What do you think?
Rate this book
Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction
An essential work on the Civil War period, this classic of Reconstruction scholarship challenges the longstanding myth of Andrew Johnson as misunderstood statesman, revealing him as a small-minded, vindictive, and stubborn man, whose rigid determination to defy Northern majority opinion thwarted the post-war reunion of North and South.
544 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1964
1 person is currently reading
56 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 10, 2018
Thoroughly enjoyed this although I was juggling other books at the same time due to my local library hold service inundating me after a slow period.
For a Tennessean, I suppose one can approach Andrew Johnson with caution, although as someone with a decent knowledge of history my experience has been one of encountering him in surveys. Until reading several bios of Grant recently I would have to say that my take on Johnson was simply a drunkard who somehow ended up on the wrong side of Lincoln's legacy. How ironic that studying Grant changed my mind on Johnson.
Changing my mind on Johnson however, does not mean that he grew in my esteem except in that one cannot simply blame his apparent public intoxication at Lincoln's second inaugural for all that followed.
This book was published in 1960 and the author mentions that Andrew Johnson's recent biographies had made him more sympathetic to the people of the times, which I can readily see due to the opposition of the Civil Rights fight at the time. McKitrick grants Johnson "personal integrity and firm principal," but notes that he was "slandered intemperately by his fellow citizens."
I'd say that Johnson brought that slander on himself, especially on 'Swing Around the Circle' as he took a train trip across America, dragging Ulysses Grant along with him to try and validate his policies. This trip turned into a disaster because Johnson was not a traveling orator. He repeated himself in every city between Washington and Chicago. He was heckled for 'undignified language' and responded by stating 'he cared nothing for dignity.'
In Washington, Johnson would oppose the Freedman's Bureau and the Civil Rights Bill. By his own words and lack of action riots erupted across the south, Black Codes were enacted and Constitutional Amendments were not ratified.
There is a lot here and to be honest despite various Lincoln & Grant bios, Civil War books, and some other books on Reconstruction I had to hit Google or Wikipedia to get info regarding various characters that I simply had no past experience with. If I watched Lincoln (2012) now I might recognize some Congressmen and their importance or issues that I missed, and I include that miss along with the 'Team of Rivals' book I read around the same time.
So I will sum this up by saying that I enjoyed this book a great deal. I learned a lot, but I still missed at least as much. I am sticking around this era currently by reading some John C. Calhoun, back to finishing Jaffa's 'Crisis of the House Divided,' which is on Lincoln-Douglas, and thrown in due to availability at the library a new bio of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
I plan on coming back to this in the next year or two as I try to expand my knowledge of the time. I need to make lists of each states public officials and also the Federal ones of the time. Put them up on my wall and make it a part of me.
I should note that the author Eric McKitrick also has a book entitled 'The Age of Federalism,' so you can see where these rabbit holes might lead me.
To be honest there are more stories and characters around the Civil War than now, so onward.
For a Tennessean, I suppose one can approach Andrew Johnson with caution, although as someone with a decent knowledge of history my experience has been one of encountering him in surveys. Until reading several bios of Grant recently I would have to say that my take on Johnson was simply a drunkard who somehow ended up on the wrong side of Lincoln's legacy. How ironic that studying Grant changed my mind on Johnson.
Changing my mind on Johnson however, does not mean that he grew in my esteem except in that one cannot simply blame his apparent public intoxication at Lincoln's second inaugural for all that followed.
This book was published in 1960 and the author mentions that Andrew Johnson's recent biographies had made him more sympathetic to the people of the times, which I can readily see due to the opposition of the Civil Rights fight at the time. McKitrick grants Johnson "personal integrity and firm principal," but notes that he was "slandered intemperately by his fellow citizens."
I'd say that Johnson brought that slander on himself, especially on 'Swing Around the Circle' as he took a train trip across America, dragging Ulysses Grant along with him to try and validate his policies. This trip turned into a disaster because Johnson was not a traveling orator. He repeated himself in every city between Washington and Chicago. He was heckled for 'undignified language' and responded by stating 'he cared nothing for dignity.'
In Washington, Johnson would oppose the Freedman's Bureau and the Civil Rights Bill. By his own words and lack of action riots erupted across the south, Black Codes were enacted and Constitutional Amendments were not ratified.
There is a lot here and to be honest despite various Lincoln & Grant bios, Civil War books, and some other books on Reconstruction I had to hit Google or Wikipedia to get info regarding various characters that I simply had no past experience with. If I watched Lincoln (2012) now I might recognize some Congressmen and their importance or issues that I missed, and I include that miss along with the 'Team of Rivals' book I read around the same time.
