>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?
His vote was not guaranteed as the others in his party were. You may find this interesting (lower part of page):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis27.htmland this:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EED91630F934A25752C0A96F958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/J/Johnson,%20AndrewIt is amazing to what lengths both sides went to in order to secure his vote on their side. That is why he is famous. His story is in the book "Profiles in Courage."
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
