By Donnie Do Pearce a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Andrew Johnson and the historians Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Pearce, Donnie Dean, 1930- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 05/10/2021 14:52:51 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/318867 ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE HISTORIANS by Donnie Do Pearce A thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY : . , In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements v MASTER OF ARTS In. the Graduate Gollege . ' • DNIFERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 6 0 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re quirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers undep. rule of the Librarye ' Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permissionprovided that accurate 'acknowledgment bf source is made0 Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department 6r the Dean of the Graduate College when in their - judgment the proposed-use of the material is in the interests of scholarship® In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the- author® - SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: j ’^Y' James A® Beatson Associate Professor of History ii PREFACE On page thirty-four in their work/ The Growth of the American Republic* published in 1937* Samuel Elliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager had this to say; 11 „ „ V he, is perhaps the most maligned and misunderstood of all our Presidents, In the historical literature of the half century after the war he is represented at the best as a pug nacious ignoramus * at the yrorst as a drunken ruffian,F It would seem that they had-been correct in their observation* and therein lies the reason for this work. This examination of the evolution of historic opinion about President Johnson has been conducted by the use of secon dary source material picked at random and covering the years 186h~*1959<> No effort was made to select material that would reflect any particular point of view. The trend of favorable opinion that emerged from this examination was but the natural result of an objective use of the ma— ; terial involved® The research on this work indicated that there has existed some conflict of opinion as to the exact chronology of the events in the story of Reconstruction® This is primarily true in connection with the specific dates of legislative action and presidential messages® In cases of conflict those dates given by Charles E® Chadsey in his work* The Struggle Between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstraction* published in 1896* have been used® . As they are taken.from the ground neither gold* silver nor ' ill TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT BT AUTHOR . .. « = . » . „ . > „ . „ . ; . ii PBEFACE e -d o e? e o o o 0 6 6 d e o o 0 0 0 0 o o e e? o.a o 0 IT 1 CHAPTER • To THE PROBLEM OF RECONSTRUCTIONi • RESTORATION OR REFENGE oooooeoooeoodoeooeoooe I Theories on Restoration I Lincoln's Plan $ Johnson's Plan 12 The Radical Plan ' 17 The Struggle Between Johnson and Congress, in Outline ■ - 23 Ho ANDREW JOHNSON: PORTRAIT OF INFAMY.... OPINION FROM 186L-1900 * ...... * . » . .. 000 . 35 Johnson's Attitude Prior to Becoming President 35 Unfavorable Opinion • . 38 Favorable Opinion 54. Ill,. ANDREW JOHNSON: PORTRAIT OF EVOLUTION .OPINION FROM 1901-1927 * . * . > . , . 71 Unfavorable Opinion 71 Favorable Opinion 95 . Compromise Opinion 113 Specialized Opinion 130 IV. ANDREW JOHNSON: PORTRAIT OF '1E-SVALUATION .OPHION FROM 1928-1959. a o , , . o , ... o . * . 138 Favorable Opinion 138 Compromise Opinion 182 Unfavorable Opinion 200 Specialized Opinion . 210 ■ V, CONCLUSIONS V . ... • . - . , . , . 0 0 . ..... 216 BIBLIOGRAPHY ,' . = .. .-. , . » . , * . 218 v CHAPTER I ' . THE PROBLEM OF RE,CONSTRUCTIONS RESTORATION OR REl/EME : Theories on Restoratioia ; The problem of restoring the Union had been a major topic of Gonvershtiop in the North from the beginning of the Civil War0 This problem was generally dismissed on the basis of constitutional theory and revolved around one question: What was to be the status of the Southern states in relation to the Union when the rebellion was crushed? From the standpoint of logic, based on the Northern contention that se cession was illegal, the general conservative .opinion was that the Southern states were still states of the Union with all the rights and ■ ■ " , . ■ ; privileges thereofo The advocates of this opinion wanted to see the restoration of the Union completed with an