Andrew Johnson: Part Two

Hey everyone, welcome back. 

Last week, I started exploring the life and career of the 17th president of the United States, Andrew Johnson. I ended the episode with Johnson’s ascension to the presidency in the aftermath of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. As the nation mourned the loss of the quote unquote Great Emancipator, it would be Andrew Johnson who decided the appropriate way to rebuild the nation. As I have touched on in prior episodes, Johnson’s view of reconstruction differed greatly from those sitting in Congress. These differences of opinion led to significant tensions between Congress and the White House and eventually led to the first presidential impeachment in United States history. 

So this week, I am wrapping up my coverage of President Johnson. Outside of Reconstruction, what did Johnson’s administration seek to accomplish? What prompted his impeachment? And how did he spend retirement? 

Grab your cup of coffee, peeps. Let’s do this. 

Taking the oath of office several hours after Lincoln’s death on April 15th, 1865, Andrew Johnson became the 17th President of the United States. Much like his predecessor, Johnson had no formal education and was a self-made man. And like his predecessor, the new president faced a country that was at a crossroads. The Civil War was over. In Johnson’s reading of the constitution, secession was not allowable and therefore there was no need to reconstruct the country. This interpretation drove much of Johnson’s approach to Reconstruction, which sought to readmit former states of the Confederacy into the Union as quickly as possible and with minimal conditions. This approach dismayed members of Congress who believed a much more stringent approach was required before allowing states to rejoin the Union. While there was some initial hope that President Johnson would be tougher than Lincoln, members of Congress and the public soon realized that, despite statements indicating otherwise, Johnson would not be the forceful arbiter of justice they had hoped for. In Congress’s estimation, Johnson was overly sympathetic to those formerly in rebellion and they worked against the president to implement their vision for reconstruction. 

Separate from his deteriorating relationship with Congress, President Johnson also contended with outside pressure from the prominent and vocal Black abolitionist community. In February 1866 President Johnson met with several prominent activists, including Frederick Douglass and George T. Downing who tried to convince the President to support legislation that provided Black Americans access to the franchise. In making the case for extending access to the ballot box and full equality under the law, George Downing argued that being born inside the borders of the United States, Black Americans were citizens and as such were due the same rights and protection as any other citizen. Perhaps anticipating Johnson’s support for leaving the issue to the states, Downing highlighted that the Civil War was proof enough that the Federal government could demand compliance from the states. As expected, Johnson reaffirmed his belief that voting access was a state - and not federal - issue. Johnson was patronizing and condescending in his rebuttal, indicating that to support federal legislation guaranteeing the vote for Black men would only serve to invite a race war. 

Frederick Douglass, who had mostly deferred to Downing, spoke up and politely challenged the president on some of his assumptions. Douglass tried to highlight for Johnson that failing to extend voting rights was all but inviting further interracial conflict, but the President could not be moved. This exchange only cemented what Douglass suspected since Johnson took the oath the year before: that despite his claims of being the Moses for Black Americans, the President was disinterested in elevating the lives of newly freed individuals and remained committed to ensuring the government continued to be dominated by white men. 

Shortly after their meeting, Douglass published a response to some of the President’s arguments for his opposing support for federally mandated access to the ballot box. Calling Johnson’s reasons unsound and prejudicial, Douglass took the President to task for suggesting that feelings of hostility between former slaves and poor white Southerners was an appropriate  basis for opposing African American enfranchisement and for suggesting Black Americans simply vacate the South if they were unhappy. Despite the fact that the delegation did not achieve its goal, Douglass later admitted to being happy about the meeting as it finally made plain exactly where Johnson stood on the issue of Black civil rights. Several Black activists hit the lecture circuit to voice their displeasure with president Johnson, including Frances Harper.    

Described in the newspaper the Christian Recorder as someone whose rhetorical ability outmatched Frederick Douglass, Frances Harper held nothing back in her speech titled National Salvation. Speaking in front of a crowd in January 1867 quote: “There may be some people who think within themselves that it is a little strange Andrew Johnson, after having promised the colored people that he would be their Moses, should turn around, and instead of helping them to freedom, should clasp hands with the Rebels and traitors of the country. My friends, since I have come from Tennessee, I am not surprised at the position that Andrew Johnson takes.  Do you know why it was that David was not permitted to build the temple of the Lord?  Because his hands were not clean; he was a man unfit for the work.  And so, when I have gone among some of the people of Tennessee, who have breathed their words of faith and trust, I see in Andrew Johnson a man whose hands are not clean enough to touch the hems of their garments,” end quote. 

