Local Lawyer Faced with Pivotal Impeachment Vote

Kevin Hemstock • March 2, 2021

(The Second of Two Parts. Read Part 1 here.)

The second week of March 1868, following George Vickers’s election to the U.S. Senate, was very cold. In fact, the Chester River was still frozen. As a consequence, the ice-breaker Chesapeake was sent over to Chestertown from Baltimore, with the committee to inform Vickers of his election, and to transport him first to Annapolis and thence to Washington. Vickers didn’t know they were coming and was no doubt surprised when the committee showed up on the morning of Saturday, March 7, at his Mill Street manse.

Haste was needed — Congress was in session and there were serious matters under way. Only the week before, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives had voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson, the Democratic southerner who had taken over the nation’s top post upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It was the first time in the history of the nation that a president had been impeached.

The articles of impeachment had been sent over to the Senate — where Vickers had just won a seat — and that august body would act as a jury to decide whether the president would be removed from office. In fact, the impeachment trial had already begun.

There were eleven articles of impeachment.


Primarily, President Johnson was accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act, passed on March 2, 1867 over his veto, by replacing Secretary of War Edward M. Stanton with Lorenzo Thomas. There was more to it than that, of course — but the Stanton issue seemed clear-cut to the Republicans. The core fact operating against Johnson was that he was not well liked in D.C., particularly among those who came from northern states, and many thought he was too lenient in his Reconstruction policies in the South.

 

The 17th president, Johnson was born Dec. 29, 1808 in North Carolina. He moved early on to Tennessee where his first occupation was as a tailor. He was unschooled, but inquisitive and focused. After his wife, the former Miss Eliza McCardle, taught him math and helped him improve his writing skills, he became a voracious reader and began a busy political career. He was elected to Congress in 1843, became the governor of Tennessee in 1853, and was elected by that state’s legislature to the U.S. Senate in 1857. During the war, he was the Union military governor of Tennessee, holding that post until his selection by Lincoln, in 1864, as vice president.

 

His storied political career notwithstanding, he was not well received when he arrived in Washington, where he was considered an outsider, particularly after his vice-presidential inauguration speech, given with a very noticeable drunken slur. Also, he was a political wild card — his positions difficult to predict. After rising to the presidency, his post-war stance on Reconstruction was controversial — he was too conciliatory to the South and his support for a general amnesty for Confederates put him on the wrong side of the Congressional majority.




Pushing for the impeachment with all his heart and influence was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens who became one of the House impeachment managers. This ardent abolitionist wanted the South to pay dearly for its transgression of secession and its immoral support and perpetuation of slavery. One of the leaders of the Radical Republican element of the Republican Party, Stevens was the author of the 11th article of impeachment, which his supporters felt would most likely be successful in the president’s removal.

 

In arguing for conviction, Stevens, in preparation for his April 27, 1868 speech before the U.S. Senate, said it didn’t matter whether the president violated the law, if he violated his oath of office.

 

Not everyone wanted Johnson removed, even among Republicans. If he were found guilty, lame-duck Sen. Benjamin Wade, president pro tempore of the Senate, would become president, since Johnson didn’t have a vice president. Wade had some controversial beliefs, generally panned by D.C. politicians, including the notion, thought to be ridiculous at the time, that women should be allowed to vote.

 

The trial took two months to consider three of the 11 articles of impeachment. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presided. On May 16, 1868 after various amendments, the vote was taken only on the 11th article of impeachment. Vickers, in his written opinion, gave it a thumbs-down, calling on his legal expertise in review and countering Stevens:

 

“The eleventh article is anomalous, indefinite, and liable to the objection of multiplicity. If it were possible to put it in the form of an indictment or of a declaration in a civil action, it would be quashed on motion by a court of law.”

 

The vote was 35-19, one vote shy of the two-thirds majority to convict. Ten days later, the Senate took up the impeachment again. The second article of impeachment resulted in the same vote. As did the vote on the third article. Vickers, by virtue of this alphabetical call of the question, was the last one to vote in the acquit column.

 

After that, the majority Republicans gave up and declined to prosecute the other eight articles because they didn’t wish to give the “anti-impeachers” and the president the satisfaction of an acquittal, according to the New York Herald.

 

In effect, the humble lawyer from the pastoral county of Kent, on Maryland’s idyllic Eastern Shore, saved the Johnson presidency.

 

His constituents were thrilled as demonstrated by the Kent News, May 30, 1868:

 

“The people of the whole country, and especially those of the border States, have great cause to be thankful that this trial, so-called, has resulted in the acquittal of the President. A different result would doubtless have been followed by measures ever more revolutionary than any which have marked the radical policy in the past. Under the plea of possessing an anti-republican form of government, our own State, in all probability, would have been placed under military rule, the officers chosen by the people displaced, and a complete dictatorship established over us. …”

 

Johnson, though saved from removal, failed to win the Democratic nomination for a second term as president, wearing the stain of impeachment forever more. New York governor Horatio Seymore was chosen as the candidate from that party to oppose Republican Gen. Ulysses S. Grant who was elected president in November 1868.

 

Johnson continued in politics, and before his death on July 31, 1875, served a term as senator from Tennessee.

 

Vickers finished out his single term as senator and then returned to his law practice in Chestertown. He died of heart disease at his home in Chestertown, Oct. 8. 1879. His remains were interred at Chester Cemetery next to his son Benjamin C. Vickers, who had died in 1862 from wounds sustained the Battle of Shiloh in which he had fought for the Confederacy.

 

 

Kevin Hemstock writes from Millington. The former editor of the Kent County News, his book, Injustice on the Eastern Shore, was published in 2015. He has also self-published a number of books on the topic of local history.

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By Friends of Megan Outten July 29, 2025
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
By John Christie July 29, 2025
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co July 15, 2025
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Show More