Twenty Years of Congress, Volume 2 From Lincoln to Garfield, with a Review of the Events Which Led to the Political Revolution of 1860 — Reading Companion

The Impeachment Machinery in Motion

Blaine devotes considerable space to the choreography of the trial. He notes that the House managers, led by Butler, submitted twenty-five witnesses, many of whom merely verified official papers. The prosecution relied heavily on the President's own speeches, which were "sworn to by the reporters who took the notes when the President delivered them." This emphasis on documentary evidence and stenographic records reveals a trial fought as much over the interpretation of words as over actions. Blaine also highlights the defense team's composition, praising William S. Groesbeck's final argument as "a surprise to the Senate and to his professional brethren," suggesting that even a relatively unknown lawyer could shift perceptions through oratorical skill.

Butler's Legal Tightrope

General Butler's opening argument, according to Blaine, was "very voluminous, prepared with great care in writing, and read to the Senate from printed slips." The key difficulty for the prosecution was the proviso in the Tenure-of-office Act that Cabinet members serve "during the term of the President by whom they were appointed, and for one month longer." Blaine quotes Butler's own rhetorical question: "Whose Presidential term is Mr. Johnson now serving out? His own or Mr. Lincoln's?" This legal puzzle—whether Johnson was serving his own term or finishing Lincoln's—became a central point of contention. Blaine presents Butler's argument as thorough but troubled, indicating that the managers were aware of the weakness in their case.

Blaine's Partisan Lens

Throughout the excerpt, Blaine's own political sympathies color his narrative. He refers to the President's speeches "defaming Congress" as evidence, using language that implies agreement with the House managers. Yet he also records the defense's counterarguments without overt condemnation, noting that Groesbeck's argument "did much to give him a high reputation as a lawyer." This tension between Blaine's role as historian and his identity as a Republican partisan is a recurring pattern. He does not fabricate events, but his selection of details—such as the careful preparation of Butler's printed slips—emphasizes the prosecution's diligence while leaving room for the reader to assess the defense's effectiveness.

Readers should approach Blaine's account as a primary source from a major political figure, not as an impartial history. His proximity to events gives him access to insider details—such as the substitution of counsel or the use of printed arguments—but also shapes his emphasis. Comparing his version with other contemporary records, such as the official trial transcripts or newspaper reports, can illuminate where Blaine's partisan commitments influence his narrative. The volume is most valuable for its granular view of congressional procedure and the personal dynamics among the era's leading politicians.

Reading Blaine’s careful accounting of Johnson’s trial, I remembered sitting in my grandfather’s study, turning pages of The New Book of Martyrs — A Reader’s Guide, feeling that same quiet weight of men convinced they were right, and the terrible cost of that certainty. Both books left me holding my breath, not for the outcome, but for the people caught inside it.