Grand Inquests

I probably read Chief Justice Rehnquist's Grand Inquests (Samuel Chase and Andrew Johnson impeachments) back in the day. I recall reading his books on the Supreme Court and civil liberties during wartime. I suppose I read his book on the 1876 presidential election. I read his others after all.

He wrote this book before he presided over the Clinton impeachment. I grant the political background of each event is essential to understand the trials. Nonetheless, he probably spends too much time covering weakly connected material (a summary of the Civil War is not really necessary).

The book is an amateur historian's take on the events. It is geared toward the average reader. Rehnquist covers the basic ground well. I found some typos (including the wrong first names of William T. Sherman and Joseph Johnson). I took a while to get into it but then read it quickly.  

I question how BIG a deal the acquittals are. Chase's is likely more important since the Supreme Court's independence was at an early stage. Johnson just seems too special in a variety of ways. For instance, did the congressional reduction of the Supreme Court serve as a precedent? No.

Both impeachments were political. The charges were overly technical. It would be different if the situation was more blatant. Some might argue that the precedents "proved too much," restraining action when there were more grounds to impeach.

Rehnquist supports (as do I) acquittal in both cases though notes one author who supported the removal of Chase. You can find some support for the removal of Andrew Johnson out there though more on stuff not technically covered in the impeachment counts. 

The immediate reason for Chase's impeachment was a partisan grand jury charge (more of a thing then but he unwisely did it after Jefferson won). The other charges were a mixture of procedural decisions while he rode circuit, some more defensible than others. Overall, not really removal-worthy. 

Johnson's impeachment rested largely on a contested power of removal of a Cabinet officer. The true reason was Johnson's Reconstruction policy.  Multiple senior Republican senators felt the charges were weak, including one based on intemperate speeches. 

He tosses in some pictures and newspaper headlines from the second impeachment. Not bad overall.