Non-fiction: Order/Statement Regarding the Removal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton

Context
The order issued by President Andrew Johnson in 1867 came at the height of the post–Civil War struggle between the president and Congress over Reconstruction policy and executive authority. Congress had recently enacted the Tenure of Office Act to restrict the president's ability to remove certain officeholders without Senate consent, a measure aimed squarely at protecting Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a holdover who sided with the Radical Republicans in Congress. Johnson saw the act as an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power and as an obstacle to his own course for Reconstruction.
The clash was both personal and constitutional. Stanton had become a focal point of congressional resistance to presidential policies toward the former Confederate states and to Johnson's lenient approach to the South. By seeking Stanton's removal, Johnson intended to reassert presidential control over the executive branch and to challenge the limits Congress had set on the removal power.

Content of the Order
The order formally announced Stanton's suspension or removal from the office of Secretary of War and designated a successor to carry out the duties of the department. It asserted the president's prerogative to appoint and remove executive officers and to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. The language emphasized the need for effective administration of the War Department and placed responsibility for the department's functioning in the hands of the newly designated official.
The statement also criticized those who, in Johnson's view, obstructed the administration of government by aligning with legislative factions rather than following lawful executive direction. It framed the personnel move as necessary for the public interest and the authoritative execution of military and civil duties in the war-impacted regions.

Legal and Constitutional Claims
Johnson grounded his action on a robust theory of executive independence. He argued that the Constitution vests the executive power in the president and that the removal of executive officers is an incident of that power necessary to preserve accountability and coherent administration. The order implicitly and explicitly challenged the validity of the Tenure of Office Act by asserting that the president must retain the ability to remove subordinates who obstruct policy or performance.
That constitutional claim set the stage for a protracted legal and political dispute over separation of powers. Johnson treated the statute as an unconstitutional constraint, while opponents treated any unilateral removal as a flagrant violation of a law intended to protect legislative oversight and continuity in Reconstruction policy.

Political Reaction and Immediate Consequences
The removal order produced an immediate and volatile reaction in Washington. Congressional leaders and many Radical Republicans viewed the move as a deliberate effort to subvert Reconstruction and to place military authority under a friend of the president. Stanton resisted, remaining in his office with the backing of allied senators and taking refuge in the War Department, which escalated public confrontation and made enforcement of the order problematic.
The controversy intensified partisan tensions and became the proximate cause of the impeachment crisis that would reach its climax in 1868. By directly challenging the Tenure of Office Act and removing a high-profile cabinet member, Johnson provoked a legislative backlash that culminated in his being charged with violating federal law and usurping congressional authority.

Legacy
The order is significant less for its immediate administrative effect than for its role in a constitutional showdown over executive removal powers and congressional supremacy during Reconstruction. It crystallized debates about who controls the instruments of government during extraordinary national recovery and raised enduring questions about the balance between accountability and independence in the executive branch.
Historically, the episode contributed to the impeachment of a president and to later legal reflection on removal authority. The Tenure of Office Act itself was eventually repealed and later judicial decisions and scholarship have elaborated on the contours of presidential removal power, making the 1867 order a pivotal moment in the evolution of American constitutional practice.