The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the Missing Seven Words from the Constitution.

Derideo_Te · Dec 12, 2019

The source for this thread comes from a series of tweets by Micheal Harriot who is a senior writer for The Root. I will provide the link to the original tweet and the relevant content of enough of the tweets that follow in order to obtain the gist of his story.

Please read ALL of the content below and bear in mind that he is talking about Lincoln's successor who took over after he was killed. The KEY to why this is worth reading in it's entirety comes in the SEVEN WORDS that Johnson obstructed from being included in the Constitutional Amendments that were passed AFTER the Civil War.

Disclaimer: Some of the content of the tweets might be considered to be inflammatory but it is not directed at anyone alive today. I have made a good faith effort to remove as much of the inflammatory content as necessary without losing context. This is Mr Harriot's personal rendition of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and he is talking about what reality was like just after the Civil War ended. The INCLUSION of the relevant portion of his tweets is to set the HISTORICAL CONTEXT for those SEVEN WORDS.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1204924987100073984.html

Everyone's talking about impeachment and Clinton & Johnson as the only presidents ever impeached. But most people don't know WHY Johnson was impeached.

So let me tell you the story about how not impeaching a racist president is a BIG reason why white supremacy lingers in America

Anyway, after the White People Won't Be Civil War, and after Abraham Lincoln was killed, Andrew Johnson became president.

Now, Andrew Johnson was racist AF.
But that's kinda why he was vice president.

Lincoln chose Johnson because he was a white redneck from Tenn.
After Tennessee seceded, Johnson was one of the Southern Senators who stayed in office instead of riding out with the Confederacy.

In an attempt to keep the US together, Lincoln, a Republican, selected Johnson, a Southern Democrat as VP
It didn't work.

So after Lincoln was killed, a Southern redneck ascended to the presidency.
Johnson was also dumb.

Seriously, he might be the only president dumber than Trump.

After he became president, he went around the country holding political rallies where he just talked about himself and vilified his opponents. In one speech, he referenced himself 200 times

He even called his opponents "traitors" and called for them to be hanged.

This disastrous "Swing Around The Circle" tour was one of the major reasons Republicans were wiped out in the 1866 elections.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Now you have to remember that after the Civil War, the Confederate States of White Supremacy just didn't automatically become states again. They had to do certain things to be readmitted. Two of these were of some consequence:

1. They had to ratify the 14th Amendment
2. They had to allow the military to occupy their state.

The reason for this was simple:

I don't know if you knew this, but White people in the South were kinda racist back then. Only the military could stop them from massacring blacks
The LAST thing racist Democrats wanted was to see black people on the come-up. Andrew Johnson was racist, so he sided with them.

So... remember that part I said about Johnson calling his opponents "traitors" and saying they should be hanged?
Well, those weren't just political rivals, those were people who believed that black people should have rights.

Remember, back then, black people LITERALLY were not considered citizens. The group of people who wanted to grant them rights called the "Radical Republicans"

But these Republicans were considered CRAZY. Not only did they want black people to become citizens, they thought they should have some unthinkable bullshit called "equal protection under the law!"

Crazy, right?

But after the 1866 midterms, there were a lot of these crazy liberal ******** elected to Congress! (Sound Familiar?)

I know this is gonna sound too on-the nose, but there were four particularly liberal "radicals" in the "squad" that Johnson hated:

The first was Charles Sumner. Sumner used to ROAST these racist white "states rights' conservatives. It got so bad that a white racist Southerner almost Sumner to death with a cane ON THE SENATE FLOOR for fighting for black rights.
Well... Kinda.

Sumner also called the man's cousin a "pimp for slavery."

James Hinds was also one of the squad. He was only in Congress for four months though. He became the first member of Congress to be assassinated when the KKK killed him for advocating for civil rights.

John Creswell: Here's a fun fact, John Creswell left Congress to become Postmaster General. He infuriated whites because HE started hiring black people to work as postal workers. He appointed the first black postmaster, postal inspector, mailman and black female postmaster

He is NOT why you get your mail on CP time.

Last but not least is Thaddeus Stevens.He was gathering support for a seriously radical plan:

Called the "Evil Genius of the Republicans," Stevens believed formerly enslaved, not-yet citizens should be compensated for their labor.
And he had a plan to do it.

