Have you ever heard a historical fact that sounded so absurd it had to be true? Many people believe that during his impeachment trial, President Andrew Johnson claimed he couldn’t remove a cabinet member because the appointment papers were literally “Plumbs In The Icebox Defense Used By Andrew Johnson“ suggests. It’s a catchy phrase, but it raises a critical question: Did this actually happen, or is it just a persistent piece of political folklore?
Understanding the real story behind Johnson’s presidency is crucial for anyone interested in American constitutional history. The tension between the Executive and Legislative branches in the 1860s set precedents that still affect us today. In this article, we will separate fact from fiction, explore the actual legal defenses used, and explain why this specific myth continues to circulate.
What Is the “Plumbs in the Icebox” Story?
The phrase “Plumbs in the Icebox Defense Used By Andrew Johnson“ is often cited in casual conversations about presidential scandals. The story goes that when Congress demanded Johnson remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Johnson allegedly replied that he could not do so immediately because the official appointment documents (the “plumbs” or plumes/papers) were stored in an icebox to keep them safe or cool.
This anecdote is typically used to illustrate Johnson’s stubbornness or his attempt to stall for time. However, historians and legal scholars agree on one thing: this event never happened.
There is no record in the Congressional Globe, Johnson’s personal papers, or contemporary newspapers of such a statement. The term “plumbs” itself is likely a mishearing or corruption of another word, or simply a fabricated detail added over time to make the story more colorful. The idea of storing vital legal documents in an icebox—a device primarily used for food preservation in the 19th century—lacks logical sense in a legal context.
Why Do People Believe This Myth?
If the defense never existed, why does the search term “Plumbs in the Icebox Defense Used By Andrew Johnson” remain popular? There are several psychological and historical reasons for this persistence:
- Simplification of Complex Law: The actual legal battle involved the intricate Tenure of Office Act. A story about iceboxes is easier to remember than a debate over statutory interpretation.
- Johnson’s Reputation: Andrew Johnson was known for being obstinate, rude, and politically inept. Stories that highlight his awkwardness or eccentricity fit the public narrative of his presidency.
- Misinterpretation of “Plums”: Some theorists suggest “plumbs” might be a misremembered reference to “plums” (as in patronage jobs), but even then, the icebox connection remains baseless.
It is essential to approach historical anecdotes with skepticism. While myths are entertaining, they obscure the real constitutional crises that shaped the nation.
The Real Defense: The Tenure of Office Act
To understand what actually happened, we must look at the law. Johnson’s primary defense was not about refrigerated documents, but about the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act of 1867.
What Was the Tenure of Office Act?
Passed by Congress over Johnson’s veto, this law required the President to seek Senate approval before removing any cabinet member who had been appointed with Senate consent. Its primary target was Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, who sympathized with the Radical Republicans in Congress rather than Johnson.
Johnson’s Legal Argument
Johnson argued that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. He believed it infringed upon the Executive Branch’s power to manage its own officials. His defense strategy relied on two main points:
- Separation of Powers: The President has the inherent authority to remove executive officers.
- Intent of the Law: Johnson claimed the act did not apply to Stanton because Stanton was appointed by Lincoln, not Johnson.
This was a sophisticated legal argument, not a comedic excuse about an icebox. Johnson’s lawyers, including former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, presented detailed briefs arguing that the Act violated Article II of the Constitution.
Key Figures in the Impeachment Trial
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a dramatic political showdown. Here are the key players who influenced the outcome:
| Figure | Role | Stance |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Johnson | 17th U.S. President | Argued the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. |
| Edwin Stanton | Secretary of War | Refused to leave office, barricading himself in his department. |
| Thaddeus Stevens | House Manager | Led the prosecution; sought harsh punishment for Johnson. |
| Benjamin Butler | House Manager | Aggressive prosecutor who focused on Johnson’s intent. |
| Lyman Trumbull | Senator | Broke party lines to vote “Not Guilty,” saving Johnson. |
The trial was less about whether Johnson broke the law (he technically did by firing Stanton) and more about whether the law itself was valid and whether removal from office was the appropriate penalty.
The Outcome: One Vote Short
On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted on the first article of impeachment. The result was 35 guilty to 19 not guilty.
Since a two-thirds majority was required for conviction, Johnson needed 36 votes to be removed. He fell short by exactly one vote. Seven Republican senators broke ranks and voted with the Democrats, citing concerns about setting a dangerous precedent for future presidential-congressional conflicts.
This narrow escape solidified the idea that impeachment should be reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” not just political disagreements. It also marked the beginning of the end for the Tenure of Office Act, which was eventually repealed in 1887.
Lessons for Modern Politics
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson offers timeless lessons for understanding US governance:
- Checks and Balances Work: The system is designed to be slow and difficult, preventing rash removals of elected officials.
- Legal Precedent Matters: The arguments made in 1868 influenced later Supreme Court decisions, such as Myers v. United States (1926), which affirmed the President’s power to remove executive officials.
- Beware of Misinformation: Just as the “Plumbs in the Icebox Defense Used By Andrew Johnson” is a myth, modern political discourse is often filled with simplified or false narratives. Critical thinking is essential.
For a deeper dive into the primary sources of this era, you can review the official records on Wikipedia’s Andrew Johnson Impeachment Page.
FAQ Section
1. Did Andrew Johnson actually say his papers were in an icebox?
No. There is no historical evidence to support this claim. It is considered an urban legend or a satirical invention that has been mistakenly repeated as fact over time.
2. What was the main reason Andrew Johnson was impeached?
Johnson was impeached primarily for violating the Tenure of Office Act by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without Senate approval. However, underlying tensions regarding Reconstruction policies also played a major role.
3. What does “Plumbs in the Icebox” mean in this context?
The phrase is a nonsensical myth. It likely stems from a garbled retelling of historical events or a joke about Johnson’s stubbornness. It has no legal or historical meaning.
4. How close was Andrew Johnson to being removed from office?
He was incredibly close. The Senate vote was 35-19 in favor of conviction. Since 36 votes were needed for a two-thirds majority, he survived by just one vote.
5. Was the Tenure of Office Act constitutional?
Most legal scholars today believe it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court later ruled in Myers v. United States that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, validating Johnson’s core legal argument.
6. Why is this myth still searched for today?
People are drawn to quirky historical anecdotes. The phrase “Plumbs in the Icebox Defense Used By Andrew Johnson” is memorable and humorous, making it a popular search term despite its inaccuracy.
Conclusion
The story of the “Plumbs in the Icebox Defense Used By Andrew Johnson” is a fascinating example of how history can be distorted over time. While it makes for a good cocktail party conversation, it is entirely fictional. The real story of Johnson’s impeachment is far more compelling: a intense constitutional struggle over the powers of the presidency, the rule of law, and the future of Reconstruction.
By understanding the actual events—the Tenure of Office Act, the one-vote margin, and the legal arguments—we gain a deeper appreciation for the resilience of American democracy. Don’t let myths obscure the truth. Share this article with your history buffs and friends to help debunk this common misconception!
Leave a Reply