Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson

This book is much more than an account of the two major impeachments in U.S. history. The bulk of the book consists of a remarkably well-written history lesson covering the period of 1775 to the 1868 Johnson impeachment trial. The last part of the book then discusses the lessons to be learned from these two impeachment efforts. The 1805 impeachment trial of Justice Chase, a Federalist judge, involved his (mis)handling of 3 cases as a circuit rider judge (in those days Supreme Court justices actually spent most of their time riding circuit). The best the Republicans could do was a 19-15 vote for conviction on one of the Articles, still 4 votes short of the 2/3 needed to remove Chase from office. The effort failed because 6 Republicans defected and voted for acquittal, realizing the impeachment effort was partisan in nature and contrary to what the founding fathers intended. The 1868 impeachment effort against Johnson similarly failed when 7 Republicans voted against removal. (Terminology here can be confusing; in 1805 Jefferson's party was called "Republican", and later came to be called "Democratic". In 1868 "Republican" was used for the new party formed in the 1850's.) These 7 Republicans can now be seen as the true constitutional heroes that they are. Had the radical Republicans succeeded in removing Johnson, it would mean that from then on the President would serve at the pleasure of the Senate, and the true purpose of the impeachment provision in the Constitution would have been obliterated in a sea of partisanship. Rehnquist concludes that "The importance of these two acquittals in our constitutional history can hardly be overstated....These two "cases"--decided not by the courts but by the United States Senate--surely contributed as much to the maintenance of our tripartite federal system of government as any case decided by any court." He is right, and he has contributed enormously to our understanding of this issue by his articulate discussion of it contained in this book.

Who knew that the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, leader of the conservative counter revolution against the legacy of the Warren Court, wrote so well? You would not guess that from his opinions penned over a generation. His court writing is exact but dry, a great contrast to the colorful rhetoric of his conservative colleague, Antonin Scalia. But in "Grand Inquests," a telling of the impeachment trials of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson, Rehnquist demonstrates a compelling narrative style and the novelist's keen eye for detail. Rehnquist also demonstrates the good novelist's ability to describe the important details at considerable length while limiting the lesser facts in length. The important details of these two impeachments surround the personalities of the major players that brought about the impeachment instead of ascribing the trials to historical circumstances, as if the impeachments were forced by mysterious forces instead of angry human beings. Rehnquist paints vivid portraits of Andrew Johnson, a one-time tailor and self-made politician, the ambitious and independent Edwin Stanton, whose refusal to give up his post as Secretary of War set the impeachment proceedings in motion, and the Radical Republicans who were furious with Johnson for obstructing Reconstruction, Thaddeus Stevens, Ben Wade, George Boutwell, Charles Sumner, and Ben Butler. Rehnquist makes a convincing argument that men make their own destiny by their choices when he implies, quite correctly in my view, that Justice Chase would not have been impeached if he were not abrasive and heavy handed in court, and President Johnson would not have been impeached if he had been more even tempered in his disagreement about Reconstruction and presidential appointment power with the opposition Republicans. Johnson, for example, referred to Radical Republican leaders Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner as "traitors." Both impeachment proceedings occurred in the wake of highly charged political times, Rehnquist observes. Chase was impeached shortly after President John Adams had packed the federal government with appointees of his Federalist Party in the final hours of his presidency. And Adams had also tried to stifle dissent by his political opponents, incited by his idelogical adversary, Thomas Jefferson, with the repressive alien and sedition acts. Johnson faced impeachment during the difficult aftermath of the Civil War. Brave Senators such as Bradley of Vermont and Gaillard of South Carolina risked their political careers to acquit Chase. Likewise, Senators Edmund Ross of Kansas and Lyman Trumbull of Illinois defied the public hysteria against Johnson. Rehnquist brilliantly cuts through the emotions of the times to show that Chase basically faced impeachment because of biased instructions to a grand jury and questionable instructions to a jury in a criminal trial involving sedition. Johnson was impeached for opposing Reconstru

Who knew that the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, leader of the conservative counter revolution against the legacy of the Warren Court, wrote so well? You would not guess that from his opinions penned over a generation. His court writing is exact but dry, a great contrast to the colorful rhetoric of his conservative colleague, Antonin Scalia. But in "Grand Inquests," a telling of the impeachment trials of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson, Rehnquist demonstrates a compelling narrative style and the novelist's keen eye for detail. Rehnquist also demonstrates the good novelist's ability to describe the important details at considerable length while limiting the lesser facts in length. The important details of these two impeachments surround the personalities of the major players that brought about the impeachment instead of ascribing the trials to historical circumstances, as if the impeachments were forced by mysterious forces instead of angry human beings. Rehnquist paints vivid portraits of Andrew Johnson, a one-time tailor and self-made politician, the ambitious and independent Edwin Stanton, whose refusal to give up his post as Secretary of War set the impeachment proceedings in motion, and the Radical Republicans who were furious with Johnson for obstructing Reconstruction, Thaddeus Stevens, Ben Wade, George Boutwell, Charles Sumner, and Ben Butler. Rehnquist makes a convincing argument that men make their own destiny by their choices when he implies, quite correctly in my view, that Justice Chase would not have been impeached if he were not abrasive and heavy handed in court, and President Johnson would not have been impeached if he had been more even tempered in his disagreement about Reconstruction and presidential appointment power with the opposition Republicans. Johnson, for example, referred to Radical Republican leaders Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner as "traitors." Both impeachment proceedings occurred in the wake of highly charged political times, Rehnquist observes. Chase was impeached shortly after President John Adams had packed the federal government with appointees of his Federalist Party in the final hours of his presidency. And Adams had also tried to stifle dissent by his political opponents, incited by his idelogical adversary, Thomas Jefferson, with the repressive alien and sedition acts. Johnson faced impeachment during the difficult aftermath of the Civil War. Brave Senators such as Bradley of Vermont and Gaillard of South Carolina risked their political careers to acquit Chase. Likewise, Senators Edmund Ross of Kansas and Lyman Trumbull of Illinois defied the public hysteria against Johnson. Rehnquist brilliantly cuts through the emotions of the times to show that Chase basically faced impeachment because of biased instructions to a grand jury and questionable instructions to a jury in a criminal trial involving sedition. Johnson was impeached for opposing Reconstru

In responce to the following review by Richard B. I've read several of your reviews and I'd like to ask you What Do You Like? all reviews by RB are negative. I think its time to hang it up. You also falled to mention your "special interest" in the publication you did recomend! For the book Grand Inquests however just read a few pages and I'm sure you'll see you recieved your moneys worth.

A great and timely book to explore the mind of the Chief Justice on the current events in the whitehouse. An intelligent history book thats sure to go out of print again and become a wanted book.