Reconstruction Plans and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
Introduction to Reconstruction Plans
This discussion marks the eighth part of the curriculum regarding Reconstruction, signaling that the material is approximately halfway complete.
The focus of this section is the actual plans authored for the Reconstruction of the United States following the Civil War.
The first formal plan for Reconstruction was authored by President Abraham Lincoln.
President Lincoln’s 10% Plan
Timeline and Context: President Lincoln developed this proposal during the American Civil War, rather than after its conclusion.
Core Requirements: The plan, formally known as the Plan, stipulated that if (or ) of the voters in a Southern state would agree to accept the end of slavery, that state would be permitted to rejoin the Union.
Political Rights: Upon meeting this threshold, the state would have all of its consequential political rights restored.
Characterization: This was considered an exceptionally lenient plan. The threshold was not , nor even a majority (half), but a mere tenth of the voting population.
Rationale and Motivation:
Lincoln’s primary concern during the war was ensuring a Northern victory and bringing the conflict to an end.
The plan was designed toward the end of the war, as it became clear the South was inevitably losing.
The leniency served as a surrender incentive. Lincoln’s message to individual Southern states was that they were going to lose regardless, so they should surrender immediately to save "pointless lives."
In exchange for an early surrender, Lincoln promised that easy terms for Reconstruction would be forthcoming.
Outcome and Failure:
The plan failed to achieve its primary goal; Southern states did not surrender based on these terms and continued fighting until the "bitter end."
Once the war actually ended, the original justification for leniency (the need to encourage surrender) vanished.
Before his death, Lincoln began to move toward a more "radical punitive reconstruction" approach, indicating that because the South did not take the easy terms when offered, there would now be "hell to pay."
The Wade-Davis Bill: The Congressional Response
Legislative Authority: In response to Lincoln’s lenient plan, Congress proposed its own plan for Reconstruction. This was an attempt by Congress to wrest political power back from the Executive Branch, as they believed Reconstruction was a congressional responsibility.
Core Requirements: Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, which required that (a majority) of voters in a Southern state accept the end of slavery before the state could be readmitted to the Union.
Intentional Severity: Unlike Lincoln's plan, the Wade-Davis Bill was designed to be harsh. Congress was aware that the Southern states would struggle to agree to these terms.
Strategic Prolongation: Congress did not want to readmit the Southern states quickly. They intended to prolong the Reconstruction period to use the time to force fundamental changes upon the South.
Result: President Lincoln used his veto power on the Wade-Davis Bill, preventing it from becoming law. Consequently, at the war's conclusion, while the North had won, there was no officially implemented plan for Reconstruction.
The Presidency of Andrew Johnson and Post-War Uncertainty
The Power Vacuum: Following the end of the war and the sudden assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Reconstruction remained "up in the air."
Profile of Andrew Johnson: The new President, Andrew Johnson, was a Southerner and a former Democrat from Tennessee. He was also a former slave owner.
Political Vulnerability: Johnson was an "accidental president," viewed with intense suspicion by the North because he was a Southerner who took office after a Southerner killed Lincoln. He had very little political support for any independent plan he might propose.
Johnson’s Strategy: To navigate his lack of support, Johnson embraced Lincoln’s original Plan.
He claimed to be following in the footsteps of the "fallen leader," who was now viewed as a hero and a martyr.
This was a strategic misuse of Lincoln's plan; Lincoln himself would likely have abandoned the terms after the war ended.
Johnson’s true motive for adopting the plan was his desire to be lenient toward the South due to his Southern background.
The Political Stalemate and Gridlock in Washington
Conflicting Agendas: The Northern public and the almost entirely Northern Republican-controlled Congress demanded harsh Reconstruction measures. Johnson, conversely, remained committed to leniency.
The Cycle of Vetoes: Congress began passing a series of harsh Reconstruction measures in response to public opinion. Johnson vetoed every piece of legislation Congress passed, and Congress, in turn, opposed everything Johnson attempted to do.
Resulting Gridlock: Washington D. C. fell into a stalemate where neither the Presidency nor Congress could effectively govern.
Benefit to the South: The South benefited from this lack of Northern unity. With no enforced Reconstruction, Southern states returned to their "old ways" and "old racist ways."
Northern Frustration: The North became increasingly angry, feeling that the Civil War—in which hundreds of thousands of men died—had been fought for nothing because a Southern president was allowing the South to revert to its pre-war state.
The Congressional Election of and Veto Overrides
The Power of the People: Under the U.S. system of government, the stalemate was addressed by the voters during the national elections that occur every .
The Election of : During the midterm election of , Northern voters turned out in massive numbers and voted overwhelmingly for Republicans.
The Majority: Republicans gained enough seats in Congress to achieve a majority.
Overriding the Executive: With a vote, Congress gained the power to override presidential vetoes. This allowed them to enact the Reconstruction laws Johnson had previously blocked, finally moving Reconstruction forward—at least on paper.
The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson
The Enforcement Gap: Laws require enforcement by the Executive Branch to be meaningful. Johnson refused to enforce the laws Congress had passed over his veto, leading the Southern state governments to ignore them.
The Move for Removal: Frustrated by Johnson's obstruction, the North concluded that Johnson was the central problem and must be removed through impeachment.
Constitutional Grounds: The Constitution allows for the removal of a President for:
Treason (No evidence against Johnson).
Bribery (No evidence against Johnson).
Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors (A vague term open to wide interpretation).
The Trap: The Tenure of Office Act: Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act over Johnson's veto. This law stripped the President of the power to remove executive officials without Senate approval.
This was a deliberate attempt to trap Johnson. Congress knew he would break the law so they could claim he committed a "high crime."
Johnson specifically wanted to remove cabinet members he inherited from Lincoln to appoint his own advisors.
The Trigger: Johnson fired the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanley, a Radical Republican and Lincoln appointee. Congress immediately invoked the Tenure of Office Act as a high crime.
The House of Representatives: Acted as a grand jury or the body that indicts. They listened to the charges and voted. A simple majority was required to impeach, which Johnson easily met (joining later presidents Clinton and Trump in being impeached).
The Senate Trial: The actual trial took place in the Senate. Conviction and removal from office require a majority vote of "guilty."
The Verdict:
The Republicans held a majority, and the vote was very close, but Johnson was not convicted.
Some Republicans voted "not guilty" because they believed the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional.
They feared that removing a President over political differences would disrupt the constitutional balance of power and the system of checks and balances.
Consequences of the Outcome:
Johnson remained in office but was humiliated.
The Radical Republicans, who advocated for actual social and racial Reconstruction, lost massive influence within their party.
They were viewed as power-hungry and willing to trample the Constitution.
This loss of influence marked the "beginning of the end" of meaningful social and racial Reconstruction in the United States.