Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy

Good book, on a difficult subject in American history.

This volume arrived in immaculate condition and represents the very epitome of good value and service.I would recommend Wordery to anyone who demands exceptional customer service combined with the highest quality of product.Absolutley tremendous above and beyond the excellence expected by the most demanding customer.

Being quite the Lincoln fan, I've read up on so much of his life, that sometimes its difficult to learn anything much new about the man. Oh, from time to time I pick up a fascinating book (the latest is this  The Lincolns: Portrait of a Marriage , but for the most part, history repeats itself, maybe told in a different way. I never really considered what life was like in the country in the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination, and the terrible rift our country suffered as a result. Impeached, a brilliant new book by David O. Stewart, remarkably adds much to the Lincoln canon, much like ripples in a pond after a boulder has been tossed in.Stewart picks up his book right at the point of Lincoln's second inauguration, when a supposedly nervous Andrew Johnson makes his first horrible impression by downing whisky prior to his swearing in, and walks into the event visibly tipsy. This rather auspicious start quickly sets off a series of events, which quickly lead to the Radical Republicans in Congress working towards kicking out the President. Corralled by Congressman stalwart Thaddeus Stevens, who gives the meaning of the word persistent a run for the money, the RRs attempt to kick good ol' southern President Johnson out of office for frustrating the will of Congress in the path towards Reconstruction. By passing legislation that obviously crosses the line of Constitutionality, and having Johnson ignore it, they set up the man for quite a fall.Andrew Johnson springs their trap in a battle over equally stubborn Secretary of War Edwin Stanton's refusal to leave his office after being dismissed by Johnson (Stanton actually sets up camp in the office to avoid being locked out of it). With events resembling something that not even Shakespeare could concoct, personalities such as U.S. Grant and William T. Sherman are dragged into the middle of this melee, with honor and duty being displayed in front.What surprised me is the "character" of Andrew Johnson. Not having studied much about him at all, I pictured him as a milquetoast wimpy character who was bullied around by Congress, even though he was carrying out Lincoln's wishes. Boy, was I wrong. First, Stewart's Johnson is a fighter, and unfortunately, due possibly to his overinflated ego, an instigator in many of the events that led to his problems. By refusing to work with Congress, and merely try to steamroll over them, Johnson planted the seeds of the battle. Also, Johnson aggressively worked to ease the conditions of Reconstruction on his favored south, making life difficult for the recently freed slaves and the armies that tried to quell the anti-black sentiment that soon festered in the former confederacy. Johnson was no supporter of civil rights for the freedmen, and made no efforts to protect them. Perhaps that's Johnson's true legacy, over the failed impeachment.Stewart's writing is fast paced, not overly burdened with people and names to remember that sometimes befall other non-fiction books. His prose evokes the time, explains an event, issue, philosophy, and then moves on with his story, making for an extremely pleasurable read.One often thinks about what Reconstruction would have been like under Lincoln. At Stewart himself wonders, he thinks that Lincoln too made have been softer on the south like Johnson, but would have definitely not allowed the backlash against the freed slaves. Maybe with Lincoln, the Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and "separate but equal" treatment of minorities would have been lessened, maybe not. In any case, we had Johnson, who through the bully pulpit of his misbegotten presidency, led the country to create a system of unfairness that lasted nearly a hundred years. Perhaps the RR's should have succeeded, even though they never really quite had enough to convict the man. The Lincolns: Portrait of a Marriage

I'm not going to lie, this book infuriated me. Not by how it was written, but by its content.This book covers the run up to the first, and potentially the most successful (depending on how you view the Nixon travails), presidential impeachment attempt. Andrew Johnson was elected as Abe Lincoln's Vice-President. He was a Democrat, to Lincoln's Republican (he and Lincoln were elected as a Union ticket). Lincoln selected him as a sort of fusion candidate, who might appeal to Southern Democrats after the Civil War. On Lincoln's assassination, Johnson became President.The book was infuriating, because Lincoln picked the wrong guy to be his Vice-President. Johnson was pro-union, but once the union was saved, he reverted to being a racist Southern Democrat. Don't get me wrong, Northern Republicans had issues (only 5 states allowed African Americans the vote), but there are degrees of bigotry, and Johnson was further along the racist spectrum than most Republicans believed, when they selected him as Vice-President.This said, Johnson doubled down once he became President. Stewart cherry picks examples of how Johnson moved from Unionist to Racist, and explained them well. He also explained the trial very well, and looked at the contributory factors thoroughly. As a consequence the book is a good read.The one criticism I'd have is that the in conclusion. Stewart said Johnson should have been found guilty. He goes on to disagree with those who suggest that once an impeachment had been successful, it'd be hard to stop trying to remove future Presidents that Congress had distaste for.This book was written pre-President Trump's impeachments. Given we've had 4 attempted impeachments in 40 years, it's hard to argue had Congress hasn't gotten a taste for the impeachment process now.

This book was a great book to read because the story of Andrew Johnson's impeachment is a fascinating one. To understand first how he came to the presidency (why Lincoln picked him as VP), then to see how he acted after Lincoln's death, it is without wonder why Congress sought to oppose Johnson and seek his removal. The author makes a pretty clear case against Johnson. While it may be a matter of debate how Lincoln would have handled years of Reconstruction in the South, both Congress and Johnson thought they were upholding Lincoln's legacy. (Johnson wanted quick new state governments open to "all," while Congress wanted carefully rebuilt new state governments free of senior Confederates.)The case for impeachment was a pretty weak one, but the story of how it unfolded is mind-boggling to imagine in today's context. The president was vetoing every important act of Congress and Congress was meanwhile over-riding nearly every veto. The relationship was hostile, adversarial, and nearly childish. Johnson felt victimized and remained defiant. Meanwhile, Congress passed a law preventing the president from firing his Cabinet secretaries. So when he named a new War Secretary, the old one barricaded himself in his office, refusing to leave office.While modern readers will most likely agree that Johnson's actions were immoral or otherwise wrong, the book makes pretty clear that he really broke no laws (other than, arguably, the ignominious Tenure of Office Act). So the case for his impeachment and removal was purely political. Because it is not illegal to pursue bad policies, Congress found it difficult to remove Johnson from office.While many senators voted against impeachment for good legal and ethical reasons, the book makes clear than many votes were influenced by filthy lucre. Bribes and payoffs were a strong undercurrent to this story. This is also one area where the author's narrative fell flat. Few of the bribes and schemes can today be proven. So the mix of circumstantial evidence and hearsay make for less than convincing plots. Additionally, as with any true corruption scheme, the true story and string of events is convoluted and confusing. While the author tries to "follow the money," the reader is left with their head spinning and not knowing what actually happened. The problem is that the author traces some successful bribes alongside failed ones, and so the reader has to pick out what actually took place from what (though attempted) did not.Like others, I found the last chapter out of place. While it includes a good summary of events, it is thoroughly editorial. The author comes out strongly in opposition to Johnson, arguing that he should have been removed from office, a conclusion few readers would surely have come to from reading the preceding chapters. While Johnson could be fairly painted as one of our worst presidents, the author himself demonstrates that he never truly met the high standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would prompt his removal.Overall, this book is worth the read, largely because it is the most contemporary and dedicated book to the subject.