In February, Congress made the historic decision to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

With immigration being one of the hottest political issues of the day, Republicans impeached the secretary on charges of being “engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with his duties…[and] has failed to faithfully uphold his oath and has instead presided over a reckless abandonment of border security and immigration enforcement.” The charges also include that he, “willfully violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by releasing illegal aliens into the interior of the United States despite the plain language of the Act.”

Personally, I am surprised that this is the first impeachment under the Republican House of Representatives. I was expecting it to happen much sooner and to a person much bigger – namely Joe Biden. Republicans have shown restraint after having their own president impeached twice and instead went after a Biden lieutenant.

Historically speaking, what is more interesting is that while we have now had four presidential impeachments, Mayorkas is only the second cabinet member to be impeached, and the first in 148 years. The first was Secretary of War William Belknap during the Grant administration and involves southwest Oklahoma. It is worth noting that neither Belknap nor any of the presidents were removed from office. Impeachment is done by the House of Representatives and simple determines if there is enough evidence to have a trial. If an official is impeached by the House then the Senate conducts a trial to determine guilt.

While recent scholarly works about President Grant, especially Ron Chernow’s 2017 New York Times bestselling book “Grant,” has helped rehabilitate his reputation, the fact remains that his tenure had its share of corruption. Grant’s presidency was in the beginning stages of what is known as the Gilded Age, a time period known for greed and corruption at every level and Belknap got caught in the fray.

Born in New York and attending college at what is now Princeton, Belknap made a name for himself as a lawyer in Iowa and entered politics as a Democrat. When the Civil War broke out, he joined the Union Army as a major. He fought in several engagements including Shilo and rose through the ranks until he reached major general. After the war he was brought into the Grant administration as Secretary of War.

During the war, soldiers bought most of their supplies from people known as sutlers. After the war these same men set up shops in Western forts and made good profits as they monopolized sales. At first, sutlers were chosen by the forts’ commanding officers. Belknap changed that practice when he took over and his department could solely license sutlers in all forts.

One of his personal hardships was satisfying his wife’s financial needs on his meager $8,000 salary. Carita Belknap had grown up in a wealthy Kentucky family and wanted to impress her follow Washingtonians. She pushed for a family friend, Caleb P. Marsh, to receive the license for the store at Fort Sill in the southwest corner of Indian Territory. The problem was the current sutler, John S. Evans, did not want to give up his lucrative position and made a bargain with Marsh and Carita that he would split the payments if allowed to retain his post.

The deal was accepted, and Carita began receiving $600 a year. While no evidence exists, there were later rumors that Belknap had similar deals with other sutlers around the west. Carita only received one payment for her part of the deal as she died of tuberculosis, but her widowed sister Amanda, who was living with the Belknaps, not only replaced Carita in the scheme but also took in her place as Belknap’s new wife.

Amanda would prove even more lavish than Carita as belle of the ball amongst the Washington D.C socialites. So much so that some began questioning how she could afford so much on her husband’s government salary. At the same time, some in the Army – most notably George Custer – began questioning the prices from sutler stores and where all the money was going. As rumors started to swirl about possible kickbacks, Democratic Congressman Hiester Clymer launched a congressional investigation. It did not take long for the investigation to lead to Marsh, who, under oath, spilled everything to Congress. Belknap tried to pin the blame on his wives and say he was unaware of their wrongdoings. But Marsh’s testimony made that impossible.

The House acted quickly in bringing articles of impeachment against Belknap, but before they could finish he turned in his resignation to President Grant, who accepted it.

In a similar light with the 2016 Congress, the 1876 Congress had to decide if they had the power to impeach an ex-official now private citizen. In both cases the answer was “yes.” The 1876 House issued five articles of impeachment including “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” The belief was Belknap should not be able to escape justice simply by resigning.

The Senate held a lengthy trial, considered all the evidence and acquitted Belknap of all charges by around 40 votes. Those who voted no tended to feel that Congress had overstepped its bounds in impeaching a private citizen. An actual investigation was also conducted by the Justice Department, but not much really happened after the Senate’s acquittal.

Though disgraced, Belknap retained his law practice after the trial and practiced in Philadelphia and Washington. He remained popular among the soldiers and active in their interests. Belknap died of a heart attack in 1890 in Washington D.C.

In some ways Belknap’s trial has more similarities to President Trump’s second impeachment hearing than Mayorkas. Mayorkas is still actively serving as Homeland Security Secretary so his hearing will have a greater effect if convicted. However, with the makeup of the Senate, there is little doubt that Mayorkas will be acquitted.

James Finck, Ph.D. is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.