So I will sum this up by saying that I enjoyed this book a great deal. I learned a lot, but I still missed at least as much. I am sticking around this era currently by reading some John C. Calhoun, back to finishing Jaffa's 'Crisis of the House Divided,' which is on Lincoln-Douglas, and thrown in due to availability at the library a new bio of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
I plan on coming back to this in the next year or two as I try to expand my knowledge of the time. I need to make lists of each states public officials and also the Federal ones of the time. Put them up on my wall and make it a part of me.
I should note that the author Eric McKitrick also has a book entitled 'The Age of Federalism,' so you can see where these rabbit holes might lead me.
To be honest there are more stories and characters around the Civil War than now, so onward.
August 8, 2014
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...
“Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction” is Eric McKitrick’s 1960 review of the Andrew Johnson presidency and America’s post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. McKitrick was a historian and a professor at Columbia University for nearly thirty years. He died in 2002 at the age of eight-two.
Surprising to most people today, Andrew Johnson was once viewed sympathetically by historians – almost like a misunderstood patriot and unwavering defender of the Constitution. McKitrick’s revolutionary book, published with America in the midst of a defining civil rights movement, re-casts Johnson as an inflexible, fractious, narrow-minded racist. The author’s treatment of Johnson is not savage or unfair, but it is unrelenting.
Although it proves to be less a biography of Johnson than a study of his impact on Reconstruction, this book is useful in understanding this now-unloved former president. McKitrick’s work is well researched, well written, detailed and convincing. But it is a scholarly work which will not appeal to a mass audience. While its central themes are readily accessible, it does not make for light reading.
The book’s best feature is its opening chapter. In these first dozen or so pages McKitrick convincingly explains the rationale for his reassessment of Johnson’s image. What is most interesting is not that the author makes his case convincingly, but that it needs to be made at all. Johnson is now entrenched at the bottom of nearly every ranking of the presidents. But just prior to publication of this book Johnson was rated only slightly below “middle of the pack.”
McKitrick’s analysis of Johnson’s personality is also intriguing and insightful. At one point McKitrick compares Johnson’s and Lincoln’s personalities side by side, observing similarities in their backgrounds and highlighting the traits which aided one in becoming a great president…while relegating the other to the presidential cellar.
Left largely (but not completely) untouched is discussion of Johnson’s years as an ambitious youth and, later, as a successful rising politician. His personal life is also largely ignored, as are his post-presidential years. And I don’t recall Johnson’s decision to return to the U.S. Senate several years after leaving the White House being mentioned at all.
Most surprising is that McKitrick relegates Johnson’s impeachment (for which he is best known) to just two-dozen pages at the end of the book. That chapter is aptly titled “Afterthought: Why Impeachment?” The decision to under-emphasize this aspect of his presidency may seem odd to the modern reader, but by that point in the book the author’s objectives have already been accomplished.
Overall, Eric McKitrick’s book is a revolutionary, dense and penetrating study. In many ways it is a co-biography of the Johnson presidency and Congress during his term in office. Strictly as a review of the Reconstruction Era (and of Johnson’s impact and influence during the period) this book is invaluable. Judged solely as a biography, however, “Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction” is powerful and enlightening but unfortunately incomplete and a bit tedious.
Overall rating: 3¼ stars
“Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction” is Eric McKitrick’s 1960 review of the Andrew Johnson presidency and America’s post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. McKitrick was a historian and a professor at Columbia University for nearly thirty years. He died in 2002 at the age of eight-two.
Surprising to most people today, Andrew Johnson was once viewed sympathetically by historians – almost like a misunderstood patriot and unwavering defender of the Constitution. McKitrick’s revolutionary book, published with America in the midst of a defining civil rights movement, re-casts Johnson as an inflexible, fractious, narrow-minded racist. The author’s treatment of Johnson is not savage or unfair, but it is unrelenting.
Although it proves to be less a biography of Johnson than a study of his impact on Reconstruction, this book is useful in understanding this now-unloved former president. McKitrick’s work is well researched, well written, detailed and convincing. But it is a scholarly work which will not appeal to a mass audience. While its central themes are readily accessible, it does not make for light reading.
The book’s best feature is its opening chapter. In these first dozen or so pages McKitrick convincingly explains the rationale for his reassessment of Johnson’s image. What is most interesting is not that the author makes his case convincingly, but that it needs to be made at all. Johnson is now entrenched at the bottom of nearly every ranking of the presidents. But just prior to publication of this book Johnson was rated only slightly below “middle of the pack.”
McKitrick’s analysis of Johnson’s personality is also intriguing and insightful. At one point McKitrick compares Johnson’s and Lincoln’s personalities side by side, observing similarities in their backgrounds and highlighting the traits which aided one in becoming a great president…while relegating the other to the presidential cellar.
