Almost as soon as President Andrew Johnson was acquitted by one vote in his Senate trial for impeachment, accusations were leveled that Johnson’s minions bribed Sen. Edmund Ross. Politico has an article supporting the bribery charge. Here is an excerpt:
Johnson escaped conviction by the margin of 35 votes in favor of conviction to 19 against—only one vote shy of the two-thirds majority required for his removal. The shortfall was the result of a last-minute switch by Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas, a recent arrival to Washington who had been appointed to fill a vacated seat. Historian David O. Stewart, however, has found evidence that Ross’ interim appointment was pushed through by his political crony, Perry Fuller, who appears then to have bribed Kansas’ governor with $42,000 to obtain Ross’ reappointment for the remaining four years of his predecessors’ term. The plot thickens at the moment the Senate was about to come to its fateful decision about Johnson’s future. Ross had breakfast with Fuller just before he would join his Republican colleagues to cast their ballots on Capitol Hill. According to Stewart and Mark A. Plummer, there is reason to believe Fuller paid the senator $100,000 on the spot to change his mind, defy his party and vote to acquit Johnson. (This was a huge sum: equivalent to about $15 million today, when adjusted for inflation.)
Despite admirable historical detective work to substantiate these shady dealings, it has proved impossible to find a piece of paper documenting the bribes themselves. (It would have been foolish for Ross and Fuller to provide written evidence of their own guilt.) However, in return for his vote to acquit, Fuller seemingly wanted Ross to get him a high-powered job during the declining days of the Johnson administration. A grateful president indeed appointed Fuller as collector of the Port of New Orleans, in charge of the heavy Mississippi trade between America and foreign countries. Since Congress had recessed for the summer, Ross’ pal assumed office without the need for Senate confirmation—and immediately began to exploit his position to enrich himself and his cronies. Once Fuller was appointed collector, government regulations required him to leave an overwhelming paper-trail that documented his corrupt behavior.
As soon as the Johnson verdict was announced, Republican newspapers were full of charges that Ross’ vote had been purchased. To be sure, American journalism in 1868 was just as politically polarized as it is today. For this reason, the journalistic accounts provided by the leading French newspaper of the day, Les Temps, have a special value. Its readers were much more interested in a biweekly story of 1,000 words of incisive analysis than in passionate partisanship. Moreover, by a remarkable coincidence, the young journalist sending regular dispatches to Les Temps was none other than Georges Clemenceau, who later became one of the greatest prime ministers in French history. His insightful commentaries were translated into English and published in the United States in 1928 as an enduring resource for future historians.
In his account, one of the “most astonishing” features of the Senate vote was Ross’ “sudden and unexpected desertion” of his Republican colleagues. As Clemenceau wrote: “The very day before the vote, Mr. Ross, the senator from Kansas, answered a [Republican] senator who questioned him: ‘Do not worry, I shall be voting on the right side tomorrow.’” As a relatively dispassionate but intensely engaged observer, Clemenceau made it plain that, given his express guarantee to vote to convict the president, Ross’ sudden about-face could not have been motivated by a quixotic repudiation of his long-held Republican principles; it could only be explained by a last-minute sell-out for personal gain.
Editor’s Note: While many historians believe that Ross was bribed, there is no consensus about the charge.