With much of the turmoil in the Middle East centered around Iran, it is worth reviewing Stephen Kinzer’s 2008 book “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” to help understand the nation of Iran as well as find some possible answers.

Iran has become number one on terrorist lists and are principal backers of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. With recent drone attacks on American servicemen from Iranian-backed terrorists and the fighting in Israel, there have been calls for retaliation against Iran with some even calling for direct military action.

Kinzer wrote during a similar time when George W. Bush labeled Iran part of the “Axis of Evil.” Back then, there were calls for military action. But Kinzer’s argument against military action in 2008 may apply just as easily to the present. In “All the Shah’s Men,” Kinzer gives a brief but thorough history of modern Iran while focusing the crux of his book and America’s biggest foreign policy blunder in the 20th century — the coup that overturned Iran’s democratic government in 1952.

In his preface, The Folly of Attacking Iran, Kinzer argues against attacking Iran in 2008 and presumably also at the present. Kinzer writes, “It would turn that country’s oppressive leaders, who are now highly unpopular at home, into heroes of Islamic resistance; give them a strong incentive to launch a violent counter-campaign against  American interests around the world; greatly strengthen Iranian nationalism, Shiite irredentism, and Muslim extremism, thereby attracting countless new recruits to the cause of terror; undermine the democratic movement in Iran and destroy the prospects for political change there for at least another generation; turn the people of Iran, who are now among the most pro-American in the Middle East, into enemies of the United States; require the United States to remain deeply involved in the Persian Gulf indefinitely, forcing it to take sides in all manner of regional conflicts and thereby make a host of new enemies; enrage the Shiite-dominated government of neighboring Iraq, on which the United States is relying to calm the violence there; and quite possibly disrupt the flow of Middle East petroleum in ways that could wreak havoc on Western economies.”

While Kinzer claims average Iranians admire America, he also recognizes that every Iranian knows a part of American/Iranian history in which most Americans are unaware: the 1952 Democratic Revolution and America’s part in overturning it. The year before the very popular Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadegh became prime minister, not only was Mossadegh strong enough to take on the shah and implement democratic reforms he also took on the British who had been exploiting Iran for years. Britain had made millions from Iranian oil while the Iranians remained in poverty.  When Mossadegh took office, he made the popular decision to nationalize the oil industry and kick out the British. While most of the nation cheered him, the British were furious. They claimed the oil was theirs and took them to the International Court of Justice and the United Nations. Both venues tried to get Britain to compromise with Iran, giving the nation a more equal share in the profits and day-to-day operations. The British refused and both the UN and the World Court sided with Iran.

With their golden goose about to be lost forever, Britain’s only option was to overthrow the democratically elected government and strengthen the power of the shah. The only problem is after they were kicked out, they could not pull off the coup alone, so they turned to their American friends.

In an exceptionally written narrative, Kinzer gives the history of modern Iran and its struggle with democracy, the British, and the shah. He details the fight to achieve a constitutional government and the rise of Mossadegh, a man who finally put Iran’s interest above his own.

Most tragic was how easily the British were able to use America to do their bidding.  President Truman tried to convince the British to end their colonial practices in Iran. But once Eisenhower was elected, Ike and the Dulles brothers organized the coup. Once the British told them falsely that Mossadegh was a communist, they were in.

Tragedy compounded, according to Kinzer, because Iranians actually looked to America as their ally and a nation that would come to defend their democracy. Kinzer claims America’s betrayal set up a series of issues, some evident today. First, it allowed the shah back into Iran and for him to become more tyrannical than before the coup.

Second, since the coup was orchestrated out of the American embassy, it led directly to the Iran hostage crisis and the 1979 revolution. Revolutionaries were not going to be betrayed again. This time however the revolution was not a democratic one, but an Islamic fundamentalist one. This revolution drove Iran and America even further apart causing the U.S. to support Iraq in the war between the two nations, strengthening the power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. This only strengthened the fundamentalists who began to support world terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

Kinzer wrote, “The world has paid a heavy price for the lack of democracy in most of the Middle East. Operation Ajax taught tyrants and aspiring tyrants there that the world’s most powerful governments were willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as oppressive regimes were friendly to the West and the Western oil companies.  That helped tilt the political balance in a vast region away from freedom and towards dictatorship.”

With the world mourning the violence in Israel, it is difficult to not ask questions. What if America would have supported a democratic Iran instead of destroying it? Would a democratic, secular Iran fund an organization like Hamas? And without Hamas and Hezbollah, could it be easier for Israelis and Palestinians to find peaceful reconciliation?

What’s done is done, and we can’t go back and fix our mistakes. However, we can learn from them while also understanding more about Iran’s interesting and complicated history. To understand the situation in Iran and even plot a possible course moving forward, Kinzer’s book is definitely worth a read.