He wanted to take every Southern plantation over 200 acres and divide it up amongst the formerly slaves. Now, there was already a Freedmens Bureau that gave newly freed blacks food, clothing, jobs and sometimes transportation

But Steven's plan would give them ownership in America. It only amounted to 5 percent of the plantations in the South. Because many freedmen already had mules, the amount of land in Steven's plan was workable:

40 acres.

Johnson wanted to go easy on the Confederate States. He wanted to let them do whatever they want, including killing black people (Remember, the KKK was founded in the state he represented)

He issued executive orders offering amnesty to Confederates and pardons for war crimes.
But only for white people.

Johnson HATED this "squad" for offering civil rights. That's why he thought they should be hanged. To Johnson's dismay, the requirements for the Confederate States to re-join the Union still passed through Congress.

States would be required to:

1. Ratify the 14th Amendment and subject themselves to military rule.
2. Allow black people to vote.
3. Agree to military occupation.

Then Congress passed a Civil Rights Act.

And then they passed a bill extending the Freedmen's Bureau

Then they passed another one.

Johnson vetoed every single one of these bills.

Remember, Johnson's stupid, racist rallies and the 1866 midterm elections put a veto-proof majority of "radicals" in Congress, so they overrode Johnson's vetoes.

But Johnson had an ace up his sleeve.
He was commander-in-chief.

Now back then, there was a position called the Secretary of War who was in charge of the Army. Johnson's Sec. of War was Edwin Stanton, who was appointed by Lincoln.

He was a Radical Republican, too.
Stanton thought Johnson was too lenient on the white supremacist ******, and he had a GOOD REASON to hate Johnson:

All over the South, emboldened by Johnson's ignoring white supremacist *****, racists started murdering black people
It started with police brutality:

In Memphis, in 1866, black soldiers were sending messages to Stanton that the white police officers were treating them poorly, arresting them for nothing.

Essentially they were being racially profiled.

States all over the South started passing "Black Codes" stripping blacks of their rights.

Johnson did nothing.

So, when the new Congress passed the new laws, Stanton RODE OUT!

The army basically went to war with the KKK.

Seriously, that's what happened.
In NC, Arkansas, Tenn. SC, Louisiana and Mississippi there were battles between white supremacists and the Army that were bloodier than any battle in the Civil War.

But that is not the important thing about Johnson's tenure

Every Democrat acquitted Johnson but so did 10 Republicans. They were not radical republicans. They were moderates. The moderate Republicans were led by a man named Lyman Turnbull.

Lyman's friends thought that Thaddeus Stevens and his squad were too radical
And so they saved Johnson. But Lyman's moderate homies also battled Thad n'em for something else

They EACH wrote their own version of the Fourteenth Amendment

Lyman and the moderates won.

To be fair, Thaddeus Stevens' radical version was a lot like Lyman's except for one part
See Thaddeus Stevens didn't want to pass the 13th amendment, which banned slavery

He didn't like the 14th amendment making slaves citizens.

He didn't like the 15th Amendment giving people the right to vote.

In fact, he and his boys spent the last part of their lives trying to get the word "white" removed from all federal laws.

But Johnson didn't like this version of the constitutional amendment. Some people thought that this was why Stevens hated Johnson and vice versa.

But if Stevens' version would have passed, there would have never been a need for a Civil Rights Act in 1965. There wouldn't have been a need for a Voting Rights Act. Or a 14th or 15th amendment. or 19th

Segregation would have never existed and Jim Crow couldn't have happened.
Aside from banning slavery, Steven's version of the 13th Amendment had one extra clause that scared the **** out of the moderates and angered Johnson.

He didn't think there was ANY way that those Southern States would agree to one extra sentence

Everyone who hears the sentence would SWEAR its in the Constitution, but it's not.

It never has been.

People have been fighting for years to get it included.

It's SEVEN WORDS

This sentence STILL isn't in the Constitution but Stevens' words are actually included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It's why we still have to pass laws against LGBT discrimination and hate crimes, but it was proposed in 150 years ago BEFORE slavery was outlawed

Some people say the first impeachment actually started on Feb. 8, 1864, when Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, who almost impeached Andrew Johnson, submitted a constitutional amendment that could've forever eliminated slavery, segregation & discrimination:

"All persons are equal before the law."
Click to expand...

If those 7 words had been INCLUDED in the Constitution there would not be any discussion about the BLOTUS being above the Law of the Land.

