Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Any input on the battle over Reconstruction policy between
Johnson and Congress during 1865-1867 the common goals if any and why the difference of between them .
I know a large part of the battle between Johnson and Congress was Johnson had vetoed more congressional bills than any President. Their battle started when he vetoed the extension to the Freedman's Bureau.
The radical Republicans initially took Andrew Johnson to be someone whose sympathies lay in their direction. Within a matter of months they discovered he was in fact their mortal enemy. The best explanation I have read for Johnson's motivations and apparent turnaround is that of Kenneth Stampp in his magnificent, short book The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877. Stammp argues that Johnson was never antislavery -- he simply hated rich aristocratic planters, and the radical Republicans understandably mistook his rantings against the Southern elite for agreement with radical reconstruction.
Then, while Congress was in recess, the southern elite trooped to the White House and humbly sought pardon and readmission from Johnson. Perhaps because of their flattery, or perhaps because he hated blacks and radical Republicans even more than he hated the southern elite, or a combination of both, Johnson relented and began readmitting unreconstructed States. When Congress reconvened, all hell broke loose.
Had Lincoln not been killed, I wonder if he, as somewhat a "hero" to the North, could have prevailed against the Rad Republicans, in the "let them down easy" policy that he wished for.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
A great unknown. Although Lincoln seemed to favor a relatively "soft" peace, he was flexible and adaptable, and there were signs that he was prepared to consider a harder position if circumstances warranted. One wonders how he would have reacted as he saw the Black Codes and other signs of southern intransigence surfacing. Professor Stampp has thoughtful observations on this topic as well.
As far as Lincoln goes, I put nothing past the man. If there was a way to make both sides think they were getting what they wanted, and in the meantime produce some compromise that was best for the country, he would have done it. He proved himself a master of such activity during all the political 'backstairs maneuvering' amongst his own Cabinet ( Stanton, Cameron, Chase) during the war years.
Had Lincoln not been killed, I wonder if he, as somewhat a "hero" to the North, could have prevailed against the Rad Republicans, in the "let them down easy" policy that he wished for.
Sam, I am rather certain that Lincoln would have the 'let em down easy' folks themselves as new allies to balance with the Radicals. When it came to balancing and dancing the political jig, noone could dance with Lincoln. He would have found a way to make it all work, as our new friend Dave has pointed out. Too bad for everyone North and South, he was, we were, deprived of the chance. regards, ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
While almost anyone would have been better than Johnson, Lincoln would have been faced with an immense challenge. Basically four million people, with little property, skills, or education, and the subject of race hatred and contempt strongest among the people they were going to be closest to, and were going to become citizens.
So instead of being inferiors, fit for only slavery, they were now to be equals, holding the power of citizenship: voting, civil rights, legal protections and so on, in a country where most whites were not prepared to help make that happen.
The war meant that race would no longer be part of the definition of citizenship. Yet the majority of the US, including Lincoln himself, couldn't shed their life long belief in white supremacy. White supremacy was the central psychological, social, economic and political tenet of most white Americans in the 19th century. At the same time, simple justice for millions of blacks, and the blood and treasure poured out to win the war meant that the federal government and its strongest supporters would push for black rights. It was a collusion of sections, of races, but also within individuals.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Reconstruction Policy Battle 
.
Johnson's veto's I would guess started the battle 
Linear Mode
