Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
Copy of the House resolution to impeach President Johnson, adopted February 24, 1868
Accused	Andrew Johnson, 17thpresident of the United States
Date	February 24, 1868 (1868-02-24) to May 26, 1868 (1868-05-26)
Outcome	Acquitted by theU.S. Senate, remained in office
Charges	Eleven high crimes and misdemeanors
Cause	Violating theTenure of Office Act by attempting to replaceEdwin Stanton, thesecretary of war, while Congress was not in session and other allegedabuses of presidential power
Key congressional votes
Voting in theU.S. House of Representatives
Accusation	High crimes and misdemeanors
Votes in favor	126
Votes against	47
Result	Approved resolution of impeachment
Voting in the U.S. Senate
Accusation	Article XI
Votes in favor	35 "guilty"
Votes against	19 "not guilty"
Result	Acquitted (36 "guilty" votes necessary for a conviction)
Accusation	Article II
Votes in favor	35 "guilty"
Votes against	19 "not guilty"
Result	Acquitted (36 "guilty" votes necessary for a conviction)
Accusation	Article III
Votes in favor	35 "guilty"
Votes against	19 "not guilty"
Result	Acquitted (36 "guilty" votes necessary for a conviction)
The Senate held aroll call vote on only 3 of the 11 articles before adjourning as a court.

This article is part of a series about Andrew Johnson
Personal Early life Slavery Mordecai House Kirkwood House 15thGovernor of Tennessee Governorship Elections 1853 1855 16th Vice President of the United States Vice presidency Drunk inaugural address Abraham Lincoln assassination 17th President of the United States Presidency Inauguration Foreign policy Cabinet appointment Judicial appointment Conclusion of Civil War Reconstruction Reconstruction Acts Civil Rights Act of 1866 Swing Around the Circle Impeachment First inquiry Second inquiry Trial Managers investigation Efforts Timeline Articles of impeachment Vice presidential and presidential campaigns 1864 convention "Treason must be made odious" election 1868 convention Legacy Alcoholism debate Bibliography Historic site National cemetery Museum and library
v t e

Theimpeachment ofAndrew Johnson for "high crimes and misdemeanors" was initiated by theUnited States House of Representatives on February 24, 1868. The alleged high crimes and misdemeanors were afterwards specified ineleven articles of impeachment adopted by the House on March 2 and 3, 1868. The primary charge against Johnson was that he had violated theTenure of Office Act. Specifically, that he had acted to removeEdwin Stanton from the position ofSecretary of War and to replace him withBrevet Major GeneralLorenzo Thomas as secretary of warad interim. The Tenure of Office Act had been passed byCongress in March 1867 over Johnson'sveto with the primary intent of protecting Stanton from being fired without the Senate's consent. Stanton often sided with theRadical Republican faction and had a good relationship with Johnson.

Johnson was the first United States president to be impeached. After the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment, they forwarded them to theUnited States Senate foradjudication.The trial in the Senate began on March 5, withChief JusticeSalmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, the Senate voted against convicting Johnson on one of the articles, with its 35–19 vote in favor of conviction falling one vote short of the necessarytwo-thirds majority. A 10-day recess of the Senate trial was called to before reconvening to convict him on additional articles. On May 26, the Senate voted against convicting the president on two more articles by margins identical to the first vote. After this, the trial wasadjournedsine die without votes being held on the remaining eight articles of impeachment.

The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for thebalance of federal legislative-executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which future-presidentWoodrow Wilson referred to in the 1880s as "Congressional Government".

