关于美国内战的破坏力

在内战带来的破坏后，立法和执法部门又开始在如何重建联盟上展开斗争。国会和约翰逊总统在国家政策实行上有非常不同的想法。每个人都认为他们有权利和义务去重建美国的计划。安德鲁·约翰逊声称要直接重建政策权利的宪法依据是什么？

我认为总统安德鲁·约翰逊已经找到了宪法依据修改现有的宪法的权利。例如，总统在管理国家事务和发布行政命令时，不需要国会批准以及不受法律约束力。另一个例子是总统的立法权利是可以否决国会通过的任何法案，除非成员的三分之二投票否决总统的立法权，该法案将不会成为法律。

宪法还明确规定国会权力，以及与总统的关系。在第一篇文章中，国会的权力表示，其中一个是，他们将“让必要的和适当的施行执行上述权力的所有法律，以及行使本宪法赋予的所有其他权力... “。

After the devastation that the civil war brought, the legislative and the executive power began a struggle over how to reconstruct the Union. Congress and President Andrew Johnson had very different ideas of what should be implemented in the nation. Each one of them believed that they had the right and duty to make reconstruction plans. What was the constitutional basis for Andrew Johnson to claim the right to direct the reconstruction policies?

I belive that President Andrew Johnson found the constitutional base in the explicit powers the constitution granted him. For example, the authority to manage national affairs and to issue executive orders, which are the ones with the binding force of law that do not require congressional approval. Another example is his legislative powers that establish how the President can veto any bill passed by Congress and, unless two-thirds of the members vote to annul the veto, the bill will not become law.

The Constitution also clearly establishes power's of Congess and its relationship with the President. In the first article, the powers of Congress are stated, being relevant the one that says that they will "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution...". The second article explains the executive's role and its relationship with Congress, "He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

Another base for Johnson was that, for many, the presidency has been seen as a symbol of the national unity since the presidential election is the only political act that is performed by the whole nation. However, the federalism of the United States assumes that Congress and President will work together towards the benefit of the nation, meaning that it is not only the President the one who will make all the important decisions.

The limitation of the powers was stated since the founding fathers, thanks to their aversion to monarchy. For example, they gave the President only a four-year term in office, so the voters would decide periodically who they wanted in that position. This apprehension towards a tyrannical government can also explain why the writers of the Constitution gave other government officials the means to limit the President and established a peaceful procedure in case the President should be removed from his position.

I think that Andrew Johnson had a reasonable basis to establish the reconstruction plans; however, Congress also had the right to defend their proposals. The discussion that took place between both of the branches was a perfect example of how a democratic system is supposed to work; no decision should be taken by just one power or person. In the following pages I will show the point of view of President Johnson for how he justified his position as being the one who should define the reconstruction terms.

THE FREEDMAN'S BUREAU

By February of 1866, the Republicans proposed the Freedmen's Bureau as a necessary amendment to the Presidential Reconstruction. Almost all Republicans assumed Johnson would sign the Freedmen's Bureau since his main supporters in Congress, Senators Doolittle and Dixon, had already signed in favor.

Against all odds when Andrew Johnson started to say the speech directed to Congress he opened with "it would not be consistent with the public welfare to give my approval to the measure." Andrew Johnson had decided to veto the bill, despite what the general consent had been. His first argument was that the Bureau as "an immense patronage unwarranted by the Constitution and unaffordable given the condition of our fiscal affairs".

He pointed out how Congress had never provided economic relief or established schools or bought lands for the whites. He claimed that such aid would actually injure the freedmen by implying that they would not have to work for a living and that they would be given everything.

He also expressed how those matters should not be decided when eleven states were unrepresented, and finally and more important he said "the President, chosen by the people of all the States, has a broader view of the national interest than members of Congress, elected from a single district". He was able to appeal to the fiscal conservatism, implying that the federal bureaucracy was meddling with the citizen's rights. He also misrepresented the aims of Congress claiming that the Bureau would be a permanent branch of the public administration, providing indefinetly aid for the freedmen.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL民权比尔

After the first veto almost everyone knew that if Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill it would mean the declaration of a war against Congress. President Johnson was convinced that giving privileges of citizenship to blacks meant to discriminate whites, which is why he once more vetoed a bill that had been passed, almost unanimously, by Congress. This time Congress was able to overturn the President's veto.

