Reconstruction Era: Lincoln, Johnson, and the 14th Amendment

Introduction

The era after the Civil War came to be known as the Reconstruction Era. This essay describes the plans of President Lincoln and President Johnson and how they differed from the plans of Congress. It also examines the impact of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and responds to the notion offered by many historians that the post-Civil War era was one of the "darkest" periods in American history. Finally, it considers whether anything could have or should have been done differently. While many of the stains of the Reconstruction Era have since faded, that period was in many ways the worst in American history — a distinction that even includes the era of slavery before 1861.

Congressional Reconstruction Actions

In terms of what Congress did instead of, and in spite of, what Lincoln and Johnson were pursuing, several actions stand out. First, three Reconstruction Acts were passed in 1867, all over vetoes by President Johnson. Tennessee was readmitted to the Union upon ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, but the other ten former Confederate states were rejected and divided into military districts. Those states were required to draft new constitutions and to permit Black suffrage as part of their new government structures. About seven states had complied by 1868.

Other congressional moves were far more aggressive and legally dubious. The Tenure of Office Act, for example, expressly forbade the President from removing civil officials — including members of his own Cabinet — without the consent of the Senate. This was widely seen as a ploy to protect Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who was cooperating with the Radical Republicans. Congress also moved to require that two-thirds of the Supreme Court vote in favor of any measure that contravened an act of Congress. This was done largely in reaction to the Court's ruling that military tribunals could not be used as the justice mechanism in areas where functional civil courts existed — a ruling that directly challenged the military district system Congress had established.

Lincoln's and Johnson's Plans Compared

Lincoln's involvement in Reconstruction planning was limited by his assassination shortly after the Civil War ended. Nevertheless, his approach differed from Congress's on several key points. Lincoln asserted that a state convention could be convened to draft a new constitution once only ten percent of a state's voters had pledged allegiance to the Union. Congress, by contrast, demanded that half of all voters do so. Congress also imposed the Ironclad Oath, permitting only those who had never taken up arms against the United States to hold elected office. Lincoln also opposed the Wade-Davis Bill, a congressional measure that left to individual states the question of what political rights Black Americans would hold.

President Andrew Johnson, who had switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, openly declared that "white men alone must manage the South." He preferred to call his approach "restoration" rather than "reconstruction," and he offered amnesty to Southerners who would swear an oath of allegiance — much as Lincoln had proposed. Despite this superficial similarity, Johnson's underlying attitudes toward Black Americans and Southern governance placed him at odds with the goals of meaningful racial equality.

Conclusion: What Could Have Been Done Differently

As for what could have and should have been done differently, Lincoln should have been far better protected in the aftermath of the Civil War. It was well known that he would be a target, and the fact that John Wilkes Booth was able to carry out the assassination reflects the inadequate security measures in place. The Reconstruction Era would likely have proceeded far more smoothly had Lincoln survived. Additionally, the Radical Republicans' active disregard for the law and the Constitution should have been confronted more firmly and decisively than it was. Their manipulation of congressional power — from the Tenure of Office Act to their attempt to constrain the Supreme Court — represented a troubling overreach that undermined the constitutional balance the nation depended upon to heal.