Tensions between the executive and legislative branches had been high prior to Johnson's ascension to the presidency. FollowingUnion Army victories atGettysburg andVicksburg in July 1863, President Lincoln began contemplating the issue of how to bring the South back into the Union. He wished to offer an olive branch to the rebel states by pursuing a lenient plan for their reintegration. The forgiving tone of the president's plan, plus the fact that he implemented it bypresidential directive without consulting Congress, incensedRadical Republicans, who countered with a more stringent plan. Their proposal for Southern reconstruction, theWade–Davis Bill, passed both houses of Congress in July 1864, but waspocket vetoed by the president and never took effect.^[1][2]

Theassassination of Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, just days after theArmy of Northern Virginia'ssurrender at Appomattox, briefly lessened the tension over who would set the terms of peace. The Radicals, while suspicious of new president Andrew Johnson and his policies, believed based on his record that he would defer or at least acquiesce to their hardline proposals. Though a Tennessee Democrat, Johnson had fiercely criticized Southern secession. After Tennessee joined the states leaving the Union, he chose to stay in Washington, rather than resign his U.S. Senate seat. Later, when Union troops occupied Tennessee, Johnson was appointed military governor. He exercised his powers in that office vigorously, frequently stating that "treason must be made odious and traitors punished".^[2]

After Johnson became president, however, he embraced Lincoln's more lenient policies, thus rejecting the Radicals and setting the stage for a showdown with Congress.^[3] During the first months ofhis presidency, Johnson issued proclamations of general amnesty for most former Confederates, both government and military officers, and oversaw creation of new governments in the hitherto rebellious states—governments dominated by ex-Confederate officials.^[4] In February 1866, Johnson vetoed legislation extending theFreedmen's Bureau and expanding its powers; Congress was unable to override the veto. Afterward, Johnson denounced Radical Republicans RepresentativeThaddeus Stevens and SenatorCharles Sumner, along withabolitionistWendell Phillips, as traitors.^[5] Later, Johnson vetoed aCivil Rights Act and a second Freedmen's Bureau bill. The Senate and the House each mustered the two-thirds majority necessary to override both vetoes.^[5]

At an impasse with Congress, Johnson offered himself directly to the American public as a "tribune of the people". In the late summer of 1866, the president embarked on a national "Swing Around the Circle" speaking tour, where he asked his audiences for their support in his battle against the Congress and urged voters to elect representatives to Congress in the upcomingmidterm election who supported his policies. The tour backfired on Johnson, however, when reports of his undisciplined, vitriolic speeches and ill-advised confrontations with hecklers swept the nation. Contrary to his hopes, the1866 elections led to veto-proof Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.^[6][7][8] As a result, Radicals were able to take control of Reconstruction, passing a series ofReconstruction Acts—each one over the president's veto—addressing requirements for Southern states to be fully restored to the Union. The first of these acts divided those states, excluding Johnson's home state of Tennessee, into five military districts, and each state's government was put under the control of the U.S. military. Additionally, these states were required to enact new constitutions, ratify theFourteenth Amendment, and guarantee voting rights for black males.^[2][6][9]

On January 7, 1867, the House of Representatives voted to launch animpeachment inquiry against Johnson, to be run by theHouse Committee on the Judiciary. Since the resolution only created an inquiry and did not actually directly impeach the president as many Radical Republicans wanted to do, it was seen as offering Republicans a chance to register their displeasure with Johnson without actually formally impeaching him.^[10] Many Republicans felt safe in the belief that any impeachment resolution would die a quiet death in the Judiciary Committee.^[11] The House Committee on the Judiciary initially sided 4–5 on June 3, 1867, against recommending forwarding articles of impeachment to the full House.^[10] However, on November 25, 1867, the House Committee on the Judiciary, which had not previously forwarded the result of its inquiry to the full House, reversed their previous decision due to a change of mind by one of its member and voted 5–4 to recommend impeachment. In a December 7, 1867, vote, the full House rejected impeachment by a 108–57 vote in which more Republicans voted against impeachment than for it.^[12][13][14]

On January 27, 1868,Rufus P. Spalding moved that the rules be suspended so that he could present a resolution resolving that theHouse Select Committee on Reconstruction be authorized to conduct a new impeachment inquiry into Johnson for, "what combinations have been made or attempted to be made to obstruct the due execution of the laws," and that the committee have leave to report at any time.^[15][16] The motion to consider the resolution was agreed to by a vote of 103–37,^[15][16] and the House voted to approve the resolution by a vote of 99–31.^[15][16] No Democrats voted for the resolution, while the only Republicans who cast votes against it wereElihu B. Washburne andWilliam Windom.^[16][17] On February 10, 1868, the House voted to transfer any further responsibility over impeachment away from the Committee on the Judiciary and to the Select Committee on Reconstruction.^[18][19]