We already had one bloody Civil War and we do NOT need another one over the same basic principle of individual rights!

The BLOTUS is NOT above the Law of the Land and needs to be held accountable for his VIOLATIONS of the Law of the Land.

Yes, it is entirely possible that the BLOTUS will be acquitted by the Senate just as Johnson was but the PROBLEM with doing that is that it sends the WRONG MESSAGE!

So the question that needs to be discussed given the HISTORICAL CONTEXT above is if we claim to be a Nation of Laws and Law Abiding Citizens then under what circumstances is anyone allowed to be Above the Law?

If we allow one person to be above the law then how many others can claim the same privilege in the future?

Where is the line drawn on this Slippery Slope?

Should we pass an Amendment that stipulates that All Persons Are Equal Before the Law?

Personally I don't think that anyone should be Above the Law of the Land irrespective of the position that they hold.

I would really like to hear from BLOTUS supporters as to their reasoning for placing him ABOVE and BEYOND the Rule of Law.

Bush Lawyer · Dec 12, 2019

The basic point is The Rule of law which Trump often trumpets when he is cosying to the West. Simple stuff.

"All persons are equal before the law."

Derideo_Te · Dec 12, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

The basic point is The Rule of law which Trump often Trumpets when he is cosying to the West. Simple stuff.

"All persons are equal before the law."
Click to expand...

While it does appear to be simple and straightforward on the surface it is something that we Americans have been battling to embrace since We the People founded out nation and we still haven't got it right.

What baffles me is that there are still some who don't believe that all persons are equal before the law. It is almost an Orwellian "some are more equal than others" situation.

doombug · Dec 12, 2019

How about these words: innocent until proven guilty.

That seems to escape leftists these days.

Lefties cling to the Stalinist motto of "show me the man and I will show you the crime". Sad.

garyd · Dec 12, 2019

Bush Lawyer said: ↑

The basic point is The Rule of law which Trump often Trumpets when he is cosying to the West. Simple stuff.

"All persons are equal before the law."
Click to expand...

Please note that would include Trump. What that means is the government must first prove guilt before they can throw you in jail. Accusation aren't good enough. You have to have proof.

What is both sad and scary is that one whole American Political Party The Democrats (now that's decided a misnomer if there ever was one) have now decided they should be allowed to jail people and ruin people financially on the basis of accusation and very very thin ones at that.

Fangbeer · Dec 12, 2019

doombug said: ↑

How about these words: innocent until proven guilty.

That seems to escape leftists these days.

Lefties cling to the Stalinist motto of "show me the man and I will show you the crime". Sad.
Click to expand...

Must not have known about the existence of mirrors.

Bowerbird · Dec 12, 2019

doombug said: ↑

How about these words: innocent until proven guilty.

That seems to escape leftists these days.

Lefties cling to the Stalinist motto of "show me the man and I will show you the crime". Sad.
Click to expand...

Trump had his day in court. He had the opportunity to present his case before the house. However it is hard NOT to assume guilt when someone is standing over a dead body shouting “they ran into my knife! They ran into my knife 10 times!”

william kurps · Dec 12, 2019

Derideo_Te said: ↑

The source for this thread comes from a series of tweets by Micheal Harriot who is a senior writer for The Root. I will provide the link to the original tweet and the relevant content of enough of the tweets that follow in order to obtain the gist of his story.

Please read ALL of the content below and bear in mind that he is talking about Lincoln's successor who took over after he was killed. The KEY to why this is worth reading in it's entirety comes in the SEVEN WORDS that Johnson obstructed from being included in the Constitutional Amendments that were passed AFTER the Civil War.

Disclaimer: Some of the content of the tweets might be considered to be inflammatory but it is not directed at anyone alive today. I have made a good faith effort to remove as much of the inflammatory content as necessary without losing context. This is Mr Harriot's personal rendition of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and he is talking about what reality was like just after the Civil War ended. The INCLUSION of the relevant portion of his tweets is to set the HISTORICAL CONTEXT for those SEVEN WORDS.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1204924987100073984.html

If those 7 words had been INCLUDED in the Constitution there would not be any discussion about the BLOTUS being above the Law of the Land.

We already had one bloody Civil War and we do NOT need another one over the same basic principle of individual rights!

The BLOTUS is NOT above the Law of the Land and needs to be held accountable for his VIOLATIONS of the Law of the Land.

