Andrew Johnson and the Domestic Policies of Reconstruction: A History of Executive Conflict

Andrew Johnson’s domestic policies during Reconstruction prioritized rapid Southern readmission, state rights, and white supremacy over federal protections for newly freed African Americans. His strategy of executive leniency clashed sharply with a Republican-led Congress, triggering America's first presidential impeachment and establishing Congressional supremacy during Reconstruction.

The Antecedents of Presidential Reconstruction

When Vice President Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1865, the United States faced an unprecedented constitutional and humanitarian challenge. The Civil War had ended, but the terms by which eleven former Confederate states would re-enter the Union remained unresolved.

Johnson, a War Democrat from Tennessee who had been the only Southern senator to remain loyal to the Union during secession, held views on federalism and race that differed fundamentally from those of the Republican majority in Congress. Johnson was a strict constructionist who believed the Federal Government had limited constitutional authority over state domestic affairs. His political ideology was shaped by Jacksonian democracy, which championed the self-reliance of small white farmers while opposing both the planter aristocracy of the Old South and federal intervention on behalf of African Americans.

Whereas Radical Republicans viewed the defeat of the Confederacy as an opportunity to fundamentally transform Southern society, grant civil rights to freedpeople, and rebuild the region's political economy, Johnson viewed Reconstruction primarily as a political restoration. He argued that because secession was illegal, Southern states had never technically left the Union; therefore, restoring normal federal relations required simple executive action rather than structural reform.

The Proclamations of Amnesty and Executive Directives (1865)

During the congressional recess from May to December 1865, Johnson implemented his vision of Presidential Reconstruction without legislative oversight. On May 29, 1865, he issued two landmark executive proclamations that set the terms for Southern restoration.

The Amnesty Proclamation

The Proclamation of Amnesty offered full pardons and the restoration of all property rights (except for enslaved people) to most former Confederates who took an oath of allegiance to the United States. However, Johnson established fourteen categories of individuals who were excluded from automatic amnesty. These excluded groups included:

• High-ranking Confederate political leaders and military officers.
• Former U.S. judges, diplomats, and military officers who had resigned their commissions to aid the Confederacy.
• Individuals who owned taxable property valued at over $20,000.

By requiring wealthy planters to apply personally to the president for individual executive pardons, Johnson sought to humiliate the Southern aristocracy he had long resented. However, between 1865 and 1866, Johnson granted thousands of individual pardons. This rapid pardon process restored political and economic power to the traditional Southern elite before structural political reforms could take root.

The North Carolina Proclamation

The second proclamation appointed a provisional governor for North Carolina and established the template for executive readmission across the South. Under Johnson's guidelines, provisional governors were instructed to call state constitutional conventions. To regain representation in Congress, states were required to meet three minimal conditions:

1. Formally revoke their ordinances of secession.
2. Abolish slavery within their state constitutions and ratify the Thirteenth Amendment.
3. Repudiate all Confederate war debts so that federal taxpayers would not bear the cost of the rebellion.

Johnson did not require Southern states to grant voting rights or civil liberties to newly freed Black Americans, leaving franchise qualifications entirely to state legislatures.

The Emergence of Black Codes and the Executive Response

Relying on Johnson’s lenient framework, newly elected Southern state legislatures—often led by former Confederate officials—enacted restrictive statutes known as the Black Codes in late 1865 and early 1866. These legal codes aimed to establish a social and economic system that mirrored slavery as closely as constitutional limits allowed.

1. Executive Reconstruction Framework
2. Southern Constitutional Conventions
   • Ratification of 13th Amendment
   • Enactment of Black Codes
3. Moderate & Radical Republican Alarm
4. Congressional Reconstruction (1867)

The Black Codes varied by state, but commonly featured severe restrictions on African American mobility and independence:

• Vagrancy Laws: Unemployed Black citizens could be arrested, fined, and forced into unpaid labor contracts with private employers to pay off their fines.
• Labor Contracts: Agricultural workers were required to sign annual written labor contracts. Breaking a contract meant forfeiting accumulated wages and risking arrest.
• Apprenticeship Laws: Courts could bind Black orphans and children of "unfit" parents to white employers as unpaid apprentices.
• Civil Restrictions: African Americans were widely barred from serving on juries, testifying against white people in court, bearing arms, or purchasing land outside designated urban zones.

Despite widespread public outrage in the North, Johnson ignored the oppressive nature of the Black Codes. In his December 1865 Annual Message to Congress, he declared that the Union had been restored, that Southern states had fulfilled his conditions, and that Congress was obligated to seat the newly elected Southern senators and representatives—among whom was Alexander H. Stephens, the former Vice President of the Confederacy.

The Clash Between Executive and Legislative Branches (1866)

When the 39th Congress convened in December 1865, the Republican majority refused to seat the Southern delegates. Led by Radicals like Representative Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Charles Sumner, alongside Moderate Republicans led by Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congress asserted its constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to judge the qualifications of its own members. This initiated a direct constitutional conflict over Reconstruction policy.

