Your response effectively addresses the question by summarizing Thaddeus Stevens' viewpoint on why Andrew Johnson should be removed from office. You clearly highlight the key points regarding Johnson's failure to execute his duties and the implications of his violations of the Constitution.
To enhance your answer, you might consider adding a few more specific details from the quotation itself. This could include:
-
Specific Language: Quote specific phrases from Stevens’ statement to strengthen your argument. For example, you could reference the idea of Johnson’s “whole duty” being to obey commands and ensure others do the same.
-
Nature of Violations: Briefly explain what specific actions or failures Johnson took that Stevens believed constituted a neglect of duty (if known). This adds context and depth to your response.
-
Stevens' Perspective: Elaborate a bit more on why Stevens felt so strongly about the need for adherence to the Constitution and laws, possibly explaining it as a principle of governance and accountability.
Here’s how you might revise your response with these points in mind:
Thaddeus Stevens believed that Andrew Johnson should be removed from office because Johnson failed to fulfill his constitutional duties as President. Stevens argued that Johnson did not "obey the Constitution" and did not "faithfully execute" the laws, which are central responsibilities of the presidency. He asserted that the president's obligation was to adhere to the commands of the nation's sovereign power, and any attempt to evade this duty would be a direct violation of his oath of office. Stevens considered Johnson's actions, which reflected neglect of these responsibilities, as just cause for impeachment. Therefore, Stevens firmly held that Johnson was not fulfilling his role as president and warranted removal from office.
This revision maintains your original points while integrating specific references from the quotation and providing additional context.
1 answer