We all walk in the footsteps of those who came before us. We acknowledge this colloquially when we talk about someone having “big shoes to fill” when they take on a position held by someone previously considered a giant in their field. This phrase seems uniquely applicable to whomever holds the 6th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, because that occupant will forever — at least in the memory of those living — be measured against the service of the late U.S. Rep. Caldwell Butler, a Republican from Roanoke.

Butler, of course, is remembered for his willingness to risk his political career to vote for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in 1974. What fewer remember — but should — is Butler’s comportment in the months leading up to that fateful vote.

We all know about Butler’s eventual vote, but we looked back through The Roanoke Times archives to see how Butler conducted himself beforehand. What we found may surprise readers today. “He refuses to answer questions on the president’s involvement and how his view of the president has changed, if at all,” the newspaper reported at the time. Butler certainly didn’t engage in any silly stunts designed to make headlines. Instead, he studiously avoided saying much of anything as the impeachment inquiry was underway, apparently believing the republic was best served by quiet deliberation and not partisan histrionics.

Keep in mind that, politically, Butler was very much a pro-Nixon congressman. In the 1972 election, the 6th District had voted more strongly for Nixon (72.7%) than any other congressional district in the state. And Congressional Quarterly found that on key votes, Butler backed Nixon 80% of the time — more often than any other Virginia representative at the time. Butler also was very much a skeptic of impeachment. However, he also felt his constitutional duty required him to take things seriously. Through the inquiry, Butler consistently voted in favor of issuing subpoenas for more documents from the White House — something other Republicans at the time were usually against. The first time the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena the White House, Butler was the only Republican to vote in favor. Another time he surprised Democrats and Republicans alike by proposing language that would strengthen a particular subpoena.

Butler told The Roanoke Times: “My feeling has always been that extensive investigation is in the best interest of the innocent.” And at the time, he apparently believed Nixon was innocent. Yet he also warned the White House that defying the subpoenas “runs the risk of a confrontation with the Congress. And that can of itself be an impeachable offense.” This was in line with the view that Congress is a co-equal branch of government that the founders expected to act independently of the executive.

Journalists at the time were keen to get Butler to say something. That year — 1974 — was an election year. Would Butler like Nixon to campaign for him, he was asked. The otherwise partisan Butler was so committed to appearing nonpartisan that he gave a surprising answer: “That question doesn’t bother me a bit. Anybody that has the president of the United States to come campaign for him has a real plus for him and I’d welcome him to my district.” Then Butler added: “But having said that, I do think it would be inappropriate for a member of the Judiciary Committee to ask him. So for that reason, I would not invite him.” Butler took a legalistic view — that he should recuse himself politically while the inquiry was underway. As spring 1974 wore on, Butler sometimes criticized Democrats for how they ran the committee — but also criticized Nixon for not being more forthcoming. He said he was “disappointed the White House is taking a hard line” against releasing information, saying it was the duty of Congress “to ferret out the facts.”

When the committee privately listened to some of Nixon’s infamous tapes, Butler pointedly refused to say what he thought. Butler did offer one opinion, though. That summer, he stood before a Republican convention that nominated him for re-election and declared that “I cannot hide my disappointment at the failure of the president to accept the challenges of the Watergate disclosures by a prompt release of required information and total cooperation in all prosecution.” He also was apparently cheered by fellow Republicans.

Eventually, of course, Butler came to his famous conclusion. We pose this question: Would we be better off if we had more members of Congress today willing to act the way Butler did in 1974 — calm, dispassionate, focused on trying to “ferret out the facts,” even if they wind up being detrimental to their particular party? Ideally, that question answers itself.

—Adapted from The Roanoke Times

Load comments

You must be a full digital subscriber to read this article. You must be a digital subscriber to view this article.

Your sports-only digital subscription does not include access to this section.

SALE!
Only $3 for 3 Months
Unlimited Digital Access

  • Unlimited access to every article, video and piece of online content
  • Exclusive, locally-focused reporting
  • News delivered straight to your inbox via e-newsletters
  • Includes digital delivery of daily e-edition via email
SALE!
Only $3 for 3 Months
Unlimited Digital Access

  • Unlimited access to every article, video and piece of online content
  • Exclusive, locally-focused reporting
  • News delivered straight to your inbox via e-newsletters
  • Includes digital delivery of daily e-edition via email