GT3011920125. http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

[30] Ibid

[31] “’Open the Door to Alabama’ says the Tribune.” Bangor Daily Whig & Courier. 18 February, 1868.  Bangor (Maine). GT3007282097 http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

[32] “The Impeachment Project.” Daily National Intelligencer, 27 November, 1867. Washington D.C. Issue 17, 242. GT3017918754. http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

[33] Sun, N.Y. “General Summary.” New-Orleans Commercial Bulletin. 5 February, 1868. New Orleans (Louisiana). Issue 30. GT3007840413 http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

[34] Pink, “Our Washington Correspondence,” The Charleston Courier, Tri-Weekly, 4 February, 1868. Charleston (South Carolina). GT3015733496 http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

[35] Ibid

[36] “New Orleans Massacre (1866) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed.” BlackPast.org Remembered & Reclaimed. Accessed March 26, 2017. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/new-orleans-massacre-1866.

[37] Stephen V Ash, A Massacre in Memphis: The Race Riot That Shook the Nation One Year After the Civil War. Hill and Wang, 2013.

[38] Ibid

[39] Michael Stolp-Smith. “The Colfax Massacre (1873) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed.” Accessed April 18, 2017. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/colfax-massacre-1873.

[40] Michael Stolp-Smith. “The Hamburg Massacre (1876).” The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed. Accessed March 26, 2017. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/hamburg-massacre-1876.

[41] Ibid

Danny Lewis, “The 1873 Colfax Massacre Crippled the Reconstruction Era.” Smartnews, April 13, 2016. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1873-colfax-massacre-crippled-reconstruction-180958746/.

[42] Cornell University Law School. “Myers v. United States.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed March 24, 2017. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52.


Bibliography

Ash, Stephen V. A Massacre in Memphis: The Race Riot That Shook the Nation One Year After the Civil War. Hill and Wang, 2013.

Cornell University Law School. “Myers v. United States.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed March 24, 2017. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52.

“Cummings v. Missouri 71 U.S. 277 (1867).” Justia Law. Accessed March 25, 2017. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/277/case.html.

Dewitt, David Miller. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, Seventeenth President of the United States; New York, London, The Macmillan company, 1903. http://archive.org/details/impeachmentandt00dewigoog.

Foner, Eric; Garraty, John. “Tenure of Office Act – Facts & Summary.” HISTORY.com, 2009. http://www.history.com/topics/tenure-of-office-act.

Freidel, Frank; Sidey, Hugh. “Andrew Johnson.” Whitehouse.gov. Accessed 25 March, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/andrewjohnson.

Goodman, Bonnie. “1864 Presidential Campaign & Elections.” Presidential Campaigns & Elections Reference, July 5, 2011. https://presidentialcampaignselectionsreference.wordpress.com/overviews/19th-century/1864-overview/.

“The Impeachment Project.” Daily National Intelligencer, 27 November, 1867. Washington D.C. Issue 17, 242. GT3017918754. http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

Les Benedict, Michael. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly 113, (1998): 493-511.

Lewis, Danny. “The 1873 Colfax Massacre Crippled the Reconstruction Era.” Smartnews, April 13, 2016. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1873-colfax-massacre-crippled-reconstruction-180958746/.

“’Open the Door to Alabama’ says the Tribune.” Bangor Daily Whig & Courier. 18 February, 1868.  Bangor (Maine). GT3007282097 http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

Pink. “Our Washington Correspondence.” The Charleston Courier, Tri-Weekly. 4 February, 1868. Charleston (South Carolina). GT3015733496 http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

“President Andrew Johnson Impeached – Feb 24, 1868.” HISTORY.com, 2010. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-andrew-johnson-impeached.

Sefton, James. “The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson: A Century of Writing.” Kent, Ohio. Kent State University Press, (1978).

Stolp-Smith, Michael. “The Colfax Massacre (1873) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed.” Accessed April 18, 2017. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/colfax-massacre-1873.

______________. “New Orleans Massacre (1866)” BlackPast.org Remembered & Reclaimed. Accessed March 26, 2017. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/new-orleans-massacre-1866.

______________. “The Hamburg Massacre (1876).” The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed. Accessed March 26, 2017. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/hamburg-massacre-1876.

Sun, N.Y. “General Summary.” New-Orleans Commercial Bulletin. 5 February, 1868. New Orleans (Louisiana). Issue 30. GT3007840413 http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

“The Trial of Andrew Johnson, 1868.” Accessed March 22, 2017. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/john.htm.

US Senate. “Andrew Johnson.” Accessed 26 March, 2017. 30. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/Presidents/JohnsonA.pdf

“U.S. Senate. “The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868) President of the United States.” Accessed March 26, 2017. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm#7.

Varon, Elizabeth R. Appomattox: Victory, Defeat, and Freedom at the End of the Civil War. Reprint edition. New York u.a.: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Wellman, Walter. “A Great Conference.” The Atchison Daily Globe. 5 June, 1889. Atchison (Kansas). Issue 4,587. GT3011920125. http://0-find.galegroup.com.wncln.wncln.org/ncnp/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=NCNP&userGroupName=boon41269

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s