Despite Thadeus Stevens being the chair of the committee,^[20] the membership of the House Committee on Reconstruction was not initially favorable to impeachment. It had four (Republican) members that had voted for impeachment in December 1867, and five members (three Republicans and two Democrats) that had voted against it.^[21] At a February 13, 1868, committee meeting, a vote on a motion totable consideration of a resolution proposed by Stevens to impeach Johnson had effectively signaled that five of the committee's members still stood opposed to impeachment, unchanged in their position since the December 1867 vote. After the February 13 vote, it momentarily appeared that the prospect of impeachment was dead.^[19][22][23]

Congress' control of the military Reconstruction policy was mitigated by Johnson's command of the military as president. However, Johnson had inherited Lincoln's appointeeEdwin M. Stanton as secretary of war. Stanton was a staunch Radical Republican who would comply with congressional Reconstruction policies as long as he remained in office.^[24] To ensure that Stanton would not be replaced, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867 over Johnson's veto. The act required the president to seek the Senate's advice and consent before relieving or dismissing any member of his cabinet (an indirect reference to Stanton) or, indeed, any federal official whose initial appointment had previously required its advice and consent.^[25][26]

The Tenure of Office Act was put in place to prevent the president from dismissing an officer that had been previously appointed with theadvice and consent of the Senate without the Senate's approval to remove them.^[27] Per the law, if the president dismissed such an officer when the Senate was in recess, and the Senate voted upon reconvening against ratifying the removal, the president would be required to reinstate the individual.^[28] Because the Tenure of Office Act did permit the president to suspend such officials when Congress was out of session, after Johnson failed to obtain Stanton's resignation, he instead suspended Stanton on August 5, 1867, which gave him the opportunity to appoint GeneralUlysses S. Grant, then serving ascommanding general of the Army, to serve as theinterim secretary of war.^[29] When the Senate adopted a resolution of non-concurrence with Stanton's dismissal in December 1867, Grant told Johnson he was going to resign, fearing punitive legal action.^[26] Contrary to Johnson's belief that Grant had agreed to remain in office,^[30] when the Senate voted and reinstated Stanton in January 1868, Grant immediately resigned, before the president had an opportunity to appoint a replacement.^[31] Johnson was furious at Grant, accusing him of lying during a stormy cabinet meeting. The March 1868 publication of several angry messages between Johnson and Grant led to a complete break between the two. As a result of these letters, Grant solidified his standing as the front-runner for the1868 Republican presidential nomination.^[29][32]

Johnson complained about Stanton's restoration to office and searched desperately for someone to replace Stanton who would be acceptable to the Senate. He first proposed the position to GeneralWilliam Tecumseh Sherman, an enemy of Stanton, who turned down his offer.^[33] Sherman subsequently suggested to Johnson that Radical Republicans andmoderate Republicans would be amenable to replacing Stanton withJacob Dolson Cox, but he found the president to be no longer interested in appeasement.^[34] On February 21, 1868, the president appointedLorenzo Thomas, a brevet major general in the Army, as secretary of warad interim. Johnson thereupon informed the Senate of his decision. Thomas personally delivered the president's dismissal notice to Stanton, who rejected the legitimacy of the decision. Rather than vacate his office, Stanton barricaded himself inside and ordered Thomas arrested for violating the Tenure of Office Act.^[35] Thomas remained under arrest for several days before being released, and having the charge against him dropped after Stanton realized that the case against Thomas would provide the courts with an opportunity toreview the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act.^[36]

Johnson's opponents in Congress were outraged by his actions; the president's challenge to congressional authority—with regard to both the Tenure of Office Act and post-war reconstruction—had, in their estimation, been tolerated for long enough.^[2] In swift response, an impeachment resolution was introduced in the House by Representatives Thaddeus Stevens andJohn Bingham. Expressing the widespread sentiment among House Republicans, RepresentativeWilliam D. Kelley (on February 22, 1868) declared:

Sir, the bloody and untilled fields of the ten unreconstructed states, the unsheeted ghosts of the two thousand murdered negroes in Texas, cry, if the dead ever evoke vengeance, for the punishment of Andrew Johnson.^[37][38]

