Talk about a tough act to follow. Andrew Johnson was the third president to reach the White House via the side door. The predecessors of John Tyler and Millard Fillmore had died natural deaths. Johnson's predecessor, Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated. Lincoln had been controversial in life—his election triggered the breakup of the Union, and his conduct of the Civil War included jailing critics and suspending inconvenient parts of the Constitution—but in death his sins were forgiven, and he was canonized as a martyr to freedom and democracy.
“Johnson faced major challenges. The rebellious states had to be readmitted to the Union. The former slaves had to be integrated as free men and women into the economy and polity of the South. The leaders of the rebellion had to be prevented from returning to positions of power in the states and in Congress.
A final task was more subtle but hardly less consequential. The balance between the federal government's legislative and executive branches had to be restored.”-H. W. Brands
I realize that asking the question: “What if ...?” is a temptation in history most often best avoided. However, framed another way, the replacement by Lincoln of Hamlin as Vice-President with Johnson on his 1864 Republican ticket and, after the forces in our nation’s past brought about Lincoln’s assassination and its dynamic impact upon Reconstruction, the spirit of which seems to have lingered into the Twenty Second Century, has been in my thoughts for quite a while. I think about it every 4-year election cycle when an incumbent President makes the decision to keep the existing “partner,” or to divorce and find another. Divorces of any type have repercussions all the consequences of which cannot be foreseen or intended.
It occurs to me that vice- presidential decision by incumbent Presidents is less focused upon by chroniclers of American history than it rightfully deserves. The selection of a successor to royal or imperial power has been a major force in world history.
That said, I also think on whether my thoughts on vice-presidential selection itself may be influenced by regionalism and having lived all my life in some part of Texas (except for a year in Selma, Alabama). Although I was not alive at the time of the 1940 Democratic Convention, when Franklin Roosevelt, for his unprecedented third term, decided to replace John Nance Garner as his running mate with Henry Wallace, I have parents and grandparents who were, the latter having been in attendance.
Roosevelt’s 1940 decision was as much a part of the tipping of the scales in the delicate “balance between the federal government's legislative and executive branches” back in the direction of what it had been under Lincoln, as Lincoln’s 1864 decision had been on that balance the other way.
I just finished today’s essay “Exit Gracefully and timely.” Thank you. I was pleasantly surprised that “Perhaps I'll look more closely at this issue in a future post” meant the next day.
Interesting concept in the Tenure of Office Act. Doing a quick google finds it was repealed entirely twenty years later after SCOTUS ruled on a similar issue which indicated they may consider the TOA unconstitutional. I think Johnson's attitude in this regard was correct. Senate confirmation required, but not removal. A chief executive must have confidence in his cabinet and one kept there by the legislature is effectively putting a "plant" in the cabinet.
One also wonders about the "acting" official and legitimacy. If I recall correctly, there is a law which spells out which officials must have Senate confirmation. Per the scholarly paper I link below, it points out that 'acting' positions go back even to the early days of the Republic. In modern times our several recent presidents relied on acting officials- usually due to the short notice nature of the confirmed office older's departure (death or resignation). One impediment to confirming an official is the Senate itself which is now taking six months to get approvals through and finalized!
But I think the bigger issue is INTENT. Previous presidents (Bush, Clinton, Obama, GWBush) had to rely on putting acting officials into place because of both short notice and Senate foot-dragging. But Trump was a departure there. He literally didn't want to deal with Senate confirmtions. He even stated "I like acting. It gives me more flexibility. Do you understand that? I like acting. So we have a few that are acting. " The intent appeared to bypass the Senate for as long as possible.
“Johnson faced major challenges. The rebellious states had to be readmitted to the Union. The former slaves had to be integrated as free men and women into the economy and polity of the South. The leaders of the rebellion had to be prevented from returning to positions of power in the states and in Congress.
A final task was more subtle but hardly less consequential. The balance between the federal government's legislative and executive branches had to be restored.”-H. W. Brands
I realize that asking the question: “What if ...?” is a temptation in history most often best avoided. However, framed another way, the replacement by Lincoln of Hamlin as Vice-President with Johnson on his 1864 Republican ticket and, after the forces in our nation’s past brought about Lincoln’s assassination and its dynamic impact upon Reconstruction, the spirit of which seems to have lingered into the Twenty Second Century, has been in my thoughts for quite a while. I think about it every 4-year election cycle when an incumbent President makes the decision to keep the existing “partner,” or to divorce and find another. Divorces of any type have repercussions all the consequences of which cannot be foreseen or intended.
It occurs to me that vice- presidential decision by incumbent Presidents is less focused upon by chroniclers of American history than it rightfully deserves. The selection of a successor to royal or imperial power has been a major force in world history.
That said, I also think on whether my thoughts on vice-presidential selection itself may be influenced by regionalism and having lived all my life in some part of Texas (except for a year in Selma, Alabama). Although I was not alive at the time of the 1940 Democratic Convention, when Franklin Roosevelt, for his unprecedented third term, decided to replace John Nance Garner as his running mate with Henry Wallace, I have parents and grandparents who were, the latter having been in attendance.
Roosevelt’s 1940 decision was as much a part of the tipping of the scales in the delicate “balance between the federal government's legislative and executive branches” back in the direction of what it had been under Lincoln, as Lincoln’s 1864 decision had been on that balance the other way.
Perhaps I'll look more closely at this issue in a future post.
I just finished today’s essay “Exit Gracefully and timely.” Thank you. I was pleasantly surprised that “Perhaps I'll look more closely at this issue in a future post” meant the next day.
Interesting concept in the Tenure of Office Act. Doing a quick google finds it was repealed entirely twenty years later after SCOTUS ruled on a similar issue which indicated they may consider the TOA unconstitutional. I think Johnson's attitude in this regard was correct. Senate confirmation required, but not removal. A chief executive must have confidence in his cabinet and one kept there by the legislature is effectively putting a "plant" in the cabinet.
One also wonders about the "acting" official and legitimacy. If I recall correctly, there is a law which spells out which officials must have Senate confirmation. Per the scholarly paper I link below, it points out that 'acting' positions go back even to the early days of the Republic. In modern times our several recent presidents relied on acting officials- usually due to the short notice nature of the confirmed office older's departure (death or resignation). One impediment to confirming an official is the Senate itself which is now taking six months to get approvals through and finalized!
But I think the bigger issue is INTENT. Previous presidents (Bush, Clinton, Obama, GWBush) had to rely on putting acting officials into place because of both short notice and Senate foot-dragging. But Trump was a departure there. He literally didn't want to deal with Senate confirmtions. He even stated "I like acting. It gives me more flexibility. Do you understand that? I like acting. So we have a few that are acting. " The intent appeared to bypass the Senate for as long as possible.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3249&context=articles