Posted on 03/08/2004 1:00:28 PM PST by AgThorn
reading a bit on the whitehouse.gov site concerning 'history' of past presidents. First I started reading what they had to say about Clinton. ...
Interesting how 'cleaned up' it is, but I also noted that there were not a lot of accomplishments listed. What really caught my eye though was the statement that he was the 'second' president impeached by the house, and found not guilty by the senate.
Well, this ain't exactly how I remember it .. so I then tried to find the 'first' impeached president, according to this website. Checking Nixon, no, they correctly said he resigned first. So then on to Andrew Johnson:
This one says that "the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him. He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote." So, I guess according to the whitehouse.gov history, Andrew was the FIRST impeached President.
But I was under the impression that this is not so ... i.e. that the Congress actually DID impeach Clinton, and that HE was the first President really IMPEACHED by both houses. So, I guess I may be totally wrong on this or else the whitehouse.gov is, which is it ... (maybe the shortest thread on record! ;-)
Lastly, what is all this garbage about the "Radical Republicans" of the south leading to Andrew Johnson's downfall? When you read this history page, you get the impression that the Republicans wanted slavery. Sounds like some creative writing to me.
The pardon meant the government was giving up forever the right to prosecute what the administration said were hundreds of thousands of draft-dodgers.
Simple correction .... Johnson was NOT elected President. So Clinton remains the only elected president to be impeached.
He was not running for President. He was ELECTED VICE-PRESIDENT. Not President.
Clinton still has the distinct priveledge of being the first ELECTED PRESIDENT to be impeached.
When the Tenure in Office act was passed, he decided they had gone too far, and tested the act by firing Lincoln's old Sec of War, Edwin M. Stanton, for insubordination. THAT is the act that got him impeached. There is no question that the differing views between the Lincoln/Johnson approach to Reconstruction, which was much more lenient than the Radical Republicans (led by Thaddeus Stevens) and their Wade-Davis plan for Southern punishment. This dispute had a lot to do with the mutual enmity as well.
It was the unconstitutionality of the Tenure in Office act that led the barely sufficent minority to reject conviction of the impeachment. It was really kind of ridiculous since the trial was going on during the campaign of 1868, which ended in Grant's election. It was purely vindictive.
TS
I like the way you put it all in balance.
Your post comment about Mr. Gore was my first thought.
Where is he today, and where is his relevance that would have carried the day had he made it to office. What is the word? GRAVITAS
Even today, we hear shots about Florida 2000. Was it close? Was it even fair?
Do you suppose we will ever get an insider report about what really happened. I know there have been some quality statistical analysis, but this is too heavy for the average person to grasp.
Interesting character. He stood up for what he believed in (more lenient treatment of the defeated South; tried to fire a member of his cabinet, violating an unconstitutional law prohibiting him from doing that). That's what got him impeached.
His memory deserves better than to be linked with Bill Clinton.
I tend to agree with you ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.