He next appointed provisional governors for the seven rebel States which had not already begun the process of restoration under the direction of Lincoln. To these governors he issued instructions that they provide for State conventions to be elected by such per sons as had taken the oath of allegiance and were otherwise quali fied to vote under the laws of the respective States. To the con ventions he suggested (one might almost say, ordered) that they embody in the State Constitutions a provision for the abolition of slavery, ratify the 13th amendment to the Federal Constitu tion, nullify the ordinances of secession and repudiate such parts of the State debts as had been contracted in support of the seces sion movement. These were essentially the same demands that Lincoln had made on the conventions in the States where he had erected loyal civil governments. All this took place during the summer and autumn of 1865 previous to the assembling of Con gress on Dec. 4.
That body was overwhelmingly Republican in complexion and most of the Republicans were inclined to take a radical view of the southern situation. It refused admission to the senators and representatives from the rebel States and provided for the crea tion of a joint committee on reconstruction. The exigencies of politics and the status of the freedmen were the crucial points in the situation. The radicals demanded that the late slaves be granted the right to vote forthwith and that a sufficient number of ex-Confederates be disfranchised to assure Republican majorities in most of the Southern States, assuming, of course, that the negroes would vote Republican out of gratitude to the party which had effected their freedom. To none of these demands would the President yield and in the course of three or four months the breach between him and the Republican Congress was wide open. Meanwhile the Southern States remained unrepresented in Con gress while the reconstruction committee conducted investiga tions into southern conditions to ascertain whether any of them were sufficiently loyal to warrant their being represented. In June, 1866, the committee reported that the rebel States were unfit for representation, but presumably would become fit should they ratify the 14th amendment which was reported at the same time. This amendment was defeated in all the late Confederate States except Tennessee. The representatives and senators from this State were forthwith admitted. Soon afterward Congress ad journed and the whole question of reconstruction was submitted to the electorate.
During the course of his contest with the radical Republicans Johnson had gradually drawn the Democrats to his side and hoped to secure the support of enough moderate Republicans to con trol the next Congress. To this end he took an active part in the campaign but it is a question whether his speeches, some of which were certainly undignified and in bad taste, did more harm than good to his cause. At any rate his hopes were dashed as the new Congress contained an even larger majority of radical Repub licans than the old. Accordingly, in 1867 Congress threw aside his work of restoration and proceeded with a plan of its own, the main features of which were the restoration of military control, the enfranchisement of negroes and the disfranchisement of con siderable numbers of ex-Confederates. Johnson opposed this plan
with all the power he possessed, regarding it as dangerous to the Federal system of government. His opposition was vain hut troublesome to the leaders of the radical movement. They there fore determined to deprive the President of practically all power. To this end Congress passed on March 2, 1867, over the Presi dent's veto, the Tenure of Office act, prohibiting the President from dismissing from office, unless the Senate should agree, any officer appointed by and with the consent of that body. For a long time Edwin M. Stanton, the secretary of war, had been dis loyal to his chief and in league with his enemies. To rid himself of his obnoxious war minister and at the same time test before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office act, Johnson removed Stanton without obtaining the consent of the Senate. His plan for bringing the case before the Supreme Court, however, miscarried. Whereupon the House of Representatives brought articles of impeachment against the President, the only important charge being his violation of the Tenure of Office act. The evidence was entirely inadequate for convicting him on the graver charge before any fair-minded and impartial tribunal. The Senate at that time, however, was extremely partisan, and John son escaped conviction by only one vote (35 to 19; a two-thirds majority was necessary for conviction), on May 16, 1868. The remainder of Johnson's term as President was comparatively quiet and uneventful. On March 4, 1869, he left the Presidency a beaten and embittered man, but something of his old fighting spirit remained. After a number of unsuccessful efforts, in 1875 his Tennessee constituents returned him to his old place in the Senate. But his triumph was not for long. He made one bril liant speech in the Senate, where many of the men who had voted to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors were still sitting, in apology for his own reconstruction policy and in denunciation of that of his opponents. But it was his last. Shortly afterward, on July 31, 1875, he died.
Faults of personality were Andrew Johnson's great handicap. He lacked the finish of systematic education. He was frequently tactless and at times even undignified. Though possessing fun damentally a kind and sympathetic disposition, his natural shyness caused him to appear to all except his closest intimates, hard and inflexible. His career as president was of the essence of tragedy. Of unlimited faith in the people, his reconstruction policies were overwhelmingly rejected by tnem. Of unswerving devotion to the letter and spirit of the Constitution he was impeached for its violation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.-The most satisfactory biography is Robert W. Win ston, Andrew Johnson, Plebeian and Patriot (1928). See also: L. Foster, The Life and Speeches of Andrew Johnson (1866) ; D. M. De Witt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (1903) ; C. E. Chadsey, The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction (1896) ; W. A. Dunning, Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction (18n8) and, Reconstruction, Political and Economic (1907) ; J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States from the Com promise of 1850 (1893-1906 ; especially vols. v.-vi.) ; B. B. Kendrick, The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (1915). (B. B. K.)