Should Andrew Johnson have been removed from office?

[The Mikado]

So...I'm going to do a bit of hair-splitting here and say that I think Johnson was a catastrophically bad president and should not have been in the office to begin with (thanks, Lincoln), but impeaching him would've been a bad move because it would've reaffirmed the legitimacy of the Tenure of Office Act, one of the worst pieces of government structural legislation in American history. If Johnson had been removed from office over the horrendous crime of violating the Tenure of Office Act, the act itself might have stuck around and been a terrible thorn in the side of presidents for decades to come. Imagine recent times with the "a President can't fire a Cabinet Secretary without Congressional approval" rule!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Johnson was an alcoholic, known in his day as "Andy the Sot".

Had he been removed, the Radical Republicans may have installed a President that would have finished the job on Reconstruction.

[NewYorkExpress]

Yes and No.

He did violate a law passed by Congress in the tenure of office act, however, said law was unconstitutional.

Assuming you can abstain in an impeachment trial, that's probably what I would have done in Johnson's (or refused to show up for it).

[The Mikado]

Yes and No.

He did violate a law passed by Congress in the tenure of office act, however, said law was unconstitutional.

Assuming you can abstain in an impeachment trial, that's probably what I would have done in Johnson's (or refused to show up for it).

You can absolutely abstain in an impeachment vote: it's pretty much what Arlen Specter did in Bill Clinton's trial (he voted "Not Proven," which is neither "Guilty" nor "Not Guilty," the two votes that would actually count).

[Sir Mohamed]

Yes and No.

He did violate a law passed by Congress in the tenure of office act, however, said law was unconstitutional.

Assuming you can abstain in an impeachment trial, that's probably what I would have done in Johnson's (or refused to show up for it).

Agree. It should be noted though that the law (Tenure of Office Act) had never been passed if he wasn't such a jacka**.

[Del Tachi]

Johnson was an alcoholic, known in his day as "Andy the Sot".

Had he been removed, the Radical Republicans may have installed a President that would have finished the job on Reconstruction.

Which would have assuredly led to another Civil War.

Even if Johnson had been removed, the Tenure of Office Act would have probably been ruled unconstitutional at some point.  See Myers v. U.S. (1926) 

[The Mikado]

Johnson was an alcoholic, known in his day as "Andy the Sot".

Had he been removed, the Radical Republicans may have installed a President that would have finished the job on Reconstruction.

Would "Ben Wade becomes President in May 1868" really be all that different from "Ulysses Grant becomes President in March 1869?" Especially since the GOP would've probably still nominated Grant so he'd take over as President in 1869.

[fluffypanther19]

Yes and No.

He did violate a law passed by Congress in the tenure of office act, however, said law was unconstitutional.

Assuming you can abstain in an impeachment trial, that's probably what I would have done in Johnson's (or refused to show up for it).

[Orser67]

Johnson taking office was perhaps the single worst thing to happen to this country, as a president who was less sympathetic to Southern whites could conceivably have established governments that would have protected African-American civil rights. But by 1868, the damage had been done, as conservative whites had re-established local dominance throughout much of the South, and removing Johnson from office wouldn't have done much good.

So with that in mind, I think it's probably a good thing that Johnson was not removed from office by Congress. The Tenure in Office Act did go too far in giving Congress authority over the executive branch, and removing Johnson from office would've set a bad precedent by establishing congressional supremacy and encouraging impeachment on largely political (rather than legal) grounds.