Andrew Johnson’s presidency during Reconstruction was defined by lenient policies, fierce conflict with Congress, and an unprecedented impeachment trial that tested constitutional limits.
Andrew Johnson: Background and Ideology
Humble Origins and Political Rise
Andrew Johnson was born in 1808 in North Carolina to a poor family. Orphaned young, he was apprenticed as a tailor and received little formal education.
He rose through local politics, earning a reputation as a champion of the common white man and a staunch Jacksonian Democrat.
Before becoming Vice President under Abraham Lincoln in 1864, Johnson served as a Tennessee senator and military governor during the Civil War.
Ideological Beliefs
Johnson’s ideology blended strong Unionism with deeply racist views. He despised the Southern planter elite but equally resisted granting rights to freed African Americans.
Unlike many Radical Republicans, he did not support racial equality or federal intervention to secure black civil rights.
His belief in state sovereignty made him hostile to policies that imposed federal authority over Southern states.
Opposition to Radical Republicans
Radical Republicans, led by figures like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, sought to transform the South through civil rights legislation and military occupation.
Johnson’s opposition stemmed from his commitment to rapid reconciliation and his conviction that Reconstruction should be controlled by the executive branch, not Congress.
This ideological clash would become the core of the political crisis during his presidency.
Johnson’s Policies: Leniency and Vetoes
Lenient Reconstruction Plans
Upon Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, Johnson inherited responsibility for Reconstruction.
He implemented a lenient approach to restoring the Southern states to the Union:
Offered pardons to most ex-Confederates who pledged loyalty.
Allowed Southern states to organise new governments with minimal federal oversight.
Did not demand significant social reforms or protections for freedmen.
Southern Response: Black Codes
Many Southern legislatures exploited Johnson’s leniency to enact Black Codes, restrictive laws designed to control the newly freed black population and maintain white supremacy.
These codes limited black mobility, restricted voting rights, and forced African Americans into exploitative labour contracts.
Vetoing Civil Rights Bills
Congress, alarmed by the Black Codes and violence against freedmen, passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, granting citizenship and equal protection to African Americans.
Johnson vetoed this Act, claiming it violated states’ rights and exceeded federal power.
Congress overrode his veto — the first time in American history that major legislation was enacted over a president’s veto.
Johnson also vetoed the extension of the Freedmen’s Bureau, which provided assistance to former slaves and poor whites. Again, Congress overrode him.
Alienating Moderate Allies
His repeated vetoes and refusal to compromise alienated not just Radical Republicans but also moderate Republicans who initially supported his presidency.
By 1866, Johnson found himself isolated, with little political support outside the Democratic Party and the South.
Conflicts with Congress and Impeachment Proceedings
Growing Tensions
By late 1866, the rift between Johnson and Congress had deepened into open hostility.
Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, which placed the South under military rule and set conditions for readmission to the Union, including ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.
Johnson opposed these measures and sought to undermine them by removing military commanders who enforced Radical Reconstruction.
The Tenure of Office Act
To limit Johnson’s power to obstruct Reconstruction, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867.
This Act prohibited the president from removing certain officeholders, including Cabinet members, without Senate approval.
Johnson’s Challenge
Johnson believed the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional.
In defiance, he attempted to dismiss Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War and a key Radical Republican ally.
Stanton refused to leave his post, barricading himself in his office, creating a dramatic standoff.
Impeachment Initiated
Johnson’s removal of Stanton was the final straw for Congress.
In February 1868, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, charging him with violating the Tenure of Office Act and abusing presidential power.
Significance of Johnson’s Impeachment
Trial in the Senate
Johnson’s impeachment was the first in U.S. history and marked a major constitutional crisis.
The trial took place in the Senate, presided over by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase.
Johnson’s defence argued that the Tenure of Office Act did not apply to Stanton, as he was appointed by Lincoln, not Johnson.
Political Stakes
Radicals hoped to remove Johnson and replace him with Benjamin Wade, the Senate president pro tempore and a staunch Radical.
Moderates feared setting a dangerous precedent for congressional overreach into executive power.
The outcome balanced the principle of separation of powers against the urgent desire to protect Reconstruction.
Narrow Survival
In May 1868, the Senate voted on whether to convict Johnson. The Constitution required a two-thirds majority.
Johnson survived by one vote — 35 senators voted guilty, 19 not guilty, falling just short of the 36 needed.
Key moderate Republicans like Edmund G. Ross cast deciding votes against conviction, arguing the charges were politically motivated.
Impact on Presidential Power
Johnson’s acquittal preserved the principle that impeachment should not be used lightly for political disagreements.
The Tenure of Office Act was later repealed and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Although he finished his term weakened and politically isolated, Johnson’s survival reinforced limits on congressional control of the presidency.
Legacy for Reconstruction
Johnson’s presidency complicated Reconstruction efforts:
His lenient approach allowed Southern resistance to civil rights to take root.
His obstruction delayed protections for freedmen and emboldened white supremacist groups.
His clash with Congress shaped the struggle over the balance of power between the branches of government during this transformative period.
Key Takeaways
Andrew Johnson’s background: working-class roots, loyal Unionist but deeply racist.
Policies: favoured rapid Southern reintegration with minimal federal requirements; opposed civil rights advances.
Conflict with Congress: vetoed major Reconstruction laws, defied the Tenure of Office Act.
Impeachment: first U.S. president to be impeached; survived removal by a single vote.
Significance: highlighted tensions between executive and legislative powers, influenced Reconstruction’s effectiveness, and left a controversial legacy.
