Andrew Johnson: The Tenure Of American Democracy

The US is a beacon of democracy and constitutionality and was constructed as such by the Founding Fathers. Nevertheless, certain administrations have been viewed as having attempted to suppress the democratic space as envisioned and outlined by the constitution. For this paper, Andrew Johnson, one such president whose tenure was punctuated by impeachments, will be discussed. The paper will discuss the nature of American democracy, and the manner in which President Andrew Johnson’s administration breached the constitution, particularly with regard to separation of powers between the Executive and the Congress, and therefore undermining the American democracy.

American democracy is based on the essence of representation. The effectiveness and

Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act as well, and it only passed by overriding the president’s veto (Havelin 105) Even then, when the military was deployed in the Southern states, he advised the Southerners against ratifying it and used his influence in the army to discourage African American participation in politics. The president also replaced several generals who had worked very hard to help freedmen enjoy equal rights as the whites. The replacements were individuals who were more tolerant of maintaining the status quo. In 1867, the Tenure of Office Act was passed by the Congress. The Act prohibited the president from dismissing officials appointed with the consent of the Congress. Although he vetoed this bill, it was still passed. Later in 1867, Johnson tried to fire Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War and appointed a replacement, Ulysses S. Grant, without the consent of the Congress. The Congress viewed this as a breach of the Tenure of Office Act, and encroachment of Congress’ powers. When the Supreme Court refused to make a ruling on the constitutionality of the matter, Stanton was reinstated. In 1868, however, Stanton, was eventually dismissed and replaced (Havelin 105). Stanton protested the dismissal and barricaded himself in the office. The events culminated in an impeachment motion against the

It is evident that his decisions deviated from the aspirations of equality before law and liberty for all, instead emphasizing restoring the Union with similar conditions as before the Civil War when the African Americans could not exercise any civil liberties. Similarly, his opposition to the legislation that aimed at extending civil liberties and equality, to the extent of vetoing them and asking the Southern states not to ratify laws points to a president who was not quite keen to utilize his office to ensure freedom for all, regardless of their color. Moreover, he did not appreciate the essence of security of tenure as evidenced by his sacking of the Secretary of War to serve unpopular interests. Even though he may not have broken the letter of the Act, with regard to the security of tenure as it has been argued by in some quotas, it is certain that he broke the spirit of the Act that necessitated the input of the Congress in important appointments. By sacking the Secretary of war and appointing a replacement without the input of the Congress, the president was in contravention of the Constitution. However, he failed to recognize the essence of Congress playing a role in such an appointment. Bypassing the Congress was tantamount to usurping the powers of the Congress by the Executive, and therefore, failing to uphold the separation of powers, a principle of the Constitution as already noted. Andrew