Everywhere Johnson looked, it felt as though his actions were being derided and criticized. A man who was already incredibly insecure, the critiques only served to further anger the president and likely triggered his well established stubborn streak. The contrasting views of how to properly implement a new phase of American democracy led to several clashes between the President and Congress. As Congress voted to pass legislation guaranteeing Black Civil Rights and extending funding for the Freedmen's Bureau, Johnson asserted his authority via veto. In Johnson’s opinion, no bills could be passed until the entirety of Congress was seated. As stated in his veto message for the First Reconstruction Act in 1867, quote: “At present ten States are denied representation, and when the Fortieth Congress assembles on the 4th day of the present month sixteen States will be without a voice in the House of Representatives. This grave fact, with the important questions before us, should induce us to pause in a course of legislation which, looking solely to the attainment of political ends, fails to consider the rights it transgresses, the law which it violates, or the institutions which it imperils,” end quote.

In the same veto message, Johnson laid plain his opinion about which governing body should be deciding voting rights, writing quote: “Without pausing here to consider the policy or impolicy of Africanizing the southern part of our territory, I would simply ask the attention of Congress to that manifest, well-known, and universally acknowledged rule of constitutional law which declares that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction, authority, or power to regulate such subjects for any State. To force the right of suffrage out of the hands of the white people and into the hands of the negroes is an arbitrary violation of this principle,” end quote. 

Despite his veto, Congress remained firm in their desired approach to Reconstruction voted to overturn Johnson on 15 occasions. Johnson’s consistent opposition to Congressional attempts to extend the franchise and citizenship to Black Americans influenced their decision to draft the 14th Amendment. The President and Congress remained in a legislative tug of war, leading to an acrimonious relationship. Johnson became so frustrated with the actions of the Republican dominated Congress that he went out on a speaking tour to elect congressmen he felt would support his vision of Reconstruction. Known as the swing around the circle, Johnson traveled the country giving speech after speech to gathered crowds. The president was well known for his oratorical abilities and likely believed he would be able to make a strong case for his policies and, by extension, the congressmen he felt would best help him achieve his goals for Reconstruction. 

Unfortunately, Johnson’s frustrations got the better of him and his speeches only further alienated potential supporters and Republicans won handedly. Tired of Johnson’s obstructionist antics, Congress made moves in an attempt to curb the President’s power. This included passing the controversial, and later determined unconstitutional, Tenure of Office Act. The bill basically limited the President’s discretion in firing cabinet officials who had been previously approved by the Senate. The bill stated that the President could suspend an official during a recess of Congress, but that ultimately all approved officials were to remain their post until a successor was approved by the Senate. Johnson believed the act to be unconstitutional and attempted to veto the bill, but was again overridden by Congress. 

It would be Johnson’s challenge of the Tenure of Office Act that would prompt his impeachment. Knowing he was risking impeachment, the President first suspended, then fired his Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. While the suspension followed the law, Johnson made a point in asserting his presidential authority when he outright dismissed Stanton on February 21, 1868. Just three days later, the House of Representatives voted to impeach. 

The desire to impeach the president was not new. Members of Congress had introduced the idea of impeachment a year earlier, but failed to move beyond the House Judiciary Committee where it died in the winter of 1867. The issue for most members was the interpretation of the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. There were some who had a broad view on what exactly the phrase meant. For these members, it was not necessary for the president to commit a specific criminal act or violate an existing law in order to be impeached. Any action that brought disgrace to the office of the president was sufficient enough to bring charges. Others, however, held a very narrow view of the term and believed that the only road to impeachment was if and when the president violated the law. When they failed to come to an agreement, discussions about impeachment ended. Of course, Johnson forced the issue when he deliberately violated a law in his dismissal of Edwin Stanton, clearing the way for even the most moderate members to vote to impeach. 

