Benjamin Franklin Wade was a “radical Republican” and served as president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate in 1868, when President Andrew Johnson was brought up on impeachment charges. Wade had been critical of Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, and had even more of a dislike for Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln after the latter was assassinated. Congress was trying to strong-arm Johnson into changing the way Reconstruction was behing handled, and Wade led the charge. When Johnson moved up to President, a new Vice President was not selected, so Wade was next in line for the office of President. (In 1886, the Speaker of the House was moved into this “number three” spot.)
By a 5-4 vote in late 1867, a committee of the House of Representatives passed the resolution of impeachment against Johnson, leading to a trial the next spring. A full two-thirds vote of the Senate was required to impeach Johnson, but the final tally was one vote short. Many at the time believed that Johnson was only acquitted because (1) he had only one year left in his presidency, and (2) many Senators didn’t like the idea of Wade becoming president, including a few of his supporters. Wade and his followers had been so vocally critical of the presidency, it didn’t seem “appropriate” for them to vote him into that position.
Only one vote from the presidency, Wade never made it any further in politics. When Ulysses S. Grant was named the next Republican presidential candidate, his suggestion of Wade as his running mate was rejected by his party.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
Yabut, what was his position on the flat tax?
Oh wait, we didn't even have an income tax back then...nevermind... :-/
2 - MCH
True. And I believe the draft back then was without deferments.
3 - Dave Nalle
Shows how little you know, MCH. The draft was over the moment the war ended, and during the war not only were there deferments of one kind or another, but you could pay $500 not to have to serve at all, or hire someone to serve in your place, or even send one of your slaves.
The idea that people who ran businesses and contributed more to the economy should not have to fight in the military is not a new one, and not necessarily a bad one.
Dave
4 - MCH
Shows how little you know, Nalle. Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh weren't "running businesses or contributing to the economy" when they dodged the draft; they were hiding out in college or (in Limbaugh's case) showing their family physician a pimple on their ass.
5 - Clavos
Shows how poorly you read, emmy.
He was talking about the Civil War, not the one you didn't have to fight in.
6 - Dave Nalle
Cheney, Clinton and Limbaugh are and were part of a class of people who were being groomed for leadership roles. Keeping them alive so they could fill those roles is part of the whole concept of exempting certain classes of people from a draft.
And just to short-circuit the conspiracy theorists, that 'class' of people I'm referring to is not some tiny powerful ultra elite, it's just the class of college educated professionals.
Dave
7 - MCH
Limbaugh was being groomed for a "leadership role"...? That shows how little you know, Nalle.
At the time he was awarded his medical deferment, Lardbaugh had just dropped out of college (losing his school deferment), couldn't even hold a steady job as a disc jockey, and actually ended up drawing unemployment.
Unless you consider his public relations "work" for the Kansas City Royals as a "leadership role"...
8 - Dave Nalle
MCH, do you take special pleasure in parading your ignorance?
Limbaugh's father was a prominent Missouri judge and very politically influential. His father was part of the educated, political elite, therefore by presumption he was destined to be part of it as well. That's the way it works.
Dave
9 - Dr Dreadful
The idea that people who ran businesses and contributed more to the economy should not have to fight in the military is not a new one, and not necessarily a bad one.
How about the idea of deferments not only for people who "contribute more to the economy" but also for their horrible spoiled bratty kids?
10 - Dave Nalle
The idea is that their horrible, spoiled, bratty kids will grow up to inherit their money and manage their businesses.
At base it's all about taxes and the civil war demonstrates that fact. In order to ram through the unconstitutional (pre-16th amendment) income tax, Lincoln had to give some concessions to the people whose incomes he would be taxing - like not sending their kids to war. People with incomes under $800 a year were exempted alltogether from the tax.
Despite this, of course, lots of people from the upper classes volunteered to fight, again being more or less guaranteed spots as officers based on their family background and education. Ironically, in most modern wars, starting with the civil war the casualty rate for officers has been far higher than for enlisted men.
And if you think all of this is a horrible corruption and so terribly unfair, remember that up until surprisingly recently the British, the Spanish and many other nations let people buy commissions at any rank they could afford - including selling generalships - and they recruited soldiers and sailors by kidnapping them.
Dave
11 - Dr Dreadful
Including American sailors who then often found themselves fighting their own countrymen against their will. Thanks for the history lesson.
But since income tax no longer applies only to the better off, why should deferments?
12 - MCH
"MCH, do you take special pleasure in parading your ignorance?
Limbaugh's father was a prominent Missouri judge and..."
Might wanna look in the mirror, Nalle; Lardbaugh's dad was NEVER a judge.
13 - MCH
"MCH, do you take special pleasure in parading your ignorance?...And just to short-circuit the conspiracy theorists, that 'class' of people I'm referring to is not some tiny powerful ultra elite, it's just the class of college educated professionals."
- Populi/Nalle
Again, check out the mirror once in awhile. Limbaugh was NEVER a "college educated professional," Nalle.
