I feel like a lot of people don't understand the heart of the Johnson impeachment.
Johnson wasn't just impeached for trying to fire some Cabinet member. He undermined the rule of law by purging the govt of defense officials who were trying to fight white supremacist terrorism.
Johnson wasn't just impeached for trying to fire some Cabinet member. He undermined the rule of law by purging the govt of defense officials who were trying to fight white supremacist terrorism.
This is actually the only major point I disagree with @neal_katyal on in his otherwise excellent book "Impeach."
Katyal, like Turley, argues that while Johnson's actions were illegal, they didn't rise to a "high crime" — that is, they didn't fundamentally undermine the govt.
Katyal, like Turley, argues that while Johnson's actions were illegal, they didn't rise to a "high crime" — that is, they didn't fundamentally undermine the govt.
But Johnson's actions cannot be taken outside of the context of Reconstruction — of how the duly elected government had a mandate to expand Black civil rights, how paramilitaries like the KKK were killing freedmen to stop it, and how Johnson's explicit goal was to LET THEM DO IT.
In the end, it's not a coincidence all of the "moderate" Republicans who voted to acquit Johnson were white.
They refused to see his actions through that context. They saw it as just regular lawbreaking, when in fact he was unlocking the back door for a white supremacist coup.
They refused to see his actions through that context. They saw it as just regular lawbreaking, when in fact he was unlocking the back door for a white supremacist coup.
Sadly, I believe that because those moderate Republicans' opinion carried the day, a lot of modern historians focus too much on the narrow issue of Johnson's Tenure of Office Act violation, and not on the actual "high crime" and constitutional crisis that underpinned it.