The Freedmen’s Bureau Bill Veto

In February 1866, Congress passed a bill to extend and expand the operations of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (the Freedmen's Bureau). Originally created under Lincoln in March 1865, the Bureau provided food, shelter, medical assistance, land distribution, and legal aid to refugees and freedpeople. The 1866 bill expanded its jurisdiction and authorized military courts to protect Black civil rights in states where civil courts denied them equal justice.

On February 19, 1866, Johnson vetoed the bill. He argued that:

• The legislation was unconstitutional because it expanded federal authority during peacetime.
• Assisting former slaves made them dependent on government aid rather than self-reliant labor.
• Congress had no right to pass legislation affecting Southern states while those states remained unrepresented in the Capitol.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

In response to the Freedmen's Bureau veto, Congress drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The act declared that all persons born in the United States (excluding non-taxed Native Americans) were national citizens. It explicitly granted all citizens, regardless of race, fundamental rights to make and enforce contracts, sue and give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act on March 27, 1866. In his veto message, he argued that granting citizenship to newly freed Black Americans discriminated against native-born white citizens and immigrants, and represented an overreach of federal jurisdiction into state policing powers.

On April 9, 1866, Congress made history by overriding Johnson's veto with a two-thirds majority in both houses. This marked the first time Congress had successfully overridden a presidential veto on major substantive legislation, signaling a breakdown in executive-legislative relations and the end of Presidential Reconstruction.

Comparative Policy Framework: Presidential vs. Congressional Reconstruction

The divergence between Andrew Johnson's executive strategy and the legislative strategy enacted by Congress reshaped federal policies during the Reconstruction era.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the "Swing Around the Circle"

To anchor the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 permanently within the U.S. Constitution, Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment in June 1866. The amendment defined national citizenship, prohibited states from denying any person due process or equal protection of the laws, reduced Congressional representation for states that denied voting rights to adult males, disqualified certain high-ranking Confederates from holding public office, and invalidated Confederate war debts.

Although a president has no formal constitutional role in approving constitutional amendments, Johnson actively campaigned against its ratification. He urged Southern state legislatures to reject the Fourteenth Amendment, a directive every former Confederate state except Tennessee followed.

In late August and September 1866, Johnson undertook an unprecedented national speaking tour known as the "Swing Around the Circle." Traveling through the Northeast and Midwest ahead of the 1866 mid-term congressional elections, Johnson sought to build a political coalition of Northern Democrats and Conservative Republicans behind his policies.

The tour backfired. Johnson engaged in shouting matches with hecklers, compared himself to Jesus Christ and his Republican opponents to Judas, and blamed Congressional leaders for political violence in the South—most notably the 1866 race riots in Memphis and New Orleans, where white mobs and local police attacked Black Union veterans and Republican convention delegates.

The mid-term elections delivered a overwhelming victory for the Republican Party, granting them a veto-proof two-thirds supermajority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Radical Reconstruction and Executive Nullification (1867–1868)

With a two-thirds supermajority, Congress assumed control over domestic Reconstruction policy in 1867. Through a series of legislative acts, Congress dismantled the state governments established under Johnson's presidential directives.

The Military Reconstruction Acts

On March 2, 1867, Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act over Johnson's veto. The act:

• Declared the existing civilian governments in ten former Confederate states invalid.
• Divided the South into five military districts, each commanded by a U.S. Army general with authority to enforce federal law and protect civil rights.
• Required Southern states to draft new state constitutions granting Black men the right to vote.
• Mandated that states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before their representatives could be readmitted to Congress.

Subsequent Reconstruction Acts passed in 1867 and 1868 authorized military commanders to register eligible voters, oversee constitutional conventions, and conduct state elections.

Johnson used his executive authority as Commander-in-Chief to undermine these laws. He appointed conservative military commanders who resisted Radical reforms, removed army officers who actively protected freedpeople, and issued legal opinions through his Attorney General, Henry Stanbery, that limited the authority of military commanders to intervene in local affairs.

The Tenure of Office Act and Impeachment (1867–1868)

To restrict Johnson's ability to interfere with Congressional Reconstruction and protect Cabinet officials who supported Radical policies, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in March 1867 over Johnson's veto. The law prohibited the president from removing civil officers appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate without Senate approval.

The primary target of this legislation was Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who aligned with Radical Republicans and used the War Department to execute Congressional Reconstruction policies against Johnson's wishes.

1. Congress passes Tenure of Office Act (1867)
2. Johnson suspends Secretary of War Edwin Stanton
3. Senate refuses to concur with suspension (Jan 1868)
4. Johnson fires Stanton & appoints Lorenzo Thomas
5. House votes to Impeach President Johnson (Feb 1868)
6. Senate Trial: Johnson acquitted by 1 vote (May 1868)

The Constitutional Crisis

In August 1867, while Congress was out of session, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed General Ulysses S. Grant as interim Secretary of War. When the Senate reconvened in January 1868, it refused to concur with Stanton's suspension. Grant stepped down, and Stanton reclaimed his office.