attitude of reconciliation# They further wanted it done without any ceremonies or conditions other than those that might be found in the Federal Constitution with reference to the admittance of states#^ This conservative attitude was based on 1 ' ; . ; ' Samuel-E# MofIson and.Henry S# Commager, The Growth of the American Republic (2d ed# revo| New York: Oxford University Press, 193?)» II, 31o Cited hereafter as Morison and Commager, American Republic# ' : 2 ■■ ': . ’ ' ; . ■ • . " " . Edward A# Pollard, The Lost Cause (New York; E# B® Treat and Company, Publishers, 1866), pa ?hh. Cited hereafter as Pollard, Lost Cause# . precious stones have the value that is later given to them by the art istic processes' of design and polishing and so it is with this study of Andrew Johnson, for whatever value it may have acquired I am deeply grateful to both Doctor James Ao Beatson, patient advisor and scholar, and Miss Enid Johnson, friend and author, whose suggestions and guid ance have served me well to the end® . ' '■ 2 definite views as to the character of the Union and the validity of the principle of secession,, It was felt that the Union was of a permanent nature and that secession was revolutionaiy, illegal, null and void5 hence, it could have no effect® . Secession was considered to be the act of seditious individuals which did hot affect the status of the Southern states The Northern conservatives believed that the duty of the Federal government was very specific in dealing with the insurgent individuals of the various Southern states® Accordingly, they felt.that the first thing to be accomplished was to quell the resistance and then proceed with the execution of. the Federal Constitution and the laws of the land® It was believed that once this had been accomplished the task was nearly completed® Since the rebellious states were still in the Union, all that remained to be done after the close of hostilities was the indictment and the legal trial of those individuals who had resisted the authority of the Federal governments^ There were, however, divergent views on the method of restoration® These opinions were centered around the different answers to the basic questions involved in the problem® First, did states exist in the in surrectionary districts'?® Second, what was the relation of those states, or districts to the government of the United States at the close of the rebellion? These various theories are enumerated and discussed in detail . - .. V . by William A® Dunning in his wor%c Essays on the Civil War and 3Ibido \bld® • '/" - \ . -'.: ."''::. : : % ' . '' '; ,' . : ■ ' 3 Re construetion, published in 1910, They wefe as follows;^ (I) The Southern Theory^ (2) The Presidential Theory,;(3) 'The State Suicide Theoary, (U) The Conquered Province Theory, (5) The Forfeited Rights . Theory® .; :-'t; ' ; . ' - . ■ ' : , ' The first twb were based on the premise that the states, as found in our system, were indestractable and further that once a state had renewed its allegiance to the Union, it had a definite right to its functions under the Federal Constitution, It was also assumed by the advocates of the Southern theory that the basic component parts of a state, that is, ’territory, people and government all remained unchanged by the war| that the consequences of the defeatwere to fall on indivi duals, not the statej that the state was merely out of its normal consti tutional relation with the general government; that state and Federal civil:functions were to be restored without question; and that .representa tives were to bp elected and sent to the Congress of the United States as . soon as possible^^ The Presidential Theory agreed with all the above and further held that at no time, during or after the war, did the Union consist of : less states than it did at the time of the first act of secession by the State of South Carolina on December 20, 1860e The presid.ential pardon was assumed to be the only instrument by which the officers of the old governments, lately in rebellion, could have their political disability removed and thus secure the right to participate in the organisation T-;" ■■ v’; t :. " • yWilliam Ao Dunning, Essays on the Civil' War and Reconstruction (3rd edh rev,; New York; The Macmillan Company, 1910), pp« 101-112«, ; Cited hereafter as Dunning, Fssayso • v" ' ^ : , . , , ■: ■ ' 6Ibido, p, 102, ' . V- ' t .: ;;;'t ^ ■ ' ; ■. ■ ; ' k of new governmentso The next two theories were based on opposite reasoning and thus were in diametric opposition to the theories mentioned.above® Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was