Articles Of Impeachment- 1868

ARTICLE I. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on . . . [February 2I, I868] . . ., at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, and 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 for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore 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 . . . [August
I2, I867] . . . 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, that is to say, on the twelfth 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 thereafterwards on . . . [January I3, I868] . . ., having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and having refused to concur in said suspension, whereby and by force of the provisions of . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . ., said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said twenty-first day of February, being 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., February 2I, I868.

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 office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of this communication.
You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other pulblic property now in your custody and charge.
Respectfully, yours, ANDREW JOHNSON.

To the Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON, Washington, D.C.

Which order was unlawfully issued with intent then and there to violate . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . ., and with the further intent, contrary to the provisions of said act, 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 Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary
for the Department of War, the said Edwin M. Stanton being then and there Secretary for the Department of War, and being then and there in the due and lawful execution and discharge of the duties of said office, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
[Agreed to, I27 to 42, 20 not voting.]
ARTICLE II. That on said twenty-first day of February . . . [I868] .,,, at Washington, . . . said Andrew Johnson . . .. unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . ., without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did, with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, and the act aforesaid, issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in substance as follows, that is to say:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
Washington, D.C., February 21 I868.

SIR: The Hon. Edwin 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 oflice.
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,
AdijutantGeneral U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.

Then and there being no vacancy in said 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.
[Agreed to, I24 to 4I, 24 not voting.]
ARTICLE III. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . [on February 2I, I868] . . ., at Washington, . . . 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 with intent to violate 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....

[Agreed to, I24 to 40, 25 not voting.]
ARTICLE IV. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . [on February 2I, I868] . . ., at Washington, . . . did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, unlawfully 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 . . . [the Conspiracy Act of July 3I, I86I].

[Agreed to, I27 to 42, 20 not voting.]
ARTICLE V. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . [on February 2I, I868] . . ., and on divers other days and times in said year . . . [before March 2, I868] . . ., at Washington, . . . did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, to prevent and hinder the execution of . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . .. and in pursuance of said conspiracy did unlawfully attempt to prevent Edwin 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 . . .
[Agreed to, I27 to 42, 20 not voting.]

ARTICLE VI. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . [on February 2I, I868] . . ., at Washington, . . . did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, and then and there in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said department, contrary to the provisions of . . . [the act of July 3I,I861] . . . and with intent to violate and disregard . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . .
[Agreed to, I27 to 42, 20 not voting.]
ARTICLE VII. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . [on February
21, I868] . . ., at Washington, . . . did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas with intent unlawfully to seize, take, and posses the property of the United States in the Department of War, in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said department, with intent to violate and disregard . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . .
[Agreed to, I27 to 42, 20 not voting.]

ARTICLE VIII. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . with intent unlawfully to control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War, . . . [on February 2I, I868] . . ., at Washington, . . . did unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . ., and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and while the Senate was then and there in session, there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and with intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in writing, in substance as follows, that is to say:
[Here follows the letter of appointment as in Article II.]
[Agreed to, I27 to 42, 20 not voting.]
ARTICLE IX. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . [on February 22, I868] . . ., at Washington, . . . in disregard of the Constitution and the laws of the United States duly enacted, as commander-in-chief of the army of the United States, 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 thereof, and did then and there, as such commander-in chief, declare to and instruct said Emory that part of . . . [the Army Appropriation Act of March 2, I867] . . ., especially the second section thereof, . . . was unconstitutional, and in contravention of the commission of said Emory, and which said provision of law had been theretofore 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 g&Mac245;ve, and which should not be issued through the General of the army of the United States, according to the provisions of said act, and with the further intent thereby to enable him, the said Andrew Johnson, to prevent the execution of . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . ., and to unlawfully prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then being Secretary for the Department of War, from holding said office and discharging the duties thereof . . .
Agreed to, I08 to 4., 40 not voting.]
ARTICLE X. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . unmindful of the high duties of his 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 authority 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 legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all the 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 the 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 August I8, 1866] . . ., and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and deliver with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and did 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 and in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that is to say:
SPECIFICATION FIRST. In this, that at Washington, . . . 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, said Andrew Johnson, . . . [on August I8, I866] . . ., did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

* * * * * * * *

"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 a 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 the 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, allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself."
SPECIFICATION SECOND. In this, that at Cleveland, . . . [on September 3, I866] . . ., before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, . . . 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 their constituents against him. But what had Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the union of these 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, factious and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people."
SPECIFICATION THIRD. In this, that at St. Louis, . . . [on September 8, I866] . . ., before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, . . . 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:
"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—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 at New Orleans and trace it back to its source or 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 there knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its power 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, who had just 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 there 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 that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the reorganized authorities in the State government of Louisiana, which had been recognized by the government of the United States; and every man engaged in that rebellion in that 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 orgin 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 for it. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here tonight. But when you talk ahout 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 a bill that was called a 'Freedman'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 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. Oh yes, the twelve apostles had a Christ. The twelve apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had 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 ? These are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Saviour; and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and to try 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 offices, God being 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 I intended to say. I was not provoked into this, and I care not for their menaces, the taunts, and the jeers. I care not for threats. I do not intend to be bullied by my 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 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 . . .
[Agreed to, 88 to 44, 57 not voting.]
ARTICLE XI. That said Andrew Johnson, . . . unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did . . . on the 18th day of August, I866, at the city of Washington, . . . by public speech, declare and affirm, in substance, that the thirtyninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying and intending to deny the power of the said thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, . . . afterward, to wit, on the 2Ist day of February, I868, at the city of Washington, . . did unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of . . . [the Tenure of Office Act] . . ., by unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means by which he should
prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made by said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War, and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means then and there to prevent the execution of . . . [the Army Appropriation Act of March 2, I867] . . ., and also to prevent the execution of . . . [the Reconstruction Act of March 2, I867] . . .
[Agreed to, I09 to 32, 48 not voting.]