Andrew Johnson said that if all persons born in the United States were already granted the citizenship by virtue of the Constitution then the bill had no real reason to be formulated, if on the other hand not all were citizens then making that decision was something that all States should decide upon and not with eleven of the thirty-six States unrepresented. He argued that the citizenship should not be granted to those who were strangers and unfamiliar with the American institutions, that those who seeked the citizenship should pass a certain test and give evidence of their fitness to receive and excercise the rights of citizens.

One of President Johnson most important arguments was that every aspect covered in the bill was related to the internal policies of the States, and if it was granted that Congress could enforce these laws then in the future the States may lose their sovereignty to Congress. That, Andrew Johnson said, would be the destruction of the federative system and of the limited powers, it would be a step towards the centralization of all powers in the National Government.

THE TENURE OF OFFICE ACT办公法的任期

By the end of Andrew Johnson's presidential term his authority and prestige where greatly diminished. His vetoes had been repeatedly ineffective against Congress. The final blow was the Tenure of Office Act. This act passed over the veto of the President and when he tried to show his authority by violating it, it led to the impeachment trial.

The bill provided that the President could not remove any of the civil officers without the consent of the Senate. For President Johnson that implied a conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Johnson said that the power of removal was constitutionally vested in the President of the United States. He argued that for a long time the people of the United States had enjoyed of the security provided by the separation of powers and it would be wrong to attempt against such a perfect equilibrium.

The act passed but Andrew Johnson decided to ignore it, he wanted to prove that Congress had no authority over the Executive, and asked for the renounce of Edwin Stanton, his Secretary of War, and replaced him with Ulysess S. Grant. Congress, furious with this started the process of impeaching Johnson.

The House of Representatives impeached Johnson with eleven articles of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The first eight were because he had violated the Tenure of Office Act and illegally removed Stanton. The ninth article accused Johnson of violating the Command of the Army Act and the last two articles charged him with telling lies about Congress.

CONCLUSION  结论

To sum up, the presidental reconstruction policies seemed very lenient for the majority at Congress. Congress seeked for a solution were Confederates would be punished and Johnson seeked forgiveness.The differences between Congress and the President were higlighted after Congress overrode Johnson's veto of the Tenure of Office.

In spite of that decision President Johnson decided to fire Edwin Stanton without consulting the Senate. Seeing it as an illegal act the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Johnson, however, after one month of deliberations the Senate failed, by one vote, to convict Andrew Johnson and he was able to finish his presidential term.

Despite the outcome, this part of the history is described by many as the "culmination of a sustained effort to make the President subservient to Congress, to alter the place of a coordinate branch in the constitutional scheme." On one side Congress passed a series of bills and on the other side Johnson vetoed each one of them.

President Andrew Johnson gave his reasons for the veto he applied to each one of them: for the Freedmen's Bureau Bill Johnson claimed it was unconstitutional and very expensive. For the Civil Rights Bill Johnson claimed that blacks were not qualified for citizenship and that the bill was in favor of colored and against whites, things change after this veto because for the first time in the United States' history the two thirds majority that were required to override the veto were reached. After that, Congress overrode each and every one of the vetoes President Johnson applied: to the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Military Reconstruction Plan, and finally to the Tenure of Office Act.

Impeachment used properly, reflects and serves America's deepest ideals; it shows their commitment to democracy. Used improperly, it is the triumph of authoritarianism over democracy. Impeachment is a pillar of the democratic system in the United States; it implies that even the President, a powerful and privileged person, can be brought to trial if he abuses the trust that is placed on him. It means that no man is above the law.

In Johnson's case his greatest offense was to disagree with Congress, it became a conflict that would turn to be irrreconciliable.. Andrew Johnson's relationship with Congress was hostile almost from the beginning.

An impeachment trial can be very dangerous because the person elected by the citizens can be removed with the consent of just a few. I think the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was the attempt of the Legislative branch to gain supremacy for establishing the legislation that would govern the Union. Even if at that moment the struggle did not alter the equilibrium between the powers, over the next years Congress would have much more authority than the Executive power.