Left largely (but not completely) untouched is discussion of Johnson’s years as an ambitious youth and, later, as a successful rising politician. His personal life is also largely ignored, as are his post-presidential years. And I don’t recall Johnson’s decision to return to the U.S. Senate several years after leaving the White House being mentioned at all.
Most surprising is that McKitrick relegates Johnson’s impeachment (for which he is best known) to just two-dozen pages at the end of the book. That chapter is aptly titled “Afterthought: Why Impeachment?” The decision to under-emphasize this aspect of his presidency may seem odd to the modern reader, but by that point in the book the author’s objectives have already been accomplished.
Overall, Eric McKitrick’s book is a revolutionary, dense and penetrating study. In many ways it is a co-biography of the Johnson presidency and Congress during his term in office. Strictly as a review of the Reconstruction Era (and of Johnson’s impact and influence during the period) this book is invaluable. Judged solely as a biography, however, “Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction” is powerful and enlightening but unfortunately incomplete and a bit tedious.
Overall rating: 3¼ stars
January 31, 2024
Great Read - If You've Got the Time
This book is a very good read, though it is of formidable length and you need plenty of leisure time to tackle it.
It is important, however, to keep in mind its publication date, as attitudes toward its subject have enormously changed in the interim
In 1961, when it was published, many if not most popular histories saw the 17th US President as a tragic hero, seeking the peace and reconciliation “with charity for all” that Abraham Lincoln had intended, but being brutally shoved aside by a vindictive Congress, which impeached him on trumped-up charges. I grew up on this view myself, and took quite a few years to shake it off. Today, after passing through the Civil Rights era, we have a very different perspective on him, as a racist who was only too ready to reconcile the defeated South by leaving the former slaves to the tender mercies of their former masters.
McKitrick was a pioneer of this new approach. He demonstrates only too clearly that Johnson had mostly himself to blame for his collision with Congress, which indeed was ready to work with him until surprisingly late in the day, when it became clear that his approach and theirs were incompatible, and above all when he went on his ranting tour of the country, hurling abuse at men whose only crime, in most cases, was to disagree with him on a point of policy. At one point he even seemed to be accusing his opponents of being involved in the murder of Lincoln (pure fantasy; even if some Radicals didn’t altogether regret it there isn’t the slightest suggestion that they were complicit in any way) which left some onlookers thinking that he was either drunk or mad!
Even before this, he had been antagonising them in ever-more serious ways. He had allowed Southern governors to form militias largely made of ex-Confederates, overruling Union officers on the spot when these objected. Meantime, the “loyal" governments he set up were busily passing laws which reduced the former slaves to near serfdom, allowing even white Unionists to be attacked by mobs, and electing a batch of leading Rebs (including the vice president of the Confederacy) to seats in Congress.
Whatever Johnson may have thought, his approach certainly was not the same as Lincoln’s. See Lincoln’s letter of earl 1864 to General Wadsworth -
“You desire to know in the event of our complete success in the field, The same being followed by a loyal and cheerful submission on the part of the South, if universal amnesty should not be accompanied with universal suffrage. - - - I cannot see, if universal amnesty is granted, how under the circumstances I can avoid exacting in return universal suffrage, or, at least, suffrage on the basis of intelligence and military service”
This hardly sounds as if he’d have let the South get away with what Johnson did.
From here on it was all downhill. Johnson’s opponents won a thumping victory at the midterms, and new Reconstruction laws were forced through over his veto. All he could do was obstruct their execution, which he stubbornly did until Congress lost patience and impeached him.
McKitrick concludes with the impeachment. He gives it only a relatively short chapter, but this is not unreasonable. His theme is Johnson’s impact on Reconstruction, which by May 1868 had dwindled almost to nothing. The impeachment was an epilogue, not the climax of anything. Even so, it makes a fascinating study. If the impeachers really wanted rid of Johnson, they missed lots of opportunities to do so. A simple Act of Congress (where the Republicans had a veto proof majority) could have made Grant or Seward the heir-apparent, while the Senate could even more easily have chosen another President Pro-Tem. And with practically any putative successor other than the abrasive Ben Wade, Johnson would surely have been out on his ear. Even after their failure, they had another chance a few weeks later, when seven southern states were readmitted under Republican control, bringing 14 new Senators with them. It would simply be a matter of framing a new Article of Impeachment. But though Thaddeus Stevens called for this he was pretty much ignored. His colleagues had “got it out of their system” and were no longer interested.