On February 21, 1868, the day that Johnson attempted to replace Stanton with Lorenzo Thomas, the chair of the Select Committee on Reconstruction, Radical RepublicanThaddeus Stevens, submitted a resolution to the House resolving that the evidence taken on impeachment by the previous (1867) impeachment inquiry run by the Committee on the Judiciary be referred to the Select Committee on Reconstruction, which was overseeing the ongoing second impeachment inquiry. Stevens' resolution also resolved that the Committee on Reconstruction "have leave to report at any time". The resolution was approved by the House.^[15] Soon after, a one sentence resolution to impeach Johnson, written byJohn Covode, was presented to the House. The resolution read,

Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.^{[39][40][41][42]}

No charges were specified in the resolution by Covode.^[43] News reports stated that the introduction of the resolution was met with audible laughter by Democratic members of the House.^[44]George S. Boutwell made a successful motion to refer the resolution to the Select Committee on Reconstruction.^[42][20] Because the resolution had been presented in the late afternoon, the house adjourned without the question being brought to a vote on whether to adopt it. But there was an expectation that it would be debated following day and soon after brought to such a vote.^[45]

In the morning of February 22, 1868, the Committee on Reconstruction approved an amended version of the impeachment resolution in a 7–2 party-line vote.^[46][47] The amended resolution read,

Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors in office.^[48]

At 3pm on February 22, 1868, along with the slightly amended version of Covode's impeachment resolution, Stevens presented a majority report from the Select Committee on Reconstruction opining that Johnson should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.^{[15][20][48][49]} The impeachment resolution was debated at length on both February 22 and 24.^[15] During the debate on the resolution, Republican members of the House Select Committee on Reconstruction argued that Johnson's effort to dismiss Stanton and appoint Thomas ad interim was a specific violation of the Tenure of Office Act.^[15]

Republicans that had voted against the previous impeachment resolution on December 7, 1867, now voiced support for impeaching Johnson, seeing an impeachment of Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act as being grounded in an offense indictable under federal law.^[15]James F. Wilson expressed an opinion representative of those expressed during debate by many Republicans that had previously voted against the impeachment resolution brought by the Judiciary Committee at the close of the first impeachment inquiry against Johnson. Ahead of the vote on that previous resolution, Wilson had been tasked by the Judiciary Committee's dissenting members with presenting their argument against impeaching Johnson at that time. Now Wilson expressed support for impeaching Johnson,^[15] declaring that,

The considerations which weighed upon my mind and molded my conduct in the case with which the Committee on the Judiciary of this House was charged are not to be found in the present case.^[15]

Wilson opined that in the previous impeachment vote, Johnson had not committed any action that was a crime under eithercommon law orstatute. Wilson declared that Johnson had mistakenly been emboldened after he was not impeached in December 1867 and had proceeded to commit an act that constituted clear impeachable conduct,^[15] declaring,

He mistook our judgment for cowardice, and worked on until he has presented to us, as a sequence, a high misdemeanor known to the law and defined by statute.^[15]

Thaddeus Stevens expressed his opinion that impeachment was a purely political process. In the closing remarks of formal debate, Stevens expressed his opinion that the case to be brought against Johnson should be broader than just his violation of the Tenure of Office Act.^[15] Before the resolution would be voted on by the House, Thaddeus Stevens, who is considered to have been the leader of the forces behind the push for impeachment, gave a final speech that is described as having brought those in the House chamber to "rapt attention".^[50] In the speech, Stevens remarked,

This is not to be the temporary triumph of a political party, but is to endure in its consequence until this whole continent shall be filled with a free and untrammeled people or shall be a nest of shrinking, cowardly slaves.^[37][18][15]