The House presented eleven articles of impeachment, almost all of which were tied to Johnson’s violation of the Tenure of Office Act and therefore subscribed to the narrower view on high crimes and misdemeanors. However the house did include two articles that admonished the president for bringing disgrace to the office, appeasing members who took a broader view of what constituted an impeachable offense. But the reliance on a violation of the law likely doomed the impeachment before it began. As author and historian Fergus Bordewich observed, relying solely on the constitutionally questionable tenure of office act was quote: “hard to justify no matter how many times the Republicans tried to explain it,” end quote. 

Johnson’s trial began on March 30th and attracted hundreds of spectators to the gallery. While some may have come expecting a dramatic showdown, the arguments presented proved to be a disappointment. House managers, focused on making the best case possible on Johnson’s violation of the law, relied on heavy legal jargon while Johnson’s defense team argued that the President had not committed anything close to constituting a high crime or misdemeanor. In firing Stanton, they argued, the President was simply testing whether the Tenure of Office Act was constitutional. When it came time to make a decision, 35 Senators voted to convict, while 19 voted to acquit, leaving them one vote shy of the required two thirds to convict. Johnson was safe and, as he saw it, vindicated. So why, if members of Congress were ready for Johnson’s ousting did they fail to convict? Well, like most things in history, it’s complicated. For one, it was already Johnson’s final year in office. Many believed the President had little chance at reelection and there was a sense that it would be rather pointless to remove him with so little time left in his term. This sentiment was likely bolstered by the fact that the man who would be tapped to replace Johnson, Ohio representative Benjamin Wade - was somewhat of a pariah. He was too radical for his fellow congressmen, believing in things like voting rights for women. For his part, Johnson had sent signals that he would ease up on his obstructionist actions with regards to congressional reconstruction. Lastly, the case against Johnson was on weak ground. The law he was charged with violating was unpopular and highly questionable, leading some of the more moderate members to reconsider their votes. 

After his acquittal, Johnson briefly thought he may just have enough momentum for a second term, something he desperately wanted. As historian Annette Gordon Reed observed, quote: “although his acquittal had been a form of vindication for the rightness of his policies for Reconstruction, winning a major party’s nomination and having the voters return him to office would have been the clearest proof that he had been right all along,” end quote. There were some efforts at getting him nominated to the Democratic ticket, but those efforts went nowhere and the party put forth Horatio Seymore who would go on to lose to Republican candidate Ulysess S Grant. 

Johnson returned to Tennessee post-presidency and was greeted warmly by his fellow residents. Despite being unable to secure a nomination for president, Johnson was not quite done with politics, running for the U.S. Senate in 1869 and again for the House in 1872, both of which he lost. The former president remained locked out of political life until 1875, when the state legislature elected him to be the U.S. Senator on January 26th. Johnson served only a few months before dying from a stroke while visiting his daughter Mary on July 31st. He was 66 years old. For his burial, Johnson requested to be wrapped in an American flag, with his copy of the Constitution placed under his head. 

Johnson’s administration, though dominated by the debates over Reconstruction, accomplished a few things on the international front. He was able to normalize relations with Great Britain and his Secretary of State William Seward successfully negotiated the purchase of the territory that would become Alaska. Ultimately, however, Johnson is mostly remembered for what he did not do. He had an opportunity to bring forth a strong, interracial democracy that would further civil liberties for newly freed Americans. Instead, his racism and stubborn streak undercut much of the progress pushed by radicals in Congress. When ranked by historians, Andrew Johnson is consistently seen as one of the worst men to ever hold the office. 

And so, Andrew Johnson’s presidency stands as a cautionary tale of missed opportunities and bitter conflict. His failure to support the full civil rights of Black Americans and his constant clashes with Congress left a legacy of division and frustration. While his stubbornness may have kept him in office, it ultimately sealed his place in history as one of the most ineffective and controversial presidents. His refusal to embrace a vision of a more inclusive America prevented the nation from fully healing after the Civil War. In the end, Johnson's story reminds us that leadership, especially in times of transformation, requires both vision and the courage to change.

Thanks, peeps. I will see you next week.