Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

President Trump, take heart: Impeachment is better than exile

President Trump, take heart: Impeachment is better than exile

"The punishments any society creates for those it deems dangerous reflect its core values," argues Peter C. Mancall.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Mancall is a professor of the Humanities at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

When the framers of the Constitution created the process for Congress to impeach "all civil officers of the United States," they rejected a much more severe punishment practiced in early America: exile.

That threat was real in the early colonial period. In 17th-century New England, Puritan authorities banished individuals who challenged their rule. Those who challenged orthodox religious teaching or the administration of the colonies found themselves sent to other colonies or, on occasion, to England.

Three cases – the lay minister Anne Hutchinson, Rhode Island founder Roger Williams and the thrice-exiled lawyer Thomas Morton – reveal that the founders understood the difference between actions that posed a threat to the state and those that required less severe punishment, even when the crimes had been committed by those holding high political office.


As the author of a new study of the formative years of New England and a historian with a longtime interest in the ideas that shaped the Revolution, I am keenly aware of the fact that the founders studied history, including their colonial predecessors. Their views of the past shaped the contents of the United States Constitution.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The founders had a particular interest in the history of systems of representative government. They paid careful attention to ancient Rome, seeing it as the most famous example of the collapse of a republic. They knew that they needed protections from would-be tyrants, who would always be waiting for an opportunity to strike.

One way to reduce that possibility was to build in a way to remove a president who committed what they called "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

But what should happen to someone who was impeached?

The punishments any society creates for those it deems dangerous reflect its core values.

In times of war and revolution, governments might choose to kill domestic enemies, as happened when the English executed King Charles I for high treason in 1649 and during the Terror in France in the 1790s, when revolutionaries executed King Louis XVI and thousands of others in their efforts to sustain their rebellion.

In colonial New England, where there was no separation of church and state, authorities saw threats from those who departed from acceptable Puritan values. They established rules for who could be a full member of a church and held to strict ideas about how individuals described experiences of saving grace. They knew that their communities, outnumbered by indigenous neighbors and persecuted for their religious beliefs in England, were precarious.

Soon after the founding of the colonies of Plymouth in 1620 and Massachusetts Bay a decade later, Puritan leaders confronted problems posed by Williams and Hutchinson.

Williams held dissenting ideas about how a church should be constituted and criticized the administration of the colony. Hutchinson spoke about her religious convictions in ways that convinced authorities she was an antinomian, someone who believed she received direct revelation from God. That was an idea authorities deemed theologically – and thus politically – dangerous.

The colony's leaders decided that both posed an existential threat to the proper working of the community and banished them.

Williams went to Narragansett Bay in 1635, where he founded the colony of Rhode Island, which became famous for its tolerance of religious diversity. He became an advocate for the separation of church and state. Hutchinson followed Williams in 1637, but eventually left for New Netherland, where she died in a conflict known as Keift's War in 1643.

Morton, a would-be fur trader, danced around a Maypole – an act the Pilgrim fathers deemed sinful. He also sold guns to his indigenous trade partners.

Plymouth's leaders arrested him and placed him on a ship bound for England, confident he would be jailed for his actions. But Morton never went to prison.

Instead, the next year, he returned to New England, but went to the just-founded colony of Massachusetts instead of returning to Plymouth. Soon he challenged the legitimacy of the new government's policies, which he believed did not respect the authority of the English king.

In response, colonial leaders exiled him to England. A decade later he returned yet again, only to be banished a third time when local authorities learned he and others had tried to have the Massachusetts charter revoked.

During his exile, Morton also published a book that ridiculed the Puritans and accused them of violating acceptable Anglican religious practices. A copy of the book had crossed the Atlantic before Morton's final return.

Infuriated by what they read, Massachusetts authorities imprisoned Morton. Morton by then was, as Governor John Winthrop put it, "old and crazy." They could not fine him because he had no money. They decided to exile him again, this time to modern Maine, territory which was part of Massachusetts where few colonists had gone.

Morton died there, likely in 1646, "poor and despised," according to Winthrop.

The actions of Williams, Hutchinson and Morton demanded banishment because each, in his or her own way, undermined the continuing existence of their communities.

Federal office holders who break the law, even in ways that undermine the United States Constitution, need a different kind of sentence: losing office and potentially being prevented from holding another. That was, and remains, a serious penalty.

But the founders believed that the country could withstand the continued presence of an impeached office holder.

We may debate the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," but the founders understood that those found guilty of such crimes did not need to be exiled.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


The Conversation

Read More

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
red and white x sign

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

On Friday, March 21, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) related to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging the purchase of Tesla stock on March 19th.

CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

The U.S. White House.

Getty Images, Caroline Purser

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

Presidential Immunity: History and Background

Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Trump 2.0: Navigating the New Political Landscape

With Trump’s return to the White House, we once again bear daily witness to a spectacle that could be described as entertaining, were it only a TV series. But Trump’s unprecedented assault on our democratic norms and institutions is not only very real but represents the gravest peril our democratic republic has confronted in the last 80 years.

Trump’s gradual consolidation of power and authoritarian proclivities, reminiscent of an earlier era, are very frightening on their own account. But it is his uncanny ability to control the narrative that empowers him to shred our nation’s fabric while proceeding with impunity. His actions not only threaten the very republic that he now leads but overturn the entire post-WWII world order, which is now in chaos. Trump has ostensibly cast aside the governing principle with the U.N. Charter of Sovereignty. By suggesting on multiple occasions that the U.S. will “get Greenland one way or another,” and that Canada might become our 51st state, our neighbor to the north is now developing plans to protect itself from what it views as the enemy across the border.

Keep ReadingShow less
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

A speakerphone locked in a cage.

Getty Images, J Studios

Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.

The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”

Keep ReadingShow less