Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

President Trump, take heart: Impeachment is better than exile

Opinion

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.

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

Protestors holding flags that read, "Trump 2020," and recording on their phones inside the U.S. Capitol.

A pro-Trump mob enters the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Congress held a joint session today to ratify President-elect Joe Biden's 306-232 Electoral College win over President Donald Trump.

Win McNamee / Getty Images

MAGA’s Get Out of Jail Free Card

We have never lived through a better era to be a criminal, provided your political fealty is directed toward the right person. If you are an executive facing fraud charges or a perpetrator of violent offenses, the standard calculations of the penal code may no longer apply as long as you support Donald Trump. If you’re Team Trump, the machinery of the state will actively dismantle itself to protect you. If not, good luck to you.

The Trump regime’s message is now unmistakable: rules do not apply to MAGA. Consider the recent saga of the U.S. Army pilots who took two AH-64 Apache attack helicopters on an unauthorized detour to perform a low-altitude flyby of washed-up rocker and MAGA ally Kid Rock’s Nashville home. As a former military helicopter pilot and aircraft commander, let me be clear: this is exactly the kind of stunt we are taught never to do. If I had pulled something like that, there would have been legitimate grounds to take my wings away. Instead, when the Army suspended the crew pending a standard safety and regulatory review, as is the proper procedure, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth intervened personally, bypassing standard military discipline to announce on X: “Thank you @KidRock. @USArmy pilots suspension LIFTED. No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.” Their rule breaking was catalogued as patriotic.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democracy Awards Honor Bipartisan Excellence in Congressional Service
white concrete building under cloudy sky during daytime

Democracy Awards Honor Bipartisan Excellence in Congressional Service

Now in their ninth year, the Democracy Awards are the Congressional Management Foundation’s (CMF) flagship program recognizing excellence in non-legislative achievement on Capitol Hill. Founded in 1977, CMF is the premier bipartisan 501(c)(3) foundation dedicated to strengthening the First Branch by providing Members of Congress and their staff with hands-on, actionable support and essential resources that help them govern effectively, better serve constituents, and strengthen the institution. Across seven categories, these bipartisan awards honor Members of Congress and their staff for outstanding public service and contributions to strengthening the First Branch.

Each year, following an open self-nomination season, one Democratic office and one Republican office are recognized in each award category, along with four recipients of the Chief of Staff of the Year award. Applications for the 2026 season opened in late January, and throughout the spring, CMF conducted 47 interviews across 45 congressional offices from a pool of 154 applications. Winners were selected by an independent panel in May and will be honored at both a Winner’s luncheon in June and a formal ceremony in Washington, D.C. in July. Through this process, the Democracy Awards shine a light on the exceptional work taking place on Capitol Hill that too often goes unnoticed.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Iranian regime does not fear Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a signing ceremony for the “Secure America Act” in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 10, 2026.

(Ken Cedeno/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

The Iranian regime does not fear Trump

Back in 2012, President Barack Obama issued a statement at a press conference that would change his presidency and his legacy forever.

It was a year into what would become Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s brutal and protracted war on his own people, a war that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives, empower Iran and Russia, and destabilize much of the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
Welcome to Trump’s lame duck presidency

President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2026.

(Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Welcome to Trump’s lame duck presidency

It's been a while since we saw a lame duck presidency — long enough in politics to maybe forget what one looks like.

In October 2014, President Barack Obama hit his lowest approval rating yet at 40%. The midterm elections were an absolute bloodbath for Democrats — Republicans expanded their majority in the House by 13 seats and took control of the Senate with a gain of nine seats.

Keep ReadingShow less