U.S. President Andrew Johnson Should've Been Impeached in the Senate

I will go down the rebuttal, and then summarize points in this debate.1) The ability to read and write is a good skill, but because he didn't have a formal eduaction he didn't have as much of an education in science, and history- two key skills that a President should have to forsee America's technological potential and to see what happened in the past. Also, my opponent has listed past experience but not what he did with his experience; he could've just sat in office all day and done nothing.2) NOT all of his vetoes were overriden by congress. The Freedman's Beauru act was vetoed by him and not overriden by congress, which would've gaurenteed more rights to former slaves. If we look at the bills he vetoed, such as the civil rights bill, we can see that he essentially didn't approve. We can clearly tell he wanted to return America to what it was like before the civil war- Andrew Johnson said ""If you liberate the negro, what will be the next step? . . . It would place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, humpbacked negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man." "You can't get rid of the negro except by holding him in slavery." [Source: the documentary The American President] This is proof that he wanted to reinstitute slavery. He was a racist, as my opponent has agreed, wanted to reinstitute slavery, and was being counterproductive to the civil war.3) It didn't violate the seperation of power; the seperation of powers in America is Congress making laws, the President signs the laws into effect, and the Supreme Court interprets the laws. The president is still signing laws into effect, and congress is still making the laws. The Tenure of Office Act didn't cause Congress to take over the job of the President; it was a law designed so that, in the case that a President would attempt to become a tyrant in a power-hungry fury (As Andrew Johnson might've done without the law), the President's tyrant attempt would fail. Andrew Johnson was arguably a power-hungry president (A supremist and going against what the people wanted and only what he himself wanted) who could've potentially became a tyrant had the Tenure of Office act not been in effect. Also note that Edwin Stanton, whom Andrew Johnson fired, had worked with the supreme court in 1842 and was a supreme court justice at the end of his life. Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton knowing that the Tenure of Office Act existed. Also, Stanton happened to be anti-slavery; a potential reason why he was fired without Congress's consent. Stanton did not think that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional, and his opinion was qualified, as he was an experienced lawyer. He was one of the first to use an insanity defense, and he was appointed to the Supreme Court before he died. I will also offer another source on my accusation of bribery. In his book Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy which made several bestseller lists, David O. Stewart also accused Andrew Johnson of bribery. On his website, David Stewart states about his book- "Andrew Johnson – racist, stubborn, and deaf to the views of others – was not equal to those excruciating challenges. The Radical Republicans, led by the fiercely brilliant Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, fought for two years to force the president to defend the rights of the freedmen. Stevens’ iron will and sheer cussedness produced the final confrontation in the impeachment trial, from which no one emerged a winner. The book explores long-ignored evidence of bribery and corrupt influences in the final Senate vote. It received gratifying reviews and made several bestseller lists." This is a reliable source coming from a reliable author. Readers consider it to be beliveable as well, as it holds a 4.5/5 star rating on Amazon.com My opponent also has stated that Stanton's replacement was a much better choice- however, as I have shown some of his law experience (more can be found in my evidence of him stated below) he was very qualified and in a time when matters would be legal (as America wasn't at war), Stanton was a better choice. My opponent stated that the law "COULD be argued as unlawful". However, he hasn't shown any evidence or case law as to why it is unlawful in the last round. I have shown case law. Andrew Johnson KNEW that what he was doing was illegal, but he did it anyways.In conclusion, the main points of this debate-1) Andrew Johnson KNOWINGLY violated a law that, as I have shown with case law, is not unconstitutional2) Andrew Johnson was power hungry and was counterproductive to the civil war, knowingly going against what the nation wanted and doing what he wanted himself. He wanted to reinstitute slavery- we can obviously see that through him saying "I believe slaves should be in subordination and I will live and die so believing.".http://law2.umkc.edu...http://14thamendment.harpweek.com...;http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org...http://www.civil-war-tribute.com...;http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org...;http://www.loc.gov...;http://davidostewart.com...;http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...;Thank you, con, for debating, it has been a great debate!