Would you have voted to impeach Andrew Johnson?

[Emsworth]

No.

[A18]

Of course not. He did nothing wrong. The act was blatantly unconstitutional.

By the way, I'd be interested in getting your take on the other impeachment threads.

[Emsworth]

Of course not. He did nothing wrong. The act was blatantly unconstitutional.

Agreed. Johnson was vindicated nearly sixty years later when the Supreme Court declared a similar law invalid.

What is amazing is that just a single vote more would have meant conviction and removal for Johnson. Had Johnson been convicted, Congress would have established a precedent for removing presidents over mere political differences. The system of checks and balances would have been upset, and the President would have been rendered subservient to the legislative branch.

[minionofmidas]

Actually, the same thing more or less happened anyways, for a couple of decades.

(And I would have voted no.)

[TomC]

No, a President should be able to remove cabinet member.

[Cubby]

I would have, at the time. I wouldn't if I had hindsight.

I'd have been a radical Republican back then, singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, etc.

[MasterJedi]

No though he should have been tougher on the South.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, as I would've been a radical Republican.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I would have, at the time. I wouldn't if I had hindsight.

I'd have been a radical Republican back then, singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, etc.

Yes, as I would've been a radical Republican.

No, you two would probably be bitching about Lincoln not having a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and claiming that he was a war-monger who was murdering 100,000 innocent southern civilians in his "war for cotton".  And God forbid Lincoln violate some traitor rebel terrorist's "civil liberties"!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, you two would probably be bitching about Lincoln not having a majority of the popular vote in 1860,

No because:

1-at least he got a plurality
2-I would've voted for him

and claiming that he was a war-monger who was murdering 100,000 innocent southern civilians in his "war for cotton".  And God forbid Lincoln violate some traitor rebel terrorist's "civil liberties"!

No, I would've loved him kicking the traitors' asses. My only problem is he didn't go far enough. Although in hindsight it probably would've been better if he would've let them leave.

[PBrunsel]

No, Stanton was a jackass anyway.

[jokerman]

No way. 

[7,052,770]

Hell no

[Akno21]

No.

But I will say that we having Andrew Johnson as President at that time was the worst timespan for us to be under his leadership. We had great opportunities then, and many were squandered because of him.

[Schmitz in 1972]

No, instead I would have tried to impeach the principle players from 39th and 40th congresses for some of the most blatant constitutional atrocities ever commited in US history.

[dazzleman]

No.  As I understand it, he was impeached for violating a law passed by Congress over his veto prohibiting a president to fire a cabinet member without congressional approval.

The law was blatantly unconstitutional, and I would not have voted to impeach Johnson for violating it.

[The Dowager Mod]

No

[J. J.]

Of course not. He did nothing wrong. The act was blatantly unconstitutional.

Agreed. Johnson was vindicated nearly sixty years later when the Supreme Court declared a similar law invalid.

What is amazing is that just a single vote more would have meant conviction and removal for Johnson. Had Johnson been convicted, Congress would have established a precedent for removing presidents over mere political differences. The system of checks and balances would have been upset, and the President would have been rendered subservient to the legislative branch.

I disagree.  There is that nice 2/3 vote in the Senate and most of the time, it wouldn't have been there.

[Cubby]

I would have, at the time. I wouldn't if I had hindsight.

I'd have been a radical Republican back then, singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, etc.

Yes, as I would've been a radical Republican.

No, you two would probably be bitching about Lincoln not having a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and claiming that he was a war-monger who was murdering 100,000 innocent southern civilians in his "war for cotton".  And God forbid Lincoln violate some traitor rebel terrorist's "civil liberties"!

People who live in Southern rebellious states shouldn't throw stones. Red states can act all patriotic now but everyone remembers that it was the South that left the Union.