For the first half of the twentieth century, most historians viewed Reconstruction as an undertaking that was tragically flawed at best or vindictive and misconceived at worst. Beginning in the 1960s historians increasingly found much to praise in the experiment of Reconstruction and much to condemn in Andrew Johnson's leadership. (It is no coincidence that the reevaluation gained momentum just as the civil rights movement was forcing Americans to rethink attitudes about segregation, racism, and equality.)

Controversy persists, however, over the narrower issue of whether congressional Republicans were wise to pursue impeachment. Some historians point out that when the Constitution was first drafted, James Madison argued that impeachment should apply to political misdeeds as well as crimes. Johnson, after all, had never been elected president in his own right. In 1866 the voters in congressional elections had rejected his clumsy attempts to gain support. Furthermore, as president he had taken an oath to uphold the laws of the nation. Yet time after time Johnson interpreted those laws as narrowly as possible, refusing to enforce them in the manner that Congress clearly intended. When Congress voted to not convict the president, these historians argue, it lessened the threat of impeachment ever being used. Yet impeachment was one of the legislative branch's most important weapons to control an abuse of power by a president.

Other historians, while not sympathetic to Johnson's politics, believe that his acquittal was fortunate. The Constitution states that the president could be removed only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Johnson's lawyers ably argued that whatever his "misdeeds" in the eyes of Congress, he had not committed "high Crimes." Historians who sympathize with that view argue that a conviction would have upset the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Removing Johnson from office would have seriously weakened the presidency, placed too much power in the hands of Congress, and provided a dangerous precedent for the future. The best course, they conclude, was the one Congress actually followed: to let Johnson finish his term as an ineffective president.

1			Start your consideration of the advisability of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson with two editorials printed in Harper's Weekly at the time of the trial. What was the opinion of these editors about the validity and advisability of Johnson's impeachment? What basis did they offer for their argument? http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/09ImpeachmentAndAcquittal/vi-39.htm http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/09ImpeachmentAndAcquittal/vi-41.htm Now read historian Eric Foner's perspective on the Johnson impeachment. What does he argue "most historians" believe about this issue? Why, according to Foner, do they take that position? Which argument seems more compelling to you and why? http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/176/ The recent impeachment trial of President Clinton offers a compelling example of the manner in which historical events may become relevant again in our contemporary culture. In your opinion, what role can and should historical precedents such as the Johnson case play in making decisions about current issues? Why?