Yes, it is entirely possible that the BLOTUS will be acquitted by the Senate just as Johnson was but the PROBLEM with doing that is that it sends the WRONG MESSAGE!

So the question that needs to be discussed given the HISTORICAL CONTEXT above is if we claim to be a Nation of Laws and Law Abiding Citizens then under what circumstances is anyone allowed to be Above the Law?

If we allow one person to be above the law then how many others can claim the same privilege in the future?

Where is the line drawn on this Slippery Slope?

Should we pass an Amendment that stipulates that All Persons Are Equal Before the Law?

Personally I don't think that anyone should be Above the Law of the Land irrespective of the position that they hold.

I would really like to hear from BLOTUS supporters as to their reasoning for placing him ABOVE and BEYOND the Rule of Law.
Click to expand...

Those 7 words are not in because we have 3 branches of government/ separation of powers its simple civics 101

.

Bowerbird · Dec 12, 2019

william kurps said: ↑

Those 7 words are not in because we have 3 branches of government/ separation of powers its simple civics 101

.
Click to expand...

Then why are the republicans trying to overthrow that?

william kurps · Dec 12, 2019

Bowerbird said: ↑

Trump had his day in court. He had the opportunity to present his case before the house. However it is hard NOT to assume guilt when someone is standing over a dead body shouting “they ran into my knife! They ran into my knife 10 times!”
Click to expand...

A kangaroo court? Nancy Pelosi has admitted already they have been trying to impeach Trump before he was already sworn in.

william kurps · Dec 12, 2019

Bowerbird said: ↑

Then why are the republicans trying to overthrow that?
Click to expand...

Does one comprehend three branches of government? One doesn't have more power over the other

drluggit · Dec 12, 2019

Gosh.. For a minute there, I was almost convinced that democratic posters on this here site were actually calling for all people to be equal under the law..

Having watched them defend the criminality of so many of their party members, this was, well, shocking to me. I would remind the nice democratic supporters on this site that the rest of us will remember what they've called for here, and the next time, say a clinton or an Obama abuse their office, break the laws, etc, that it was, in fact them, who should be the first clamoring for their dear leaders to be held accountable before the law.

Hoosier8 · Dec 12, 2019

Derideo_Te said: ↑

The source for this thread comes from a series of tweets by Micheal Harriot who is a senior writer for The Root. I will provide the link to the original tweet and the relevant content of enough of the tweets that follow in order to obtain the gist of his story.

Please read ALL of the content below and bear in mind that he is talking about Lincoln's successor who took over after he was killed. The KEY to why this is worth reading in it's entirety comes in the SEVEN WORDS that Johnson obstructed from being included in the Constitutional Amendments that were passed AFTER the Civil War.

Disclaimer: Some of the content of the tweets might be considered to be inflammatory but it is not directed at anyone alive today. I have made a good faith effort to remove as much of the inflammatory content as necessary without losing context. This is Mr Harriot's personal rendition of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and he is talking about what reality was like just after the Civil War ended. The INCLUSION of the relevant portion of his tweets is to set the HISTORICAL CONTEXT for those SEVEN WORDS.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1204924987100073984.html

If those 7 words had been INCLUDED in the Constitution there would not be any discussion about the BLOTUS being above the Law of the Land.

We already had one bloody Civil War and we do NOT need another one over the same basic principle of individual rights!

The BLOTUS is NOT above the Law of the Land and needs to be held accountable for his VIOLATIONS of the Law of the Land.

Yes, it is entirely possible that the BLOTUS will be acquitted by the Senate just as Johnson was but the PROBLEM with doing that is that it sends the WRONG MESSAGE!

So the question that needs to be discussed given the HISTORICAL CONTEXT above is if we claim to be a Nation of Laws and Law Abiding Citizens then under what circumstances is anyone allowed to be Above the Law?

If we allow one person to be above the law then how many others can claim the same privilege in the future?

Where is the line drawn on this Slippery Slope?

Should we pass an Amendment that stipulates that All Persons Are Equal Before the Law?

Personally I don't think that anyone should be Above the Law of the Land irrespective of the position that they hold.

I would really like to hear from BLOTUS supporters as to their reasoning for placing him ABOVE and BEYOND the Rule of Law.
Click to expand...

If only a law were violated. Remember, lefties kept telling us this isn't about the law.

