Presidential Reconstruction: Johnson’s States' Rights Gamble

[@danwylie-sears1134]

As I think of it, ticket balancing is a modern-politics practice too. The last couple veeps have been compatible potential successors rather than ticket-balancing running mates, and I don't remember about the previous few, but I'm pretty sure that at least some recent running mates have been ticket-balancing choices, even if I don't remember who. None has been as extreme an example as Andrew Johnson, though.

[@lchistory9473]

In hindsight, Johnson was a horrible decision and completely unnecessary. Johnson had no business leading the nation, particularly post-Civil War. IMO, Lincoln should have picked a Republican from the North.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

"Is Andrew Johnson the worst president in the history of the US?" I think Buchanan held onto that title. The Civil War was about whether there would still be such a thing as the US. That's what the north was willing to fight for. If the South had been willing to respect states' rights instead of insisting that slavery be extended into every state at the command of the Supreme Court, it's plausible that the series of awkward compromises on extension of slavery into the territories might have continued indefinitely. Bleeding Kansas showed that "popular sovereignty" wasn't a viable way of making those compromises; it didn't show that the US couldn't have gone back to making the compromises in Congress. To me, sitting here in the comfort and relative safety of the 21st century, slavery is the paramount issue of the 19th. Johnson wanted to restore slavery in all but name, so he was one of the villains. Of course I'm glad that he lost and the Radical Republicans won (briefly, at least enough to pass the 14th and 15th amendments). But when I try to see things from the perspective of the time, well, I don't have the knowledge or expertise to make a professional-level attempt at it, but still, Johnson's effort to muddle through seems a lot more reasonable than Buchanan's. As I said in a comment on your last video (or maybe it was last-but-one), I think restitution should have been made to both the freedmen and the erstwhile slaveholders, at the expense of all the beneficiaries of slavery. Slaveholders had a legally valid claim on stolen wealth , and emancipation meant that this claim was re-stolen: if we were going to respect legalities, the claim would at least have been acknowledged. Full restitution to slaveholders, along with enough restitution to freedmen to let them have a decent chance at a new start, would have been less expensive than the war was. Token restitution would have been even less expensive. But even token restitution would have been politically very difficult, maybe impossible. Johnson's plan to restore slavery without the word "slavery" was reprehensible, but it's not that far off from what wound up happening for the subsequent ninety years or so, which suggests that it was viable as a way of letting the country muddle through.

[@lchistory9473]

I agree, I dont think Johnson is the worst president but he needs to be in the conversation. The problem with Buchanan is that he is an awful leader at a time when the nation needed a great unifier. I dont think there is a clear cut worst but, in my opinion, Buchanan, Pierce, Wilson, Johnson need to be considered.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

@@lchistory9473 I agree that Wilson should be on the list. I just forgot about him. I need learn about Pierce. I don't know enough to have an opinion.

[@lchistory9473]

Pierce had horrible leadership in the face of growing divisions over slavery. He also supported pro-slavery policies, such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and he failed to prevent violence in Kansas