Johnson’s presidency and impeachment remain pivotal in understanding the turbulent politics of Reconstruction and the enduring challenges of American constitutional governance.
FAQ
Andrew Johnson’s political position was deeply contradictory, which alienated him from both Southern elites and influential Northern politicians. While he was lenient towards the South in restoring their state governments and granting pardons, Southern aristocrats still resented him because, before the Civil War, he had strongly opposed the planter class and championed poor white farmers. This history of animosity meant that many Southern leaders saw him as a traitor to their social hierarchy, despite his favourable policies. Meanwhile, Northern politicians — particularly Radical Republicans — were disillusioned by his refusal to protect the rights of newly freed African Americans and his repeated vetoes of crucial Reconstruction legislation. Moderate Republicans, who might have acted as a bridge, lost patience with his stubbornness and inflammatory speeches where he publicly attacked Congress, calling them traitors. This failure to build lasting alliances left Johnson politically isolated and severely weakened his influence during a transformative period in American history.
Andrew Johnson’s public speaking style significantly worsened his already fragile relationship with Congress and the Northern public. Unlike Lincoln’s measured eloquence, Johnson’s speeches were often combative, undignified, and deeply personal in their attacks. During the infamous “Swing Around the Circle” speaking tour of 1866, intended to rally support for his Reconstruction policies, Johnson gave a series of extemporaneous and rambling speeches. He insulted his political opponents in Congress, accusing them of betraying the Union and comparing himself to Jesus Christ persecuted by his enemies. This tour backfired spectacularly; crowds heckled him, and the press widely mocked his undignified behaviour. Instead of winning moderate Republicans or Northern voters to his side, Johnson appeared unstable and unpresidential, undermining confidence in his leadership. His lack of restraint in public statements deepened distrust among political allies and provided ammunition for Radical Republicans to portray him as unfit for office, paving the way for impeachment efforts.
During Andrew Johnson’s impeachment crisis, the judiciary’s role was limited but symbolically important. The Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over presidential impeachment trials in the Senate. Accordingly, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase took on this duty during Johnson’s trial in 1868. Although Chase had political ambitions himself and was a figure of considerable stature, his main responsibility was to ensure the proceedings followed constitutional procedures rather than to influence the outcome directly. He ruled on points of order and disputes over evidence but did not cast a vote on Johnson’s guilt or innocence. The fact that the trial was conducted with judicial oversight reinforced the seriousness and legitimacy of the impeachment process, showing that it was not purely a partisan exercise. Nonetheless, ultimate authority rested with the Senate, whose members acted as both jury and judge. The judiciary’s restrained role ensured that the constitutional balance between branches was maintained during this highly charged political moment.
Andrew Johnson’s impeachment had a lasting impact on how future presidents navigated their relationships with Congress. His experience demonstrated that overt defiance of a determined Congress, especially during periods of significant political and social upheaval, could provoke severe consequences, including removal attempts. Subsequent presidents, aware of this precedent, generally exercised greater caution in directly challenging Congress’s authority, especially over appointments and dismissals within the executive branch. For example, later presidents worked to build stronger coalitions within both parties and avoided public battles that might weaken their support. The crisis also prompted future administrations to respect the limits imposed by laws like the Tenure of Office Act until it was repealed and declared unconstitutional. Overall, Johnson’s near-removal served as a cautionary tale, emphasising the importance of compromise and political alliance-building. This lesson shaped the delicate balance of power in American governance, influencing executive-legislative interactions well into the twentieth century and beyond.
Yes, Andrew Johnson did attempt to revive his political career after leaving the presidency, although he never regained national office. After his term ended in 1869, he returned to Tennessee, where he remained a polarising figure. Despite his impeachment, Johnson remained personally ambitious and eager to vindicate himself politically. He initially sought election to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives multiple times but was unsuccessful in his early attempts due to strong opposition from both Democrats and Republicans who distrusted him. However, his persistence paid off when, in 1875, he won election to the U.S. Senate, becoming the only former U.S. president to return to the Senate after serving as president. His return was short-lived; he served only a few months before dying of a stroke later that year. Johnson’s comeback symbolised his refusal to fade quietly into obscurity despite the deep controversies of his presidency, highlighting his enduring, if divisive, presence in American political life.
Practice Questions
Explain why Andrew Johnson’s approach to Reconstruction brought him into conflict with Congress.
Johnson’s lenient Reconstruction policies clashed with Congress’s determination to reshape the South. By rapidly readmitting ex-Confederate states and pardoning leaders, Johnson enabled Southern legislatures to pass restrictive Black Codes, angering Radical Republicans. His repeated vetoes of civil rights measures, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedmen’s Bureau extension, highlighted his opposition to federal protection of African Americans. Congress viewed Johnson’s actions as obstructive and contrary to their vision of equality and federal authority, leading to deepening hostility that culminated in his impeachment for violating the Tenure of Office Act.
Assess the significance of Andrew Johnson’s impeachment for the balance of power between President and Congress.
Johnson’s impeachment was significant because it tested the constitutional boundaries between executive and legislative powers. Congress impeached him for defying the Tenure of Office Act, aiming to limit presidential authority over Reconstruction. Although Johnson survived removal by one Senate vote, the trial confirmed that Congress could challenge presidential actions but set a precedent that impeachment should not be used for political disputes alone. The episode reinforced checks and balances, curtailed reckless removal of presidents for policy disagreements, and demonstrated Congress’s influence over Reconstruction, ultimately preserving the integrity of the separation of powers principle.