On February 21, 1868, Johnson formally dismissed Stanton and appointed Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas to the post. Stanton barricaded himself in his office, and the House of Representatives responded three days later by voting 126 to 47 to impeach Johnson for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The Impeachment Trial

The House adopted eleven formal articles of impeachment against Johnson:

• Articles 1 through 8: Focused on Johnson's violation of the Tenure of Office Act by firing Stanton without Senate consent.
• Article 9: Accused the president of violating the Command of the Army Act by issuing orders directly to military officers rather than through General Grant.
• Article 10 and 11: Alleged that Johnson had brought the presidency into disrepute through speeches attacking Congress and attempting to obstruct federal law execution.

The Senate impeachment trial lasted from March to May 1868, presided over by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. Johnson’s defense team argued that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional, that Stanton had been appointed during Lincoln's term and was not covered by the law, and that the president had an obligation to challenge unconstitutional statutes in court.

On May 16 and May 26, 1868, the Senate voted on Articles 11, 2, and 3. In each instance, the vote was 35 to 19 in favor of conviction—falling precisely one vote short of the two-thirds majority required to remove a president from office. Seven Republican senators crossed party lines to vote for acquittal, citing concerns about preserving the separation of powers and the office of the presidency.

Although Johnson remained in office for the final nine months of his term, his political influence was broken. For the remainder of his presidency, Congressional Reconstruction proceeded without effective presidential intervention.

Long-Term Impacts of Johnson's Domestic Policies

Andrew Johnson's presidency had lasting consequences for American federalism, racial equality, and political institutions.

The Persistence of Black Codes and Economic Subjugation

By permitting Southern states to pass Black Codes in 1865 without federal oversight, Johnson enabled the establishment of sharecropping, tenant farming, and convict leasing systems. These legal and economic structures bound generations of African Americans to economic dependence and racial subjugation long after the formal abolition of slavery.

The Strengthening of Constitutional Guarantees

Johnson's aggressive opposition to moderate civil rights measures forced a coalition of Moderate and Radical Republicans to entrench protections in constitutional amendments rather than statutory legislation. The resulting Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments rewritten the legal relationship between the states and the federal government, creating a national standard for equal rights and equal protection under the law.

Constitutional Precedents on Executive Power

The clash between Johnson and Congress established structural precedents regarding presidential vetoes and executive privileges. While Congress successfully asserted authority over Reconstruction policy, the failure to convict Johnson preserved the independence of the executive branch, establishing that a president could not be removed from office simply due to fundamental policy disagreements with Congress.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the core difference between Lincoln's and Johnson's Reconstruction plans?

Abraham Lincoln framed Reconstruction as a military and political strategy to win the war and end slavery, using his war powers to require 10% of voters to take a loyalty oath while supporting gradual political rights for some African Americans. Andrew Johnson framed Reconstruction as a restoration of pre-war state rights, granting widespread pardons to former Confederates while explicitly excluding federal protections or voting rights for newly freed Black Americans.

Why did Andrew Johnson veto the Civil Rights Act of 1866?

Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 because he believed it overreached federal constitutional authority into areas traditionally governed by state police powers. He also argued that conferring citizenship upon four million newly freed slaves was unfair to native-born white citizens and immigrants, and objected to passing laws affecting Southern states while they lacked Congressional representation.

How did Johnson's policies contribute to the Black Codes?

Johnson permitted Southern state conventions to form without requiring them to grant basic civil or political rights to African Americans. Seeing no federal opposition to political disenfranchisement, Southern legislatures passed Black Codes in 1865 and 1866 to restrict Black movement, mandate annual labor contracts, and maintain a subjugated labor force.

What was the official cause of Andrew Johnson’s impeachment?

The official cause was Johnson's dismissal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton in February 1868, which directly violated the Tenure of Office Act passed by Congress over his veto in 1867. The House of Representatives adopted eleven articles of impeachment focused primarily on this unauthorized dismissal and Johnson's attempts to bypass legislative authority.

Why was Andrew Johnson acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial?

Johnson was acquitted by a single vote because seven Republican senators broke with their party to vote "not guilty." These senators were concerned about setting a precedent where Congress could remove a president over policy differences, and argued that the Tenure of Office Act did not technically apply to Stanton, who had been appointed by Lincoln rather than Johnson.

Key Takeaways for Historical Analysis

When evaluating Andrew Johnson's presidency and the domestic policies of Reconstruction, historians analyze the interaction between executive authority, legislative power, and constitutional federalism:

• Primary Source Records: Consult the Congressional Globe for transcripts of the 39th and 40th Congressional debates, and review the official messages and veto statements compiled in the Library of Congress Presidential Papers.
• Constitutional Legacy: Track how Johnson's vetoes led to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, altering the balance of power between federal and state governments.
• Archival Research: Examine primary sources related to the Freedmen's Bureau Field Offices to document the regional impact of executive policy decisions on freedpeople between 1865 and 1868.