In retrospect, the whole business seems more like a temper tantrum than serious politics. But Johnson had been very provocative, and one can understand how it happened. And Johnson himself was no better. When the Tenure of Office Act was originally passed, he knew it was a device to keep Stanton in place. The Constitution gave him ten days to decide whether to sign the Bill or veto it, and he could have fired Stanton during that interval without raising any legal issues. But that was not what he wanted. He was looking for a fight and he got one. Perhaps he and the Radicals rather deserved each other.
Had he become president a decade earlier instead of Buchanan, his staunch Unionism would have won him praise. If a decade later, instead of Hayes, his Southern policy would have been received with acquiescence if not enthusiasm. But he fell between the two, and so doomed himself to be remembered as one of the worst US Presidents. Just goes to show. Timing is all.
This book is a very good read, though it is of formidable length and you need plenty of leisure time to tackle it.
It is important, however, to keep in mind its publication date, as attitudes toward its subject have enormously changed in the interim
In 1961, when it was published, many if not most popular histories saw the 17th US President as a tragic hero, seeking the peace and reconciliation “with charity for all” that Abraham Lincoln had intended, but being brutally shoved aside by a vindictive Congress, which impeached him on trumped-up charges. I grew up on this view myself, and took quite a few years to shake it off. Today, after passing through the Civil Rights era, we have a very different perspective on him, as a racist who was only too ready to reconcile the defeated South by leaving the former slaves to the tender mercies of their former masters.
McKitrick was a pioneer of this new approach. He demonstrates only too clearly that Johnson had mostly himself to blame for his collision with Congress, which indeed was ready to work with him until surprisingly late in the day, when it became clear that his approach and theirs were incompatible, and above all when he went on his ranting tour of the country, hurling abuse at men whose only crime, in most cases, was to disagree with him on a point of policy. At one point he even seemed to be accusing his opponents of being involved in the murder of Lincoln (pure fantasy; even if some Radicals didn’t altogether regret it there isn’t the slightest suggestion that they were complicit in any way) which left some onlookers thinking that he was either drunk or mad!
Even before this, he had been antagonising them in ever-more serious ways. He had allowed Southern governors to form militias largely made of ex-Confederates, overruling Union officers on the spot when these objected. Meantime, the “loyal" governments he set up were busily passing laws which reduced the former slaves to near serfdom, allowing even white Unionists to be attacked by mobs, and electing a batch of leading Rebs (including the vice president of the Confederacy) to seats in Congress.
Whatever Johnson may have thought, his approach certainly was not the same as Lincoln’s. See Lincoln’s letter of earl 1864 to General Wadsworth -
“You desire to know in the event of our complete success in the field, The same being followed by a loyal and cheerful submission on the part of the South, if universal amnesty should not be accompanied with universal suffrage. - - - I cannot see, if universal amnesty is granted, how under the circumstances I can avoid exacting in return universal suffrage, or, at least, suffrage on the basis of intelligence and military service”
This hardly sounds as if he’d have let the South get away with what Johnson did.
From here on it was all downhill. Johnson’s opponents won a thumping victory at the midterms, and new Reconstruction laws were forced through over his veto. All he could do was obstruct their execution, which he stubbornly did until Congress lost patience and impeached him.
McKitrick concludes with the impeachment. He gives it only a relatively short chapter, but this is not unreasonable. His theme is Johnson’s impact on Reconstruction, which by May 1868 had dwindled almost to nothing. The impeachment was an epilogue, not the climax of anything. Even so, it makes a fascinating study. If the impeachers really wanted rid of Johnson, they missed lots of opportunities to do so. A simple Act of Congress (where the Republicans had a veto proof majority) could have made Grant or Seward the heir-apparent, while the Senate could even more easily have chosen another President Pro-Tem. And with practically any putative successor other than the abrasive Ben Wade, Johnson would surely have been out on his ear. Even after their failure, they had another chance a few weeks later, when seven southern states were readmitted under Republican control, bringing 14 new Senators with them. It would simply be a matter of framing a new Article of Impeachment. But though Thaddeus Stevens called for this he was pretty much ignored. His colleagues had “got it out of their system” and were no longer interested.
In retrospect, the whole business seems more like a temper tantrum than serious politics. But Johnson had been very provocative, and one can understand how it happened. And Johnson himself was no better. When the Tenure of Office Act was originally passed, he knew it was a device to keep Stanton in place. The Constitution gave him ten days to decide whether to sign the Bill or veto it, and he could have fired Stanton during that interval without raising any legal issues. But that was not what he wanted. He was looking for a fight and he got one. Perhaps he and the Radicals rather deserved each other.
Had he become president a decade earlier instead of Buchanan, his staunch Unionism would have won him praise. If a decade later, instead of Hayes, his Southern policy would have been received with acquiescence if not enthusiasm. But he fell between the two, and so doomed himself to be remembered as one of the worst US Presidents. Just goes to show. Timing is all.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews