American History

The seventeenth President of the United States ruled over a controversial period that followed the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The man who assumed office was the then Vice President Andrew Johnson. Faced with the challenges of Reconstruction policies and the unfriendly Congress mostly emanating from the radical elements of his own Party, Johnson got involved in controversial activities that led to his impeachment which he narrowly survived by a margin of a single vote. Many people have written about Johnsons Presidency some biased others not and developed different historiography analysis of the same individual.

Andrew Johnson got the presidency of the United States after the untimely demise of President Abraham Lincoln as the 17th President of the United States. Johnson was born in Raleigh North Carolina but little is known about his formative life. He ventured into politics starting with being elected as a city alderman in his hometown. Johnsons political career climaxed in 1865 upon the assassination of President Lincoln in which case he was to assume the Presidency in accordance with the federal constitution as he was the Vice President (Net Industries and its Licensors, 2010). His tenure as the President of the United States was controversial and he survived two impeachment attempts having gone down the history books as the first ever sitting President to undergo an impeachment trial. Many historians have written about the events that surrounded his presidency in their own passion and this paper is going to critically look at how the work of James McPherson presented the historiography of the embattled President.

McPhersons Presentation of Andrew Johnson
McPherson presents Andrew Johnson in the fairest manner possible as he seems not to be guided by personal prejudices. Johnson is seen as looking for desperate measures by forming the National Union Executive Committee that turned out to be a failure. The committee was expected to mobilize support for Johnsons policies especially amongst the Northerners. The president had lost favor among the fellow Republicans especially the radicals and depended on the conservatives and a few moderates for his support. He also hoped to win the support of the Democrats. The planned National Union Executive Committee was disastrous as it failed to win support from the Republicans but instead uniting them against the President. He was only left with Democrats to bank on from the North. His National Union Movement was promising but later failed due to various weaknesses (McPherson, 2001).

The first weakness was to be found in the domination of the movement by the Democrats as they still held fresh memories of the war and could not fully trust the Republicans. The second weakness of the Movement was that it was hyperbolic at its assertion that the Southern States were more prompt and obedient to the constitution than any other part of the country. This was propaganda meant to exploit the events in the south for political mileage by the Republicans. Reality on the ground was characterized by increasing acts of violence directed towards the freedmen and unionists. The last reason for the failure of the Movement is said to be Johnson himself. According to McPherson, Andrew Johnson was one of the best stump speakers in his home state of Tennessee. McPherson says that the president thought that he could replicate that at the national level against the advice of his allies. The President set out on a campaign trail around the country where he was subjected to public ridicule and that his speech was rarely varying. The reaction from the public indicated that Johnson had lost grip of the electorate following the sweeping victory that ensured that Republicans dominated both Houses by a big margin that could override any veto by the President.

McPherson presents a case in which President Johnson is depicted as stubborn and going against the grain of fellow Republicans who put him in office. Johnson was determined to pursue his agenda despite spirited efforts from the radicals from his Party. In 1886, a rift between the Republicans in the Congress and the President widened due to the stubborn nature of the president to carry out his policies despite his vetoes being overridden by the Congress. This made the radicals opt for an impeachment of the President. Johnson was unmoved even with the passage of the two Military Reconstruction Acts against his vetoes. The first impeachment was spearheaded by the radicals from his Party though the moderates did not support such a move. The Judiciary Committee that was mandated to conduct an investigation into the matter was dominated by the moderates and Johnson was not subjected to an impeachment but warned to execute the laws as demanded of him. It is believed that though the President had vowed to carry out the Reconstruction policies, he believed that they were unconstitutional and therefore he had to weaken them through executive interpretations (McPherson, 2001).

His first target was the army in which case he called for a legal ruling from the Attorney General Henry Stanberry. In June of 1867, the Attorney General made a ruling which reflected the narrowest possible interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts. This did not go down well with the military officials with many military officers including Stanton and Grant leading the protests. Congress was perturbed by the Stanberrys ruling and had to reassemble in July in an effort to plug loopholes exploited by the President. A third Military Reconstruction Act was passed amid Johnsons veto declaring the provisional administrations in the South as inferior to the military rule. The radicals had found a ground to launch a second attempt to impeach Johnson though the moderates were still skeptical. The Secretary of War, Stanton was the first casualty as Johnson was determined to clean his cabinet of stooges who did not support his course. Though he could not do this as he needed Senate approval and was also prevented by the Tenure of Office Act, Johnson waited for the adjournment of the Senate to suspend Stanton and appointed General Grant on an interim basis. Johnson also replaced Sheridan and General Daniel Sickles as the commanders of Louisiana-Texas district and Carolina district respectively. This was done against the advice of the interim Secretary of War. This infuriated many and impeachment was in the air. Lucky for the President, the elections that followed in 1867 saw the democrats gain at the expense of radical Republicans and an impeachment resolution was voted down in the House in December 7th of the same year (McPherson, 2001).

The Senate overruled the suspension of the Secretary of War and thus Stanton was reinstated. Seemingly defeated, Johnson wanted to challenge the Senate head on especially on the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act. He removed Grant from office and nominated Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas to hold the office on an interim basis. The Republican Senators urged Stanton to disobey the order and this violation of the Tenure of Office Act changed the minds of many moderates. This was followed by an impeachment of the President on February 24th 1868. The committee of prosecutors among them the most radical Republicans was formed and came up with several accusations against the president. The impeachment was the culmination of the power struggles between the Congress and the Executive which could be traced way back to Lincolns administration. It was also meant to settle the political scores between the President and the Republican Congressmen for Johnson had defied the reconstruction policies though this was not among the charges brought up against the President (McPherson, 2001).