The resolution was put to a vote on February 24, 1868, three days after Johnson moved to dismiss and replace Stanton. Per the record of theCongressional Globe, the House of Representatives voted 126–47 (with 17 members not voting) in favor of a resolution to impeach the president forhigh crimes and misdemeanors,^{[37][20][18][51]} This marked the first time that a president of the United States had been impeached.^[18] There is a record keeping discrepancy, however. While theCongressional Globe recorded the vote as being 126–47 (with RepublicansWilliam Henry Koontz andFrancis Thomas being absent), theUnited States House Journal had recorded the vote as being 128–47 (recording Koontz and Thomas as being present and voting in support of the resolution).^{[18][52][51][53]} TheOffice of the House Historian uses theCongressional Globe tally on its website.^[53]

Almost all of theHouse Republican caucus that was present voted in support of the impeachment resolution. While every vote cast by those that were elected as a member of the Republican Party was in support of the impeachment resolution,Samuel Fenton Cary (anindependent Republican from Ohio), andThomas E. Stewart (a "Conservative Republican" from New York) voted against it. Both Cary and Stewart caucused with the Republicans.^[54] Every Democrat present voted against impeachment.^[18] Fifteen Republicans and one Democrat were absent for the vote.^[17][52] Speaker Schuyler Colfax, a Republican, also did not vote, as House rules do not requirethe speaker to vote during ordinary legislative proceedings unless their vote would be decisive or if the vote is being cast by ballot.^[17][52][55]

All of the 126 votes in favor of impeachment came from members of the Republican caucus (125 from members of the Republican Party, and one from independent RepublicanLewis Selye). Of the 47 votes against impeachment, 44 came from members of the Democratic Party, with the other three votes coming from ConservativeCharles E. Phelps, Conservative Republican Thomas E. Stewart, and independent Republican Fenton Cary.^[17][52]

Resolution providing for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States[a] [17][18][51][52][53]
February 24, 1868	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	125	000	000	001	126
Nay	044	000	001	001	001	047

After the House passed the impeachment resolution, its attention turned to the adoption of articles of impeachment which the Senate would try Johnson on. The approach of having the vote to impeach be an entirely separate vote from the adoption of article(s) of impeachment differs from the approach that has been practiced in more recent United States federal impeachments, in which impeachment has occurred directly through the adoption of article(s) of impeachment. However, the manner in which Johnson was impeached appears to have been the standard order of procedure for nineteenth century federal impeachments in the United States, as each of the five previous impeachments of federal officials that had led to a Senate trial had been conducted the same way, with votes to impeach occurring before votes on articles of impeachment.^[18]

After the vote to impeach, Stevens submitted a pair of resolutions that both created a two-person committee tasked with presenting to the Senate bar the impeachment resolution that had been passed and informing the Senate that the House would "in due time" exhibit specific articles of impeachment, and which also created a seven-person committee to prepare and report articles of impeachment. The resolutions gave that seven-person committee the power tosubpoena people, papers, and records, and to recordsworn testimony. After procedural votes, the House approved both of Stevens' resolutions in a single 124–42 vote. No members of the Republican Party voted against it, while no members of the Democratic Party voted for it.^[17][56] Before the House adjourned for the evening, Speaker Schuyler Colfax appointed John Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens to the two-person committee tasked with informing the Senate of Johnson's impeachment, and also appointed John Bingham, George S. Boutwell, and Thaddeus Stevens (all of whom had been members of the Select Committee on Reconstruction) along withGeorge Washington Julian, House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman James F. Wilson, John A. Logan, andHamilton Ward to the seven-person committee tasked with writing the articles of impeachment.^[18]

On the morning of February 25, 1868, the Senate was informed by the two-person committee of Bingham and Stevens that Johnson had been impeached and that articles of impeachment would be created.^[57][58] Later that day, Stevens reported to the House that the committee had gone before the bar of the Senate on behalf of the House.^[58] Later on February 25, Ellihu B. Washburne moved to suspend the rules and order that, once the special committee tasked with preparing the articles of impeachment reported those articles, the House would immediately hold a full-house vote on the articles, and set the rules for speeches and debate on the articles. The House voted 106–37 to approve Washburne's motion.^[59] Later that day, George S. Boutwell presented two resolutions to enable the committee of seven that had been appointed to prepare and report the articles of impeachment to sit during sessions of the House. These resolutions were passed 105–36.^[60]

