Andrew Johnson’s impeachment shows only conviction can thwart political ambition

A snowstorm in Washington on March 5, 1875, didn’t discourage an overflowing crowd from gathering in the Senate galleries at the Capitol to witness an unprecedented moment in American history. Shortly before noon, amid an outburst of applause, Andrew Johnson, the only former president to be elected a senator, entered the Senate chamber to take his oath of office.

Only 13 of the 35 men who seven years earlier, in the same chamber, had pronounced him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors remained in the Senate. Ironically, newly-elected Vice President Henry Wilson, who as a senator had voted to convict Johnson and disqualify him from “holding any office under the Constitution,” administered the oath to Tennessee’s new senator.

It is particularly relevant at this moment to ask: Why did Johnson, after his much-maligned tenure in the White House, and several subsequent setbacks, choose to continue to pursue a political career after leaving the Oval Office? In1870, Johnson unsuccessfully sought a Senate seat, and two years later finished third in a race for Tennessee’s at-large seat in the House.

Those defeats did not deter him. In January 1875, he finally emerged victorious after a hotly contested struggle that ended when the Tennessee state legislature on the 55th ballot elected him by a majority of one vote. On learning of his victory, Johnson said, “Well, well, well, I would rather have this information than to learn than I had been elected president of the United States. Thank God for vindication.”

But was vindication Johnson’s only motive for seeking to continue his political career? Historian Evan Rothera tells us Johnson’s reasons were “far more complex.” While he clearly viewed his efforts “as opportunities for exoneration,” Johnson had many constituents all over the country who regularly corresponded with him and expressed very strong desires to see him continue in politics. Besides support from “legions of plebeian admirers,” he also had tremendous encouragement from former Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles.

Johnson believed that President Ulysses S. Grant and other politicians were destroying the Constitution. His desire to preserve the Constitution, Rothera writes, to correct the problems created by the federal government, and fix the many problems he saw facing the country, especially the debt, were other strong motivations to continue in public life.

Another obvious reason for Johnson’s deep attachment to the political arena was his previous success with voters. His long political career had taken him from mayor of Greeneville, Tenn. (1834-1835), to the Tennessee Legislature, and then to the House of Representatives (1843-1853). He then served as governor of Tennessee (1853-1857) and Senator (1857-1862). In June 1861, when Tennessee became the 11th and final state to join the Confederacy, Johnson was the only member from a seceded state to remain in the Senate.

When federal troops conquered Nashville, he resigned his Senate seat in March 1862 to accept President Abraham Lincoln’s appointment as military governor of Tennessee. Two years later, the Republicans rewarded Johnson, a Democrat, for his loyalty to the Union cause by nominating him for vice president. The following April, he became president when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson quickly became involved in a bitter feud with “Radical Republicans” — who controlled Congress — over Reconstruction of the South following the Civil War. Ultimately, that conflict climaxed in his impeachment and a Senate trial, which continued for 11 grueling weeks before ending with his acquittal.

Although he had many loyal supporters, Andrew Johnson, like Donald Trump, was a “disruptive and divisive figure” in the opinion of presidential historian Jon Meacham.

What Brenda Wineapple learned in writing “The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation” was that Johnson’s impeachment “was not concocted or executed by a bunch of wild fanatics but rather by thoughtful people seriously concerned with the direction the country was taking at a time when the nation stood at a turning point in its future.” She views Trump’s impeachment as a way to begin “to heal the country.”

Obviously, the 1868 Senate’s acquittal of Andrew Johnson left open the door for what some consider a triumphant return. Do Americans really want to see history repeated?

Should Donald Trump be acquitted or convicted and barred from holding office again?

According to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Sunday, 56 percent of Americans say Trump should be convicted and barred from holding office again, and 43 percent say he should not be.

Andrew Johnson’s journey after the White House provides an important perspective for each current member of the Senate to consider before casting their vote, which like that of their 1868 predecessors, will belong to the ages.

Stephen W. Stathis was a specialist in American history for the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress for nearly four decades. He is the author of Landmark Debates in Congress: From the Declaration of Independence to the War in Iraq, and Landmark Legislation: Major U.S. Acts and Treaties 1774-2012.