Some moderates were however uncertain about the impacts of the impeachment on the American institutions and thought that such a move could negatively impact on the constitutional balance of power. Others feared radical Benjamin Wade who was set to assume office in case of the impeachment. During the trial, Johnson carried himself out with dignity and restraint. He discreetly negotiated with moderate Senators and appointed General John M. Schofield as Secretary of War. He carried out his promises of carrying out the Reconstruction Acts and restrained from issuing speeches that denounced the Congress. When the vote for impeachment was conducted, Johnson was acquitted thanks to a single vote deficit to gain a two third majority for impeachment. The senate voted 35-19 in favor of the impeachment failing to get the mandatory two thirds by only one vote (McPherson, 2001).

Primary and secondary source materials used by McPherson in analysis of Andrew Johnson
McPherson used various primary and secondary sources in writing up the historiography of President Johnson. His primary sources included quotations from eyewitnesses who were both politicians and Senators during the reign of Johnson. He also quotes various individuals who were concerned by the political developments that were unfolding. He also used House Reports in the development of his analysis. His secondary source included observations from other writers which includes various books and newspapers accounts. He consulted books by James K. Hogue entitled Uncivil War Five New Orleans Street Battles and the Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction Michael Les Benedict entitled The Impeachment and Trials of Andrew Johnson William L. Richter entitled Longstreet From Rebel to Scalawag David Donald entitled The Politics of Reconstruction 1863-1867 and many more books. He also referred to the New York Tribune and the Grant papers as secondary sources (McPherson, 2001).

McPherson presented the information that was obtained either from the primary or secondary sources to reflect the unbiased analysis of the original message. His excerpts in particular were well suited to reflect on the situation as presented in the historiography. The information is therefore presented in the original form and no distortion of the message occurred. He used information from primary sources such as the radicals and the embattled Secretary of War Stanton. Statements from the radicals and the specific officers that were appointed to various positions contributed to the primary source used by McPherson in his historiography. The secondary sources include the various books and magazine articles that were used to compile some parts of the historiography (McPherson, 2001).

William R. Longs position on Andrew Johnson
William Long takes a different look on the issue as depicted in his historiography of Andrew Johnson. William is biased and lenient towards Johnson in his presentation. According to William, there is no perfect man that could have filled the large political void that had been left by Lincoln. He gives examples in which he presents the notion that it is difficult to fill the void left by a highly reputable man be it in the corporate world or business. He concludes that any other person that could have been left to assume power after the assassination of Lincoln was doomed to fail anyway. He defends Johnson in his mistake as he was just but an interim Office holder as the nation awaited for election time to elect an able leader (Long, 2009).

William argues that though Johnson was not Lincoln, he tried to carry out his policies especially with regard to pardons and amnesty. He was baited by the radicals in his party who passed restrictive laws including the Military Reconstruction Acts and the Tenure of Office Act. The Tenure of Office in particular was unconstitutional and prohibited the President from firing cabinet members unless approved by the Senate. This Act was responsible for Johnsons impeachment but was later to be nullified in 1920s due to its unconstitutionality. William observes that no one could have managed to survive the political realities of the time.  According to William

If he tried to sympathize completely with the Radicals, he would have brought a South back into the country that was so resentful that it might have led to a second Civil War. If he had bent over further to the South, he would have been impeached more quickly. He did a fair job in an impossible environment. And, his personality was a lightning rod for criticism (Long, 2009, para 8).

David O. Stewarts position on Andrew Johnson
Stewart is of a different opinion regarding the Presidency of Andrew Johnson. He emphasizes on the violence that was experienced in the South after the Civil War. Freedmen and Unionists were subjected to violence by the infamous Ku Klux Klan and other violent organizations. This contributed to the stagnation of Reconstruction and Stewart adds that Johnson was also to blame. His unilateral decision to approve new southern state governments that were administered by earlier confederates and vetoes that obstructed the Reconstruction Acts were conspicuous. Johnson also appointed military officials in the South who were not capable of pursuing their duties with zeal (Stewart, 2009).

There was a departure in regard to what Johnson believed in and what the fellow Republicans cherished. Johnson was for the rights of the states whereas the Republicans felt that they were loosing whatever gains they had made during the Civil War. The radicals in the Senate were infuriated and conducted articles of impeachment for three times with the first two occasions failing to go through. The radicals had to wait until Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without the Senates approval. Stewart presents an argument that elucidates the genuine cause of the impeachment. Stewart goes further to reveal that there was underground corrupt bargaining that saved Johnsons tenure by a single vote. He has no regrets in supporting the impeachment of Johnson who he considers as an unfortunate President and credits Senate prosecutors for their effort to follow the ideals of the Civil War and what Lincoln stood for (Stewart, 2009).

Conclusion
The historiography of Andrew Johnson has been approached differently by the various historians. Some have been biased in one way or the other and have taken a position on the matter instead of presenting the matter as it is without prejudices. McPherson for instance has presented a fair analysis of the Presidency of Johnson which reflects the developments that accompanied his presidency. The position taken by William R. Long was sympathetic to Johnson as he argues that any individual who could have taken the hot seat was destined to fail due to the prevailing conditions of the time. On the other hand, David O. Stewart is unsympathetic of the President and backs the impeachment. The last two individuals were prejudicial in the analysis of their source materials and wanted to use their emotional appeal to win support of their readers. On the contrary, McPherson presents a sober approach to the matter and fairly uses sources in analyzing Johnson without prejudicial andor stereotypical connotations.