1) He dropped out of college mid-way through his sophomore year; and 2) since when is a disc jockey considered a professional?
14 - Dave Nalle
Ooh, my mistake, MCH. Limbaugh's father was only a lawyer. It's his uncle, grandfather and cousin who are or were all judges. I'd say the fact that he comes from a prominent family is pretty damned hard to dispute.
As for his failure to get a college education, that wasn't an issue at the time he could have been drafted. Given his family background, the expectation that he might have gone to college was reasonable. Plus, all of this is irrelevant in his case because he didn't even use college deferments to avoid going to Vietnam.
And again, let me point out the obvious reality. Not going to Vietnam and finding a way not to go there by whatever means, is a sign of intelligence and good sense. Second best is volunteering so you can pick your service and get an assignment away from combat like in Hawaii or someplace.
BTW, I was talking to a friend who was in the Navy during Vietnam. He didn't have much trouble getting a combat assignment working on a PBR for two tours. I bet they had a slot you could have filled.
Dave
Dave
15 - Clavos
since when is a disc jockey considered a professional?
When did Limbaugh quit talk radio???
16 - MCH
"He was talking about the Civil War, not the one you didn't have to fight in."
I enlisted and served where ordered, Clavvy, which is more than Cheney (dodged draft) and Bush (deserted).
17 - Dr Dreadful
When did Limbaugh quit talk radio???
He didn't. I think MCH is referring to the fact that, in common with most DJs, Limbaugh spins garbage on air every day...
18 - Clavos
Was Bush ever formally accused of desertion?
Was he court martialed for it?
Didn't think so...
So, you're spreading a falsehood.
Which makes you at best, mistaken; at worst, a liar.
19 - Dave Nalle
He's also lying about Cheney, of course, because Cheney didn't dodge the draft, he took advantage of the deferments which the government offered for reasons which were believed to be beneficial to society at that time and which we've discussed the history of here.
Dave
20 - MCH
"So, you're spreading a falsehood. Which makes you at best, mistaken; at worst, a liar."
- Clavvy
Then so are the 700-plus guardsmen who were stationed at Dannelly AFB from Sep 72-Mar 73, where Bush was ordered to serve.
Texans for Truth offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who ever witnessed GW serving at Dannelly. No one has ever collected.
Hey Clavvy, wanna make an easy $25,000? Find someone who saw GW at Dannelly, and split the reward with him...
21 - Nancy
Of course Bush wasn't formally courtmarshalled; he just went awol - and this being a Rich Boy's Frat unit, & his daddy being rich & powerful, of course he never got fingered for that, either.
The gall lies in that both he & Cheney are so gung-ho for war, when both of them, legally or not, never were & are not now EVER in the remotest danger of physical harm's way, nor are their family members, nor will they suffer any of the attendant privations of being or having someone in the military on active duty. That Cheney actually had the consummate balls to say he 'had better things to do' than go to Vietnam is a total denigration of those who suffered, were mutilated, or died there. HE had better things to do here at home...and THEY didn't? The arrogance of that statement & the viewpoint that engenders it takes the breath away. Pity it doesn't take away his or Dubya's, as it deserves to.
22 - Clavos
@#20:
Nonetheless, he was never charged or convicted.
By definition, he's not a deserter.
23 - Nancy
No, you're absolutely right: by strict definition - the letter of the law - he's not. But by the spirit of the law, he certainly is, & then some.
That such a moral coward then actually has the nerve to claim 'service' after the fact, & in the face of the facts, after savaging those who HAD served, in both his presidential campaigns, with lies & innuendo, as he did with both McCain & the vet multiple amputee (memory fart - forget his name at the moment), is unforgivable, IMO. As someone who HAS served, I take his daily clownishness & braggadoccio as Commander in Chief as a personal affront & mockery of all of us. He deserves to be shot or keelhauled. If he & Cheney weren't hiding behind a wall of SS men, they probably would be. Both of them have long personal histories of being cowards & bullies, never actually fighting themselves, always careful to hide behind someone who can protect them. They are beyond contempt.
24 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, it's not that Bush and Cheney are gung-ho for war, it's that they are willing to accept war as an instrument of foreign policy, as are a lot of people in both political parties.
If you accept the idea that war is an instrument of foreign policy then your issue is with their foreign policy, not the war. If you take war completely off the table, then that's an entirely different matter and you would prefer a national policy of pacifism.
Dave
25 - Nancy
Dave, gimme a break. Only a village idiot would believe that spin. B&C have been frothing at the mouth warmongers from Day One, & it shows in every word they've spoken, everything they've written, everything they've done, from the beginning & even before Bush won in 2000. This was a long time a-comin' & NOT the product of 9-11 as the BushCo spinmeisters would have us believe; just another lying Excuse Of The Day like the reasons they keep giving us for invading Iraq.
As long as THEIR precious asses aren't on the line - or their families' - they're just rarin' to "bring it on", so long as they can hide behind someone else to protect them from their own swaggering. They're contemptible.