,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Fun to see Hans von Spakovsky weighing in on impeachment by holding up the trial of Andrew Johnson as an example of the abuse of the process, and citing my work as problematic. Let's dive in! heritage.org/sites/default/…
2. Von Spakovsky has quite a reputation for his careful handling of evidence and his rigorously non-partisan approach to politics. I’m a 19th-century historian, and spent months diving through primary sources to write what I did, so I wanted to see why he thinks I’m wrong.
3. In support of his claim that impeaching Johnson "shows how the impeachment power can be misused,” he cites … Larry Schweikart’s "A Patriot’s History of the United States.” I’d hoped he’d have actually consulted the records, but at least there’s a citation, right?
4. “Only Johnson stood between Congress and its vision of a prostrate South,” Schweikart writes, painting him as a fierce defender of the Constitution. Well, if this is where he got his history, I suppose it’s hard to fault his conclusions. But let’s be clear about what it means.
5. Johnson was explicit that he was pursuing a “white man’s government.” He threatened to lynch his political opponents. He fired generals for complying with legislation. Congress granted blacks civil and political rights. *That* was the vision which Johnson opposed.
6. If you want to argue that impeaching Johnson was a partisan travesty, you have to own this history—you have to argue that a president can use his office to secure white supremacy. If that’s what Spakovsky (and Heritage) believe, they should say so, or explain otherwise.
7. But this argument will not do. It’s shoddy history, and it leads to shoddy thinking about impeachment, for reasons I explained here: theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
