brontherun's review
4.0
All in all I found Levine’s The Failed Promise a balanced, extremely well researched history of events during and immediately following the Civil War. Many details were new to me, such as the draft riots of New York City in 1863. The oratorical skills of Andrew Jackson and Fredrick Douglass are highlighted as influencers to policy and actions surrounding the abolitionist movement and the struggle to enact Reconstruction of the former Confederate States.
Johnson’s paternalistic actions and racist views were adequately identified by the author, but he also leads the reader to see how Johnson was not the source of those failures at a country-wide level, but more a representative of many Americans, both Southern and Northern. As Levine says, “There is something shortsighted in conceiving of the failure of Reconstruction as the fault of one white man.” Indeed, the pervasiveness of violence by whites against black throughout the country following emancipation shows the broadness of the evil that was not cleansed from the country by the surrender at Appomattox.
Douglass is a bit romanticized, which is typical of great men in history books. His work, particularly with his incredibly impactful speeches, is chronicled well. The fact that either through printing or via lecture circuits, his passion and conviction swayed the white listeners in addition to the black audiences, was what gave him so much power. And as that power rose, some sought to bring him down, while others like Lincoln and Johnson would have tried to leverage it to their own ends. Douglass was intelligent enough and seemingly savvy enough to avoid some of the political traps, at least according to this account.
If you read American History at all, I highly recommend reading this book.
Johnson’s paternalistic actions and racist views were adequately identified by the author, but he also leads the reader to see how Johnson was not the source of those failures at a country-wide level, but more a representative of many Americans, both Southern and Northern. As Levine says, “There is something shortsighted in conceiving of the failure of Reconstruction as the fault of one white man.” Indeed, the pervasiveness of violence by whites against black throughout the country following emancipation shows the broadness of the evil that was not cleansed from the country by the surrender at Appomattox.
Douglass is a bit romanticized, which is typical of great men in history books. His work, particularly with his incredibly impactful speeches, is chronicled well. The fact that either through printing or via lecture circuits, his passion and conviction swayed the white listeners in addition to the black audiences, was what gave him so much power. And as that power rose, some sought to bring him down, while others like Lincoln and Johnson would have tried to leverage it to their own ends. Douglass was intelligent enough and seemingly savvy enough to avoid some of the political traps, at least according to this account.
If you read American History at all, I highly recommend reading this book.
goodvibes22's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
fast-paced
3.5
socraticgadfly's review
5.0
Levine's ultimate thesis, well argued, is that whether Johnson had been convicted or not by the Senate, and even more, whether Lincoln had been assassinated or not to let Johnson become president ...
Frederick Douglass and Black America was facing a tough uphill sled on Reconstruction.
What follows below the line, especially from the second paragraph on, is semi-spoiler...
====
This book starts with the idea, going beyond the likes of an Eric Foner, of looking at early Reconstruction through the eyes of African Americans, at least in the lead. And, of course, that means you start with Frederick Douglass.
The author notes that Douglass’ main memoir, written in 1881, was detached enough from the times that it’s not totally trustworthy in its framing.
That said, Douglass himself pandered to English and Scotch-Irish White Americans with stereotypes about Germans and Irish, and otherwise was less than perfect, including on American Indians, per this great bio of him a few years ago. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2712295217 (Also, writing more than one memoir, his stories changed in the telling even more than Levine tells us. And, as this bio indicates, Douglass didn’t always play well with other Black abolitionists, which Levine also doesn’t tell us.)
OK, from there, we also look at Andy Johnson. Racist? Absolutely? Was he that much more racist than Ben Wade, who was horrid before the Civil War and arguably never repented, and surely never fully repented? No. (This is part of why some Republican senators blanched at convicting Johnson at his impeachment trial; president pro tem Wade was at that time next in line, and the idea of him as president? Appalling. It’s why the “Sinful Seven,” while taking Johnson Administration kickbacks, might have been backed by other Republican if needed.)
And, that’s where Black abolitionists, not just Douglass, came in. They knew plenty of Ben Wades. They also knew that Andy Johnson was right, albeit for hypocritical reasons, for calling out Northern Whites for not backing Black voting rights.
Levine also notes that, in 1867, Douglass warned about such kickbacks, or otherwise challenging the whole presidential establishment.
