An Iowan faced impeachment long before Trump and Mayorkas

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas is not the first member of a president’s cabinet to be impeached. One hundred and forty eight years ago, there was William W. Belknap. Belknap was born in upstate New York in 1829. But after graduating from Princeton, he moved to Keokuk and met future Iowa Gov. Ralph Lowe. Together, they practiced law.

In 1857, Belknap was elected to the Iowa House of Representatives, then, when the Civil War broke out, he enlisted with the 15th Iowa Infantry Regiment as a major.

The 15th trained briefly at Keokuk, then boarded steamboats to Mississippi where they marched into Tennessee and fought in the pivotal Battle of Shiloh. Belknap was wounded, but led his troops to help push the Confederate forces back to the city of Corinth.

When it was determined that the colonel for the 15th had been injured in the ruckus of Shiloh, Belknap was placed in command of the unit. Pursuing the rebel troops into Corinth, he rallied his soldiers there, and, having forced the enemy into retreat, was named provost marshal of the city, now under Union control.

He was then promoted to brigadier general and placed at the head of a Division of Infantry under the command of Gen. William T. Sherman. They marched southeast into Georgia and Belknap’s troops fought to victory at Kenesaw Mountain, and then, in the summer of 1864, rallied his units on to the outskirts at Atlanta to assist Sherman in capturing the capital of Georgia. By the end of the year, Sherman’s forces had reached Savannah, and, three months after that, Gen. Ulysses Grant received the surrender of General Robert E. Lee in Virginia.

Belknap returned to Keokuk and was named Collector of Revenue for the First District of the state. Three years later, Grant is elected President and remembers Belknap’s success at Shiloh so well, he appoints him to the position of Secretary of War in 1869.

Belknap held the position until 1876. During this time, he and his wife hosted lavish parties at their home in Washington, D.C. near affluent Georgetown. As the position of Secretary of War only pays $8,000 a year, when Democrats won the majority in the House of Representatives, they began an investigation into the finances of the secretary.

Calling in witnesses, the investigating committee found evidence that Belknap had entered into a kickback scheme that had been bringing in substantial amounts of money since his first year in office.

The allegations claimed in 1870, he had entered into agreement with one man who Belknap would name as Post Trader at Fort Sill in Oklahoma while that man awarded the duties to another man. The first would then forward $1,500 to Belknap (or his wife) every three months. This arrangement, having continued for six years, brought the Belknaps more than $24,000, or close to $700,000 by today’s standards.

On March 2, 1876, the House was set to vote on whether to refer articles of impeachment on to the Senate, but Belknap had submitted his resignation to President Grant that morning. The members of the House then questioned whether they should send charges to the Senate because it was unclear whether Congress could place a civilian on trial. The House debated the issue, and on April 5, sent the five articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The Senate, which held a slim Republican majority, along with three Independents, is, despite their party’s majority, required by the Constitution to accept the articles and hold a trial. On the day the articles are formally received, the Chief Justice of the United States swears in each member of the Senate for the proceedings.

One of the first orders of business is to issue a summons for Belknap to appear in the Senate chamber. Belknap did not respond until the last possible day, on April 17, avoiding additional charges of contempt of Congress.

When his three attorneys are asked why Belknap did not answer the summons, they responded he had no obligation to do so because he is a civilian and the Senate has no authority to put him on trial. Therefore, when asked how does their client plea, they refused to answer one way or another, so Senate members decide to interpret that as a plea of not guilty. Meanwhile, they also called for a vote on whether members believed the Senate had jurisdiction to host a trial, and, only needing a simple majority, the vote was affirmative.

With that setback, some of Belknap’s associates tried another approach. Congress, historically, does not stay in Washington, D.C. during the hot summer season, so Sen. William B. Allison of Dubuque submitted a motion to delay continuing the trial until November, which, would also happen to be after the 1876 Presidential election. The Senate voted down the motion and the trial resumed.

Forty witnesses were brought to the stand, including the men with whom Belknap had allegedly entered into the illegal contract. Because the proceedings were held in what the Senators termed “secret session,” there are no transcripts of exactly what was said, but it was leaked that to satisfy her love of fashion, Mrs. Belknap had allegedly encouraged, and even collected, some of the payments.

The trial continued until Aug. 1 when it was agreed that a roll call would be made and each Senator would respond yea or nay to every one of the five articles of impeachment. They would not be allowed to debate, but could also have one minute to explain their vote or submit their explanation in writing.

After the final member was called, the results showed that 25 had voted against conviction on each of the charges. As a two-thirds majority was needed in order to convict, in the case of the United States vs. Belknap, Belknap was acquitted.

Belknap’s lawyers immediately trumpeted the results as complete exoneration. The prosecution acknowledged they did not get a conviction, but that, to them, something far more important for the future was achieved, and that was creating the legal precedent that a civilian who had been a public officer, can be impeached and placed on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors. This is a precedent which has had implications even in the second decade of the 21st century.

David V. Wendell is a Marion historian, author and special events coordinator specializing in American history.

Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com