Andrew Johnson's reconstriction beleifs?

Question

what were they?

i need help. im stuck. any answers are so greatly appreciated.

Answer 1

The "standard" answer is that Johnson was all about a "soft peace" and reconciliation, much like what Lincoln was seeking, while Stevens and the Radical Republicans in Congress wanted to PUNISH the South for its rebellion.

This is, unfortunately, a very superficial answer (though popular with some Southerners, because it makes it possible to blame Reconstruction failures on the NORTH), and misses the real issue separating the two sides.

It is likewise VERY superficial and misleading to repeat the old line (included by someone in the wikipedia article another answer copied) that JOHNSON's notion of a quick and easy Reconstruction was "the same" or "much the same" as what LINCOLN had been advocating.

True, Lincoln wanted it all to go as quickly and smoothly as possible, and not to simply punish the South. But there were other KEY things Lincoln stood for that Johnson did not care one whit about. In particular, he felt strongly about protecting the freedmen, and by the time of his assasination was talking about granting them (at least some, and especially those who had FOUGHT) the right to vote. These were NOT Johnson's concerns.
____________________

JOHNSON vs. "RADICAL REPUBLICANS"

While it's true "punishing" was at times AN important motive of the Radical Republicans, Johnson was himself happy with the notion of the Southern PLANTER (big plantation owners) being made to suffer. He had always despised them and their hold on Southern society. HIS wish was for the smaller, yeoman farmer to rise to the top.

Key to Johnson's vision was that he did NOT care much about what happened to the recently freed slaves. And it was THIS that brought him into such conflict with the Radical Republicans (esp. the most radical, like Stevens). Johnson attempted to FINISH Reconstruction quickly, and announced all was accomplished in December 1865, so that the Confederate states could be allowed to function as full, equal members of the Union.

But he IGNORED the fact that during the previous six months those states had begun to move to gain things they had supposedly LOST in the war. In particular, they passed "Black Codes" that forced "contracts" on the recently freed blacks, threatened them with easy arrest for "vagrancy", exacted harsher penalties... and in short sought to make them, in fact, if no longer in name, very much what they had been as slaves!!

The REACTION of the Radical Republicans was mostly about trying to PROTECT the RIGHTS of the newly freed blacks against such codes, then also the right to VOTE (the 14th amendment). The passed measures like the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Bill, both of which Johnson promptly vetoed.

The Radicals actually didn't have the power to overcome these vetoes UNTIL more moderate Republicans joined them in RESPONSE to Johnson's vicious, personal attacks against the Radicals, including Sumner and Stevens (including unbelievable tirades during the campaign of 1866) and the addition of more Republicans to Congress (in part BECAUSE of those tirades).

At any rate, what the Radicals were demanding was that the states NOT be fully admitted UNTIL they would supply stronger guarantees of the protections of blacks and their civil rights.

SOME of the Radicals -- Thaddeus Stevens chief among them-- wished to go even further, though they were not able to enact their program. Stevens specifically advocated the seizure of the LARGEST plantations (whose owners would have been prominent supporters of the Confederacy), and redistributing the land to freed blacks to give them a new start.

In fact, here's one of the most famous speeches of Stephens which helps to clarify the Radial Republican concern with the plight of the FREEDMEN, in contrast to Johnson (NOT Lincoln!)

"Speech of the Hon. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, Delivered in the House of Representatives, March 19, 1867, on the Bill (H.R. No. 20) Relative to Damages to Loyal Men, and for Other Purposes"
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/stevens.htm
full speech - http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/silver/stevens1.htm

Note especially this part of his remarks:

"The fourth section provides, first, that out of the lands thus confiscated each liberated slave who is a male adult, or the head of a family, shall have assigned to him a homestead of forty acres of land, (with $100 to build a dwelling) which shall be held for them by trustees during their pupilage.

"Let us consider whether this is a just and [sic: politic] provision.

"Whatever may be the fate of the rest of the bill, I must earnestly pray that this may not be defeated. On its success, in my judgment, depends not only the happiness and respectability of the colored race, but their very existence. Homesteads to them are far more valuable than the immediate right of suffrage, though both are their due."
________________________________

There's a very good web site on the struggle of Johnson & Congress -- called "The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson". The site tells the story of the struggles betwween Johnson and Congress... with over 200 excerpts from contemporary coverage of these events in Harper's Weekly (1865-69)

Here are what I think are the most useful pages in explaining the conflict I described above
http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/05AJFirstVetoes/AJFirstVetoes.htm
http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/02KeyPoliticalIssues/RadicalismConservatism.htm
http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/02KeyPoliticalIssues/FutureControlOfCongress.htm

And here is a nice characterization of the opposite approach advocated by Thaddeus Stevens, which helps to clarify the contrast:

"Stevens was an early and vehement critic of President Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction policy and eventually became a leader in the effort to impeach the president. An advocate of treating Southern states during Reconstruction as "conquered provinces," Stevens encouraged strong, sweeping action by the federal government to revolutionize the institutions and culture that bolstered white supremacy in the South. The measures he supported included the Fourteenth Amendment and an unsuccessful plan to confiscate plantations and redistribute the land to former slaves. He was a member of Congress' joint committee on Reconstruction, but it was dominated by moderates."
http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/11BiographiesKeyIndividuals/ThaddeusStevens.htm

compare: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASstevens.htm

Answer 2

From Wiki
Reconstruction
At first Johnson talked harshly, telling an Indiana delegation in late April, 1865, "Treason must be made odious... traitors must be punished and impoverished... their social power must be destroyed." But then he struck another note: "I say, as to the leaders, punishment. I also say leniency, reconciliation and amnesty to the thousands whom they have misled and deceived." [8] His class-based resentment of the rich appeared in a May, 1865 statement to W.H. Holden, the man he appointed governor of North Carolina, "I intend to confiscate the lands of these rich men whom I have excluded from pardon by my proclamation, and divide the proceeds thereof among the families of the wool hat boys, the Confederate soldiers, whom these men forced into battle to protect their property in slaves."[9]Johnson in practice was not at all harsh toward the Confederate leaders. He allowed the Southern states to hold elections in 1865 in which prominent ex-Confederates were elected to the U.S. Congress; however, Congress did not seat them. Congress and Johnson argued in an increasingly public way about Reconstruction and the manner in which the Southern secessionist states would be readmitted to the Union. Johnson favored a very quick restoration, similar to the plan of leniency that Lincoln advocated before his death.