>>I want a clarification about a text that appears in my son's Social Civics (U.S.) textbook.
>>
>>"Senator Edmund Ross cast the deciding vote for acquittal in the Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson and thereby helped to preserve the historic powers of the Presidency."
>>
>>The question is, does anybody understand why his vote would, in any way, be more significant than that of the other 18 senators that voted for acquittal?
>
>Good point. I think all it means is his vote was the one that assured acquittal.
Same textbook: "The Senate voted 35 to 19 for his conviction, but this was one vote short of the necessary two-thirds."
Sure, in this case his vote assured acquittal. But so did any of the other 18 other Senators (unnamed) who voted for acquittal.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