Thaddeus Stevens felt that Radical Republicans on the committee were yielding too much to moderates to limit the scope of the violations of law that the articles of impeachment would charge Johnson with. He wroteBenjamin F. Butler, proposing that, while Stevens worked to add two more additional articles to the seven already written by the committee, Butler would write his own separate article of impeachment from outside of the committee. Butler accepted this proposal.^[18]

The committee of seven initially delivered ten proposed articles of impeachment to the House on February 29, 1868.^[18] These would be revised and reduced to nine articles before being voted on on March 2.^[19]

One week after it voted to impeach Johnson, the House adoptedeleven articles of impeachment against the president.^[20] The first nine articles were approved on March 2, while the last two were approved on March 3, 1868. The third and fourth articles each received a single Democratic vote in support of them (George W. Morgan for the third andCharles Haight for the fourth article).^{[17][53][61][62]} The tenth article was the only to have Republican opposition, with twelve Republicans casting votes against it. However, two other members of the Republican caucus that were not formally part of the Republican Party (Samuel Fenton Cary, an independent Republican from Ohio, and Thomas E. Stewart, a "Conservative Republican" from New York) voted against nearly every article of impeachment (with Stewart having been absent from the vote on the fourth article).^{[17][63][64][65]}

The House debated the proposed articles on March 1 and 2, 1868.^[19] On March 2, the House voted to ratify the nine articles of impeachment referred to it by the committee of seven. These articles were "strictly legalistic" and molded oncriminalindictment. Eight concerned the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, while the ninth accused him of violating theCommand of Army Act by pressuring GeneralWilliam H. Emory to ignore Acting Secretary of War Grant and instead take orders directly from Johnson.^[18]

After a series of speeches during debate, Thaddeus Stevens took the floor to criticize the committee of seven for going too easy on Johnson,^[18] declaring,

Never was so great a malefactor so gently treated as Andrew Johnson. The people have been unwilling to blot the records of their country by mingling his crimes with their shame—shame for endurance for so long a time of his great crimes and misdemeanor.^[18]

Stevens argued that the articles put before the house had failed to address just how much Johnson had imperiled the governing structure of the United States.^[18]

After Stevens delivered his remarks, which closed out debate, Boutwell brought forward revised articles, with the number of articles proposed by the committee being decreased from ten to nine.^[19] Benjamin Butler then submitted his own lengthy impeachment article, inspired by Stevens' request to him. Butlers' proposed article stated no clear violation of law, but instead charged Johnson with attempting, "to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States."^[18] The article was written in response to speeches that Johnson had made during his "Swing Around the Circle".^[66] Butler's remarks on his impeachment resolution were very long, and this frustrated many, even including Stevens. The House quickly rejected Butler's article before approving all nine articles from the committee one by one.^[18]

March 2, 1868, vote totals
Article introduced byBenjamin Butler [18][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea	Detailed roll call not reported by theCongressional Globe					048
Nay Y						074
First article [17][53][68][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	127	000	000	000	127
Nay	040	000	000	001	001	042
Second article [53][62][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	124	000	000	000	124
Nay	039	000	000	001	001	041
Third article [53][61][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	001	123	000	000	000	124
Nay	038	000	000	001	001	040
Fourth article [53][69][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	001	116	000	000	000	117
Nay	039	000	000	000	001	040
Fifth article [53][70][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	127	000	000	000	127
Nay	040	000	000	001	001	042
Sixth article [53][71][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	127	000	000	000	127
Nay	040	000	000	001	001	042
Seventh article [53][72][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	127	000	000	000	127
Nay	040	000	000	001	001	042
Eighth article [53][73][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	127	000	000	000	127
Nay	040	000	000	001	001	042
Ninth article [17][53][74][67]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	108	000	000	000	108
Nay	039	000	000	001	001	041

After the March 2 adoption of articles of impeachment, the House appointed the impeachment managers that would serve as prosecutors in the impeachment trial before the Senate. The following day, in hopes of strengthening the case that they would bring before the Senate, the impeachment managers requested that the House consider additional charges.^[18] First, the managers reported the article previously proposed by Butler, which they reintroduced as the tenth article. It was approved.^[18][15] After this, an eleventh article drafted by Thaddeus Stevens and James F. Wilson was approved.^[18] The eleventh article accused Johnson of violating hisoath of office to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" by declaring that the39th United States Congress was unconstitutional because it only represented some of the United States (with unreconstructed states being excluded) and therefore lacked legislative powers or the power to propose amendments to theConstitution of the United States.^[57]

