After the Glory: the Struggles of Black Civil War VeteransJoin now to read essay After the Glory: the Struggles of Black Civil War VeteransBehind the current Clinton scandal stands the specter of Watergate. That it should be there is understandable. The bungled burglary at the Democratic Party national headquarters occurred twenty-six years ago this past summer. Next August will see the twenty-fifth anniversary of Richard Nixons resignation as President of the United States. Watergate then is still very much a part of living memory, and living memory is the type of history most relevant to the general public because it is the history with which they are most familiar. Consequently, Watergate has come to exert a powerful influence on the terms of reference by which people understand the Clinton scandal.

Some analogies to Watergate are admittedly quite apt. Monica Lewinskys stained cocktail dress was a “smoking gun,” providing definitive proof the President lied in denying a sexual relationship with the intern. Clintons August 17 confession also was a quintessential “modified limited hangout.” However, much of the use of Watergate analogies distorts the meaning and significance of the Clinton case. Some of the distortion is merely irritating. For instance, a lot of journalists and politicians seem to have the ambition of becoming the Howard Baker of the scandal. Lately, there have appeared too many strained variations on his classic line, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” However, the Watergate-isms forced on the Clinton scandal are not all the product of awkward attempts to paraphrase Howard Baker or the temporal proximity of Watergate. There also has been a conscious attempt by some Clinton opponents to emphasize Watergate in order to make Bill Clinton’s misdeeds seem more serious than they are in reality. While these efforts are understandable politically, they are questionable historically.

Of greater disappointment to this historian has been the temporal myopia in the search for insight into the Clinton scandal. Watergate was not the first serious attempt to impeach a president. Seldom mentioned in the discussion of the troubles of William Jefferson Clinton is the impeachment of his fellow Southerner, Andrew Johnson. In May 1868, Johnson came closer than any president did in American history to involuntary removal from office. At his trial in the U.S. Senate that spring, he avoided conviction by only one vote. The neglect of the case of Andrew Johnson is unfortunate. Johnsons impeachment provides more insight into the current travails of Bill Clinton than Watergate, and suggests the ultimate resolution of the impeachment proceedings soon to get underway in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, since the Johnsons impeachment exists outside living memory, it will be necessary to discuss the background of the case at some length.

Andrew Johnson became President of the United States after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. As a Southerner and a Democrat, Johnson was an unlikely president in 1865. He owed his nomination as Vice-President to wartime politics. As Lincoln struggled for reelection in the tight 1864 campaign, he was forced to reach out to marginal constituencies. Such minor voting blocs included white Southerners who had stayed loyal to the United States after the formation of the Confederacy. Lincoln also hoped to gain the votes of Democrats who favored a continuation of the Civil War. (Lincolns Democratic opponent, George McClellan, called for an armistice and convention of the states to restore the Union by peaceful means.) Prominent among these Southern unionists and War Democrats was Andrew Johnson. Johnson was the only U.S. Senator from a seceded state that did not resign and join the Confederacy at the beginning of the Civil War. During the conflict, he served as the governor of Union-occupied Tennessee, his home state. Hence, Johnson owed his nomination as Vice-President in 1864 to Lincolns effort to persuade Southern unionists and War Democrats to vote for his reelection. Indeed, bringing Johnson aboard the ticket required Lincoln to repackage the Republicans that year as the “National Union” party because his running mate was a Democrat.

Johnson became President as the Civil War was rapidly coming to a close. Hence, the issue on the mind of the nation as the Tennessean entered the White House was not the conduct of the war, but the status of the postwar South. Johnson, like his predecessor, Abraham Lincoln, favored a lenient peace in which all but the highest-ranking Confederates would be restored to their full rights as U.S. citizens, and normal state government quickly reestablished in the South. Johnson demanded only two substantial concessions before the Southern states regained their full status within the union: that they repudiate Confederate government debts and ratify the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

If Southern states were willing to sign this last contract, Johnson’s position as President could not continue. Indeed, some Southern states had never accepted a political offer from their Southern neighbors to transfer to their Union territories.

[Native Americans, not Confederates, had been a large component in the South through the War of 1812. One of the most significant features of this relationship was that the nation became hostile to many forms of “settlement,” as well as to the development of various lands, tribes and language groups. As the War Department discovered, these disputes involved some 40% of the nation’s lands.

[In 1827, Union officers and soldiers entered the Mississippi River at the border in hopes of securing a railroad connection between the U.S. south and the west coast. They had been on the job 24 years before and were trying to hold a bridge that would extend their line from Memphis to New Orleans. A “diversion” was promised before a crossing]

[The railroad journey, which had been approved about the same time, was a major disruption to the lives of many Southern whites. In 1831, a railroad crossing was completed to the U.S. south, and by 1832 more than 8,000 black people had perished.[14] Many more children died of tuberculosis, malaria and other infectious diseases from the crossing. In 1841, a large portion of the state’s slaves were shipped to New Orleans. In 1844, Mississippi became a slave plantation in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. A treaty came into force in 1845 to separate the U.S. southern states from the southern South, and in 1849 the Confederacy came under intense criticism by the United States Supreme Court for not signing any treaty with the Southern states. In fact, the court ruled that the Constitution of the United States was too weak and thus did not enforce the provisions of the treaty. It also ruled that when a new state’s secession would not be recognized by the Southern states, then the two-party system was illegitimate. [15] In 1856, the South adopted a constitution called the Articles of Confederation after the secession referendum. In it, the Union admitted the whole of the states but allowed the United States to keep its two northern territories, Kansas and Massachusetts.

In the 1860s, New Orleans-based newspapers began calling for a referendum.[16] These campaigns became part of the daily newspaper clique of New Orleans, which spread throughout the state.

Over the last decade, as President, Johnson and Congress adopted measures to support slavery. In January of 1964, he authorized a $100,000 tax levy on “colored” cotton from African-Americans in New Orleans. In August he signed the National Slave Law Reform Act,

Get Your Essay

Cite this page

Andrew Johnson And Current Clinton Scandal. (August 7, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/andrew-johnson-and-current-clinton-scandal-essay/