James Finck, Ph.D. is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.

During his Valley Forge speech earlier this month, where he stated this election is about whether democracy would survive, President Joe Biden asked, “Is democracy still America’s sacred cause?”

Biden believes former president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump wants to end democracy while his campaign aims to preserve it. Now, Biden may be calling for democracy, but Trump is currently removed from primary ballots of Colorado and Maine. Even more, Democrats have blocked members of their own party from challenging the president in some primaries.

Holding primaries and challenging a sitting president are uncommon. Historically speaking, there have been four eligible presidents who were not renominated, the last of which being in LBJ in 1968.

Normally, incumbent presidents are not challenged and many states declare them winners without holding primaries. Yet, recent times are far from normal. Trump has several pending court cases. And, on the Democratic side, according to ABC News, Biden has the lowest approval ratings (about 33%) in the past 15 years. With numbers like this, it seems only right that other Democrats challenge Biden for the presidency.

In at least eight Democratic state primaries, one or more candidates challenging Biden are missing from the ballot. Currently, the two leading Democratic challengers, Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson, author and founder of Project Angel Food, are missing from the ballot. Earlier Robert Kennedy Jr. threw his hat in the ring but when it was rejected, he decided to run as an Independent.

It is difficult to call anyone a contender as Democrats have not held debates, and states are ignoring candidates on their primary ballots. Even if the Democratic Party allows these challengers to run, they will face an uphill battle, but not an impossible one.

In several articles, I have said that the political craziness of 1968 is very similar to our own. When it comes to challenging a sitting president, once again, this comparison holds true.
In 1968, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson was preparing for a second run (it would be his third term as he completed John F. Kennedy’s term after his assassination, but by law a president can serve for 10 years.)

Like Biden, LBJ’s approval ratings were incredibly low, under 40%. Johnson’s biggest issue had been the war in Vietnam, which he claimed America was winning. However, 1968 began with the Tet Offensive which killed more than 2,600 American soldiers. Because of Johnson’s handling of the war, the student movement (student activists aiming to promote political, environmental or social change) began calling for Robert Kennedy, the younger brother of slain President John F. Kennedy, to challenge Johnson in the primaries.

Johnson and Robert Kennedy were famous political rivals. Kennedy wanted to replace Johnson and change his policies. Not knowing if he could win, and worried that an attempt might not only hurt his future chances but also divide the Democratic Party, Kennedy refused to run.
The student movement found another champion in U.S. Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who was critical of Johnson and his war policies. McCarthy did not believe the nation could survive four more years under the Johnson administration.

Knowing the odds were against him, students still rallied behind McCarthy. Many cut their hair and put on nice clothes to “Get Clean for Gene” and canvased neighborhoods. As always, the first primary was held in New Hampshire. To everyone’s surprise, McCarthy came in a close second, Johnson 49% to McCarthy’s 41%.

With blood in the water, Robert Kennedy also decided to challenge Johnson. On March 16, Kennedy threw his hat into the ring.

To the surprise of Kennedy, McCarthy and the nation, Johnson announced on March 31 that for the good of the nation in a time of crisis he would no longer seek the nomination of his party.
For only the fourth time in our nation’s history, a sitting president would not be renominated, opening the door for Kennedy. Yet, McCarthy had a head start and many of the students had already committed to him. It would take until May 7 for Kennedy to win his first primary in Indiana.

Kennedy and McCarthy went back and forth winning states, neither gaining a clear advantage. They also had to face a new challenger in Hubert Humphrey, Johnson’s vice president, who took up Johnson’s fight after he left the race. The Democratic Party was clearly split as the more liberal wing and students fought between McCarthy and Kennedy and the moderate Democrats supported Humphrey.

It went that way until the California Primary on June 2. After Kennedy’s win, he, too, was assassinated. Once again, the nation was in crisis as a second Kennedy had been shot down. As the nation mourned, McCarthy suspended his campaign for a while, opening the door for Humphrey.

I have often heard that if Kennedy had not been shot, he would have won the primary and beaten Nixon. I am not as convinced. The primaries were about to head south where Kennedy was not as popular. We will never know as Kennedy died in California and Humphrey was able to capture the nomination at the Chicago convention only to lose to Nixon in the general election. While this election was marred with tragedy, it did demonstrate the democratic process in action.

It is rare to challenge a sitting president, but under the right circumstances it may be necessary. While Johnson was not happy with the outcome, at least the challengers were allowed to stand up and say there can be a different path. Yet, in our current election, instead of a candidate, democracy may be what’s assassinated.

James Finck is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.