March 3, 1868, vote totals
Tenth article [17][53][63]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	088	000	000	000	088
Nay	031	012	000	001	001	045
Eleventh article [17][53][64]	Party					Total votes
	Democratic	Republican	Conservative	Conservative Republican	Independent Republican
Yea Y	000	109	000	000	000	109
Nay	030	000	000	001	001	032

Both the first eight articles and the eleventh article adopted in the House related to Johnson violating the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to dismiss Secretary of War Stanton. In addition, several of these articles also accused Johnson of violating other acts, and the eleventh article also accused Johnson of violating his oath of office.^{[18][20][57][75]} The first article specifically alleged that Johnson's February 21, 1868, order to remove Stanton was made with intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act. The second and third articles argued that the appointment of Thomas as secretary of warad interim was similarly done with intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh articles alleged conspiring between Johnson, Thomas, and others to oust Stanton. The sixth article also alleged a conspiracy to forcefully seize the property of theUnited States Department of War. The eighth article specifically alleged that the appointment of Thomasad interim was with the intent of unlawfully controlling the property of the Department of War. The eleventh article effectively provided a restatement of the first nine articles.^[20][76]

The ninth article focused on an accusation that Johnson had violated the Command of Army Act, a charge reiterated by the eleventh article. The tenth article charged Johnson with attempting, "to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States", but did not cite a clear violation of the law.^{[18][20][57][75]}

The eleven articles presented the following charges:

• Article 1: That Johnson had violated the Tenure of Office Act in his February 21, 1868, order to remove Secretary of War Stanton^[20]
• Article 2: That Johnson had violated the Tenure of Office Act by sending "a letter of authority" to Lorenzo Thomas regarding his appointment to be acting Secretary of War when there was, in fact, no legal vacancy, because Secretary Stanton had been removed in violation of the Tenure of Office Act^[20]
• Article 3: That Johnson had violated the Tenure of Office Act by appointing Lorenzo Thomas to be acting Secretary of War when there was, in fact, no legal vacancy, because Secretary Stanton had been removed in violation of the Tenure of Office Act^[20]
• Article 4: That Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act by conspiring with Lorenzo Thomas and others "unlawfully to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there Secretary of the Department of War" from carrying out his duties^[20]
• Article 5: That Johnson had conspired with Lorenzo Thomas and others to "prevent and hinder the execution" of the Tenure of Office Act^[20]
• Article 6: That Johnson had violated both the Tenure of Office Act and An Act to Define and Punish Certain Conspiracies by conspiring with Lorenzo Thomas "by force to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" under control of Secretary Stanton in violation of, thereby committing a high crime in office^[20]
• Article 7: That Johnson had violated the Office Act and An Act to Define by conspiring with Lorenzo Thomas "by force to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" under control of Secretary Stanton, thereby committing a high misdemeanor in office^[20]
• Article 8: That Johnson had unlawfully sought "to control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War", by moving to remove Secretary Stanton and appoint Lorenzo Thomas^[20]
• Article 9: That Johnson had violated the Command of Army Act by unlawfully instructing Major GeneralWilliam H. Emory to ignore as unconstitutional the 1867 Army Appropriations Act language that all orders issued by the President and Secretary of War "relating to military operations ... shall be issued through the General of the Army"^[18][20][77]
• Article 10: That Johnson hadon numerous occasions, made "with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces ... against Congress [and] the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled and within hearing"^[20]
• Article 11: That Johnson had violated his oath of office to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" by unlawfully and unconstitutionally challenging the authority of the 39th Congress to legislate due to unreconstructed southern states had not been readmitted to the Union; violated the Tenure of Office Act by removing Secretary of War Stanton; contrived to fail to execute the Command of Army Act, which directs that executive orders to the military be issued through the General of the Army; and prevented the execution of an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel states".^[20][57][75]