Approach to Lincoln’s and Johnson’s Politics

Introduction

Both Lincoln and Johnson as presidents sought to fully use their executive power. While it set both of them on a path of conflict with the Congress, Johnson received much more criticism. This difference may seem unfair but is understandable, as Johnson did not possess Lincoln’s authority.

Main body

Lincoln’s position as the leader of the Republican Party was likely the main reason why Congress did not criticize him as much as Johnson. An interesting case was his approach to the Wade-Davis Bill proposing reintegration of the South on harsh terms. Disagreeing with this proposal, Lincoln refused to sign it, thus effectively dooming it by his “pocket veto”.¹ Yet Lincoln’s authority – combined with his reputation of a man who won the Civil War – made him a popular figure in the predominantly Republican Congress. For this reason, congressmen generally looked benevolently upon his use of executive power, even when it went against their wishes.

Johnson, on the other hand, had no authority in the party. Initially a Democrat and only an adopted Republican, he had no firm support in the Congress – rather, he was “a leader without a party.”² As a result, Congress criticized him bitterly even though he protected much the same vision of swift Reconstruction as Lincoln himself. For instance, his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction was lenient, entirely in Lincoln’s spirit, but without his late predecessor’s authority as a staunch Republican, Johnson immediately faced congressional opposition.³ While it may seem unfair, as the Congress ostracized Johnson for the same things it allowed Lincoln, it is also entirely understandable, as the leaders with different political biographies naturally provoked different reactions.

Conclusion

Congress’ treatment of Lincoln’s and Johnson’s use of executive power was unfair but expectable. Lincoln’s background and authority protected him from much of Congressional outrage. Johnson had no such advantage, which is why his use of executive power, virtually identical to that of Lincoln, incurred sharp criticism.

References

1. Corbett, P. Scott, Volker Janssen, John M. Lund, Todd Pfannestiel, Sylvie Waskiewicz, and Paul Vickery. et al. “U.S. History.” Openstax. Web.
2. Trask, H. Arthur Scott, and Carey Roberts. “President Andrew Johnson: Tribune of States’ Rights.” In Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, edited by John V. Denson, 289-318. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, 2001.

Footnotes

1. P. Scott Corbett et al., “U.S. History,” Openstax.
2. H. Arthur Scott Trask and Carey Roberts, “President Andrew Johnson: Tribune of States’ Rights,” in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, ed. John V. Denson, (Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, 2001), 312.
3. Corbett, “U.S. History.”