On the impeachment trial? Levine faults the House managers for engaging in dry legalese, first. Second, he notes, as have others, such as Brenda Wineapple https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2876684392 that Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase gave a number of unfavorable legal rulings. Levine adds that this may be because Chase had his own eyes on the presidency in 1868. (He never lost the bug, having run in 1860, thought of running in 1864 before Lincoln packed him off to SCOTUS, and trying for the brass ring in both 1868 and 1872.)
And, then there’s Lincoln. Was Johnson THAT much more racist than Lincoln? Maybe not. Other than his “Swing Around the Circle,” his general lack of decorum, and his belief that he could out-orate Congress, did he handle Presidential Reconstruction that much worse than Lincoln would have, had he lived? Maybe not.
Lincoln surely would have cracked down on the Klan, the Knights of the Camellia, etc., quicker than Johnson. Given that Southern Democrats worked with forerunners of Liberal Republicans to cut the Freedman’s Bureau funding in 1869 and kill it in 1872, it’s doubtful that, assuming Lincoln didn’t veto its 1866 renewal, he would have fought hard for more money. Lincoln, like Johnson, also likely would have opposed the military edge of Congressional Reconstruction. He might, like Johnson, have opposed tying Congressional readmission to approval of the 14th Amendment. (Levine doesn’t get into speculative history, but I think all the above is arguable.)
Frederick Douglass and Black America was facing a tough uphill sled on Reconstruction.
What follows below the line, especially from the second paragraph on, is semi-spoiler...
====
This book starts with the idea, going beyond the likes of an Eric Foner, of looking at early Reconstruction through the eyes of African Americans, at least in the lead. And, of course, that means you start with Frederick Douglass.
The author notes that Douglass’ main memoir, written in 1881, was detached enough from the times that it’s not totally trustworthy in its framing.
That said, Douglass himself pandered to English and Scotch-Irish White Americans with stereotypes about Germans and Irish, and otherwise was less than perfect, including on American Indians, per this great bio of him a few years ago. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2712295217 (Also, writing more than one memoir, his stories changed in the telling even more than Levine tells us. And, as this bio indicates, Douglass didn’t always play well with other Black abolitionists, which Levine also doesn’t tell us.)
OK, from there, we also look at Andy Johnson. Racist? Absolutely? Was he that much more racist than Ben Wade, who was horrid before the Civil War and arguably never repented, and surely never fully repented? No. (This is part of why some Republican senators blanched at convicting Johnson at his impeachment trial; president pro tem Wade was at that time next in line, and the idea of him as president? Appalling. It’s why the “Sinful Seven,” while taking Johnson Administration kickbacks, might have been backed by other Republican if needed.)
And, that’s where Black abolitionists, not just Douglass, came in. They knew plenty of Ben Wades. They also knew that Andy Johnson was right, albeit for hypocritical reasons, for calling out Northern Whites for not backing Black voting rights.
Levine also notes that, in 1867, Douglass warned about such kickbacks, or otherwise challenging the whole presidential establishment.
On the impeachment trial? Levine faults the House managers for engaging in dry legalese, first. Second, he notes, as have others, such as Brenda Wineapple https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2876684392 that Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase gave a number of unfavorable legal rulings. Levine adds that this may be because Chase had his own eyes on the presidency in 1868. (He never lost the bug, having run in 1860, thought of running in 1864 before Lincoln packed him off to SCOTUS, and trying for the brass ring in both 1868 and 1872.)
And, then there’s Lincoln. Was Johnson THAT much more racist than Lincoln? Maybe not. Other than his “Swing Around the Circle,” his general lack of decorum, and his belief that he could out-orate Congress, did he handle Presidential Reconstruction that much worse than Lincoln would have, had he lived? Maybe not.
Lincoln surely would have cracked down on the Klan, the Knights of the Camellia, etc., quicker than Johnson. Given that Southern Democrats worked with forerunners of Liberal Republicans to cut the Freedman’s Bureau funding in 1869 and kill it in 1872, it’s doubtful that, assuming Lincoln didn’t veto its 1866 renewal, he would have fought hard for more money. Lincoln, like Johnson, also likely would have opposed the military edge of Congressional Reconstruction. He might, like Johnson, have opposed tying Congressional readmission to approval of the 14th Amendment. (Levine doesn’t get into speculative history, but I think all the above is arguable.)
rtwilliams16's review
4.0
Over the past three years I’ve read quite a few books on Reconstruction, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, and Frederick Douglass*. I thought I wouldn’t learn anything new when I began reading The Failed Promise, I was wrong. Robert Levine’s new book focuses on the mostly unexamined role that Frederick Douglass and other Black leaders played during the time of the Johnson presidency and his subsequent impeachment.