Bowerbird · Dec 12, 2019

william kurps said: ↑

Does one comprehend three branches of government? One doesn't have more power over the other
Click to expand...

Then why the push to get an all republican leaning Supreme Court? Why is Moscow Mitch replacing every judge he can get his hands on with anyone with a legal degree who claims to be republican?

Bowerbird · Dec 12, 2019

drluggit said: ↑

Gosh.. For a minute there, I was almost convinced that democratic posters on this here site were actually calling for all people to be equal under the law..

Having watched them defend the criminality of so many of their party members, this was, well, shocking to me. I would remind the nice democratic supporters on this site that the rest of us will remember what they've called for here, and the next time, say a clinton or an Obama abuse their office, break the laws, etc, that it was, in fact them, who should be the first clamoring for their dear leaders to be held accountable before the law.
Click to expand...

Why wasn’t Obama impeached if he had done so much illegal activity?

Hoosier8 · Dec 12, 2019

Bowerbird said: ↑

Why wasn’t Obama impeached if he had done so much illegal activity?
Click to expand...

He is a democrat. Didn't you know that everyone is equal under the law but some are more equal?

william kurps · Dec 12, 2019

Bowerbird said: ↑

Then why the push to get an all republican leaning Supreme Court? Why is Moscow Mitch replacing every judge he can get his hands on with anyone with a legal degree who claims to be republican?
Click to expand...

Uhm we dont have Republicans vs Democrats/ left vs right as separation of powers

We have

Congress

The executive Branch

The judicial

william kurps · Dec 12, 2019

Bowerbird said: ↑

Why wasn’t Obama impeached if he had done so much illegal activity?
Click to expand...

Republicans have class and dignity, it was a waste of time and political suicide.

As the Democrats will soon find out.

drluggit · Dec 12, 2019

Bowerbird said: ↑

Why wasn’t Obama impeached if he had done so much illegal activity?
Click to expand...

Seems that there are several examples of him ordering drones to kill folks from above... war crimes... used his agencies to illegally surveil or investigate his political opponents... gosh so many choices...

Derideo_Te · Dec 12, 2019

william kurps said: ↑

Those 7 words are not in because we have 3 branches of government/ separation of powers its simple civics 101

.
Click to expand...

What a load of bovine excrement!

Are you PRETENDING that the separation of powers makes individuals NOT equal before the Law of the Land?

Because you haven't even attempted to provide anything to substantiate your utterly BOGUS allegation.

Derideo_Te · Dec 12, 2019

Hoosier8 said: ↑

If only a law were violated. Remember, lefties kept telling us this isn't about the law.
Click to expand...

Your BLOTUS has VIOLATED many laws even if that REALITY causes cognitive dissonance.

william kurps · Dec 12, 2019

Derideo_Te said: ↑

What a load of bovine excrement!

Are you PRETENDING that the separation of powers makes individuals NOT equal before the Law of the Land?

Because you haven't even attempted to provide anything to substantiate your utterly BOGUS allegation.
Click to expand...

Executive privilege, presidents before have ignored Supreme court rulings.

.

william kurps · Dec 12, 2019

Derideo_Te said: ↑

Your BLOTUS has VIOLATED many laws even if that REALITY causes cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

No laws he violated, he was protecting the United states.

Derideo_Te · Dec 12, 2019

william kurps said: ↑

Republicans have class and dignity, it was a waste of time and political suicide.

As the Democrats will soon find out.
Click to expand...

Your BLOTUS has "class and dignity"?

Derideo_Te · Dec 12, 2019

william kurps said: ↑

Executive privilege, presidents before have ignored Supreme court rulings.

.
Click to expand...

Wrong AGAIN!

EP does NOT apply to ABUSE of POWER and OBSTRUCTION of Congress!

Log in or Sign up

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the Missing Seven Words from the Constitution.

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

doombug Well-Known Member

garyd Well-Known Member

Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

william kurps Banned

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

william kurps Banned

william kurps Banned

drluggit Well-Known Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

william kurps Banned

william kurps Banned

drluggit Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

william kurps Banned

william kurps Banned

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the Missing Seven Words from the Constitution.

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

doombug Well-Known Member

garyd Well-Known Member

Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

william kurps Banned

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

william kurps Banned

william kurps Banned

drluggit Well-Known Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

william kurps Banned

william kurps Banned

drluggit Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

william kurps Banned

william kurps Banned

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches