A review by socraticgadfly
The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson by Robert S. Levine
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.)