The title The Failed Promise has a double meaning, Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction were both failed promises. Many Radical Republicans and Black leaders had high hopes that Andrew Johnson would be a more progressive and bold president on Reconstruction than Lincoln at the time of his assassination and they had every right to think so because of Johnson’s history of being a Southern Unionist, anti-secessionist, and a proponent of emancipation. But something changed a few months after he became president; Johnson wanted the Southern states to be restored to the Union and not reconstructed. Restoration was essentially a way to let bygones be bygones and allow the Southern states and former Confederate leaders to reenter the Union with no strings attached. Reconstructionists in Congress on the other hand wanted preconditions, they wanted Southerners to ratify the 13th Amendment and allow for Black suffrage before they were welcomed back. This fight between President Johnson and Congress is ultimately what leads to his impeachment. The violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the official charge, but Congress was mostly frustrated with Johnson’s obstruction of Reconstruction.
Levine does a great job showing how Lincoln and Johnson were viewed in this period. Lincoln was criticized and challenged by Douglass when Lincoln was alive, which is seldom talked about, nowadays we focus more on how they were friends. Johnson was a racist who thought he cared about Black people. As you read the book, get use to the refrain that Johnson was a “Moses” to Black people. Anytime Johnson was questioned about his support for Black civil rights he would say that he was Black folks’ Moses which is akin to saying “I love the Blacks” or “I’ve done more for Black people than anyone” in modern times.
Levine gives excellent coverage of the relationship between Johnson and Douglass. He covers the infamously tense meeting between Johnson, Douglass, and other Black leaders on Reconstruction, and how Johnson and his aides kept tabs on Douglass’s public activities. Good thing the FBI or J. Edgar Hoover wasn’t around during this period, otherwise Douglass rights were sure to be violated.
Levine, an English Professor, gives special attention to the speeches delivered by these two leaders during this period. First, there is Johnson’s “Swing Around the Circle” speaking tour, where he preached racist rhetoric, advocated violence against his political opponents, and as a result his public standing suffered because of it. Then there is Douglass’s lesser known speech “Sources of Danger to the Republic”, in it Douglass attacks Johnson and calls the U.S. Constitution one of the dangers to the Republic. What is fascinating about this speech is that Douglass basically becomes a constitutional scholar and attacks certain aspects of the Constitution that he found problematic, such as the veto power, pardoning power, the presidential two term principle, and the office of the vice presidency. Levine also reveals that Douglass had different versions of this speech depending on the racial makeup of his audience, i.e. he was more folksy in front of a Black audience and challenged his White audience to bring about constitutional reform. What makes this book even more special is that Douglass’s 1867 speech before a Black audience in Philadelphia is reprinted for the first time in the Appendix; trust me it is well worth the read.
What I find the most fascinating about this book is the role of Black leaders during the Reconstruction period. Levine writes that during Johnson’s impeachment trial, Black elites did not focus on the Tenure of Office Act in their impeachment brief instead they focused on how Andrew Johnson betrayed Black Americans and also his antipathy to the Freedman’s Bureau. This just goes to show that Black leaders have always been the moral conscious of this nation. When establishment politicians focused on the technicality of Johnson firing Stanton and violating the Tenure of Office Act, Black leaders focused on the stain that Johnson’s racism had on the lives of Black people.
Overall, The Failed Promise is a quick read. I like that Levine presents how complex and nuanced Johnson was. He doesn’t blame all of Reconstruction’s failure on Johnson although he was an important force against Reconstruction. Readers will definitely develop more of an appreciation for Douglass and learn how he almost became a pivotal figure in Johnson’s impeachment. Finally, you will get a glimpse of other notable Black leaders who don’t get their due like Frances Ellen Watkins Harper and John Langston.
*See Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B. Du Bois, Stony the Road by Henry Louis Gates Jr. , The Impeachers by Brenda Wineapple, and Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom by David Blight.
Thanks to NetGalley, W. W. Norton Company, and Robert Levine, for a free ARC copy in exchange for an honest review. This book will be released on August 24, 2021.
