Looking Again at President Andrew Johnson (Plus His Views On Catholics)

American Catholic has a very interesting post at President What’s His Name that deals with Andrew Johnton. Often viewed by many as America's worst President. I think it gives a very well balanced view.

First the Catholic angle that is mentioned. It is is of some interest that men who rose to power in both the North and South fought the Anti Catholic Know Knowing party. Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were strong opponents of it. The Vice President of the " Confederate States" Alexander Stephens also fought against the Know Knowings and like Davis was educated in Catholic Schools. In a bit of irony because some of his family converted to the Catholic faith his nephew , Jesuit Father John Salter, is buried right next to fellow Jesuit Priest Rev Thomas Ewing Sherman (son of General Sherman) in Grand Couteau Louisiana.

We now complete the circle with Andrew Johnson and find that upper leadership of both the North and South were very Catholic Friendly

Throughout his career Johnson was friendly to Catholics. In Tennessee he fought relentlessly against the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings and championed religious tolerance. While in the White House he often worshiped at Saint Patrick’s, admiring the Catholic liturgy and the fact that no special pews were set aside for the rich, as was common in many Protestant churches at the time, and that the rich and the poor sat together.

The post goes on to examine Johnson and I think he it is very well balanced. One problem with Johnston is that to examine him one must enter the messy business of Reconstruction.There are huge myths about Reconstruction that the public has that are promoted by the partisans on all sides and regions. Reconstruction was a tad more complex an issue than the popular history gives us.

In end I think it is clear that Johnson was no Lincoln which is sad. There are points in the Reconstruction period where as to race relations in the South one feels it could have gone the other way. That perhaps a common sense approach by all sides might just might have made the agony and evil of the Jim Crow years a non event.

A dissenting view on Andrew Johnson can be found at Dissenting Justice at his post Get a Grip People: Bush Is not the Worst President in U.S. History . A pretty harsh appraisal. Among his complaints

* Johnson explicitly encouraged the State of Mississippi to prevent blacks from voting. Negotiating the state's return to the Union, Johnson encouraged the governor to extend voting rights to those "persons of color" who could "read the Constitution . . . in English and write their names . . . [and] who own[ed] real estate valued at not less than two hundred and fifty dollars." Johnson said that if the state took this action, "the radicals, who are wild upon negro franchise, will be completely foiled in their attempt to keep the southern states from renewing their relations to the Union. . .

and

* Johnson vetoed legislation permitting blacks in the District of Columbia to vote, arguing:
Where a people . . . speak . . . through the. . . ballot box, it must be carefully guarded against the control of those who are corrupt in principle and enemies of free institutions . . . [I]n admitting . . . a new class of voters not qualified for the exercise of the elective franchise we weaken our system of government instead of adding to its strength and durability.

It might sound horrible to today's ears but wonders if a more gradual approach to Black Enfranchisement might have resulted in much better results for all involved including African Americans.

This was noted in the wonderful book Gerstäcker's Louisiana Fiction and Travel Sketches from Antebellum Times through Reconstruction . This amazing German Traveler was very anti Slavery. He saw the pre Civil days and the post Civil wars days. On his return to the devastated South he remarked that the immediate suffrage of all southern Blacks was becoming a unqualified disaster on many levels.

One wonders if a more balanced policy tinkering with the timeline of giving full suffrage back to ex Confederates and the gradual giving of suffrage to former Slaves would have worked. It is not widely known but former Confederates and former Black Union Solders often worked together in some militias to maintain order. The problem was they were not funded too well and not expanded. There were opportunities not taken advantage of.

In my native State of Louisiana one wonders of the possibilities. In Louisiana because of it's Catholic nature there was a much more educated class of African Americans. This extended to some Slaves but many former people of "Free Color". Also Louisiana contributed more black soldiers to the Union cause than any other State. Over 25,000!!! In fact one of the largest Veterans of the Republic chapters was in Louisiana.

One is left to ponder if full rights of citizenship were given to the above groups first (People of Free Color and Former Black Union Soldiers) and a gradual extension of suffrage to former Slaves if perhaps things could have gone differently.

However the passions of the day ruled. What could have been a testing ground for the post Racial Civil War relations became one of its greatest tragedies. A tragedy that can be seen in the infamous Colfax Massacre.

One wonders if even Lincoln could have navigated this political minefield.

Update- One further thought on Johnson and Reconstructiojn Myths

Southerners often yell about military occupation of the South. In reality there was no real "military occupation". At its height there were a total of 17,000 Union troops through the South in this time period. A force wholly insufficent to do any meaningful occupation. Also the Union Army was at the same time occupied with a great number of matters out West. Thus contributing to Johnson's problems.