Review first posted here: https://medium.com/ballasts-for-the-mind/review-the-failed-promise-reconstruction-frederick-douglass-and-the-impeachment-of-andrew-c9c476bc0cf2?source=friends_link&sk=a99e362aeb1a961a3c0affa6087bcc2f
The title The Failed Promise has a double meaning, Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction were both failed promises. Many Radical Republicans and Black leaders had high hopes that Andrew Johnson would be a more progressive and bold president on Reconstruction than Lincoln at the time of his assassination and they had every right to think so because of Johnson’s history of being a Southern Unionist, anti-secessionist, and a proponent of emancipation. But something changed a few months after he became president; Johnson wanted the Southern states to be restored to the Union and not reconstructed. Restoration was essentially a way to let bygones be bygones and allow the Southern states and former Confederate leaders to reenter the Union with no strings attached. Reconstructionists in Congress on the other hand wanted preconditions, they wanted Southerners to ratify the 13th Amendment and allow for Black suffrage before they were welcomed back. This fight between President Johnson and Congress is ultimately what leads to his impeachment. The violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the official charge, but Congress was mostly frustrated with Johnson’s obstruction of Reconstruction.
Levine does a great job showing how Lincoln and Johnson were viewed in this period. Lincoln was criticized and challenged by Douglass when Lincoln was alive, which is seldom talked about, nowadays we focus more on how they were friends. Johnson was a racist who thought he cared about Black people. As you read the book, get use to the refrain that Johnson was a “Moses” to Black people. Anytime Johnson was questioned about his support for Black civil rights he would say that he was Black folks’ Moses which is akin to saying “I love the Blacks” or “I’ve done more for Black people than anyone” in modern times.
Levine gives excellent coverage of the relationship between Johnson and Douglass. He covers the infamously tense meeting between Johnson, Douglass, and other Black leaders on Reconstruction, and how Johnson and his aides kept tabs on Douglass’s public activities. Good thing the FBI or J. Edgar Hoover wasn’t around during this period, otherwise Douglass rights were sure to be violated.
Levine, an English Professor, gives special attention to the speeches delivered by these two leaders during this period. First, there is Johnson’s “Swing Around the Circle” speaking tour, where he preached racist rhetoric, advocated violence against his political opponents, and as a result his public standing suffered because of it. Then there is Douglass’s lesser known speech “Sources of Danger to the Republic”, in it Douglass attacks Johnson and calls the U.S. Constitution one of the dangers to the Republic. What is fascinating about this speech is that Douglass basically becomes a constitutional scholar and attacks certain aspects of the Constitution that he found problematic, such as the veto power, pardoning power, the presidential two term principle, and the office of the vice presidency. Levine also reveals that Douglass had different versions of this speech depending on the racial makeup of his audience, i.e. he was more folksy in front of a Black audience and challenged his White audience to bring about constitutional reform. What makes this book even more special is that Douglass’s 1867 speech before a Black audience in Philadelphia is reprinted for the first time in the Appendix; trust me it is well worth the read.
What I find the most fascinating about this book is the role of Black leaders during the Reconstruction period. Levine writes that during Johnson’s impeachment trial, Black elites did not focus on the Tenure of Office Act in their impeachment brief instead they focused on how Andrew Johnson betrayed Black Americans and also his antipathy to the Freedman’s Bureau. This just goes to show that Black leaders have always been the moral conscious of this nation. When establishment politicians focused on the technicality of Johnson firing Stanton and violating the Tenure of Office Act, Black leaders focused on the stain that Johnson’s racism had on the lives of Black people.
Overall, The Failed Promise is a quick read. I like that Levine presents how complex and nuanced Johnson was. He doesn’t blame all of Reconstruction’s failure on Johnson although he was an important force against Reconstruction. Readers will definitely develop more of an appreciation for Douglass and learn how he almost became a pivotal figure in Johnson’s impeachment. Finally, you will get a glimpse of other notable Black leaders who don’t get their due like Frances Ellen Watkins Harper and John Langston.
*See Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B. Du Bois, Stony the Road by Henry Louis Gates Jr. , The Impeachers by Brenda Wineapple, and Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom by David Blight.
Thanks to NetGalley, W. W. Norton Company, and Robert Levine, for a free ARC copy in exchange for an honest review. This book will be released on August 24, 2021.
Review first posted here: https://medium.com/ballasts-for-the-mind/review-the-failed-promise-reconstruction-frederick-douglass-and-the-impeachment-of-andrew-c9c476bc0cf2?source=friends_link&sk=a99e362aeb1a961a3c0affa6087bcc2f
More...