Talk:Andrew Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Andrew Johnson is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

Andrew Johnson is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Presidents, a project to improve the quality of the biographies of U.S. Presidents and related articles to meet the criteria for Featured Article status. You are invited to view our progress.

Contents 1 Fall of Adolf Hitler 2 Impeachment 3 Acquittal 4 Alaska Purchase 5 Dates 6 Assumption 7 Lincoln's plan of leniency? 8 Vice-President 9 Lawyers striking deal with moderates 10 Amnesty 11 This page needs to have vandalism removed 1-11-07 12 hodgepodge

[edit] Fall of Adolf Hitler

"There were two attempts to remove President Andrew Johnson from office. The first occurred in the fall of Adolf Hitler". What is Fall of Adolf Hitler?

• It's vandalism, but it's been fixed, with (hopefully) correct information provided by another user. Silver Streak 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impeachment

This page needs a deeper explanation of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The ignorant reader (me) is left with no greater understanding of what Andrew Johnson was impeached than I had before I arrived at this page. The link at the bottom is a bit TOO much information - it is source material from the Harpers Weekly of the time. It has archaic prose and no analysis, so it's not very helpful. I really have no idea why Johnson was impeached, what he did to anger the radical faction. Thanks! Scarykitty 20:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, one should add something about the disagreement over the Tenure of Office Act, among other reasons for his impeachment. Stasa

I think it also needs more on the rest of Johnson's Presidency, and why he didn't run for re-election in 1868.

I definately agree with the above. It needs to tell about the importances of the impeachment. - IRT

Someone should put in Johnson's 1875 service in the senate in the term box at the bottom of the page. Srcastic

I think this little hand grenade needs some explanation: "He is regarded to be one of the worst presidents." The article explains why he was unpopular (Southerner sympathetic to the former Confederate states opposed by a Northern Congress united against him) but fails to explain what made him a bad President. Unless someone can specifically explain his defeciencies or incompetence, the "worst president ever" line seems a little biased and unjustified. --70.160.160.175 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the Tenure of Office Act, it should probably be noted that Johnson actually named Ulysses S. Grant as Secretary of War (who then turned the post back to Stanton after the Senate refused to acknowledge it). After that, Johnson then went on to name Lorenzo Thomas. As far as I've understood it, this is why Ulysses S. Grant went on to run as Republican in his own Presidential election. Thanks! -carcrashprncess

I'm taking out the "Of course" in a sentence because it seems biased to me.

"One of the most shameful episodes in the history of the Federal Government" is not NPOV and is furthermore based on in the Dunning school which has been somewhat discredited by Foner's reconstruction history which is more commonly accepted now. I've changed it to what I think is a balance between the pro-Johnson and anti-Johnson views, but either way the idea that it was a shameful act, a mistake, and a power grab is representative of one point of view, not of objective history. Also, Wade was not really of the "same ideology" as Congress (he was much more radical than most) but maybe I'm just splitting hairs on that one so I left it for now. IceJew 09:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a "Citation needed" mark on the edit mentioned here. Every historian I've ever encountered has continued in the 21st Century to portray the impeachment of Johnson as purely political and lacking in constitutional merit. IceJew seems to be suggesting a different interpretation is prevalent now, so it seems only fair that he provide some documentation of it. Msclguru 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know if this is the right place to put this, but the beginning of this article about Adrew Johnson is nonsense. This is what it says: "Andrew Jacksonwas never alive and was the seventeenth President of the United States (1865–1869),he was the person who assassinated Abraham Lincoln." I went to the edit this page tab and the right statement is there. Don't know how to fix it. 1st of all this is Johnson, not Jackson. Secondly, the rest of the sentence is nonesense. Can someone who knows how please fix this article. 72.79.44.5 04:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the article.72.79.44.5

[edit] Acquittal

This line doesn't make sense:

Johnson was acquitted by a vote of thirty-five for conviction to nineteen for acquittal. He had avoided removal from office by a single vote.

How could he have been acquitted if 35 voted for conviction, whilst only 19 voted for acquittal? Kewpid 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm guessing that they needed a certain percentage of the vote to convict not just more than 50%. -philatio

That's right, the Senate had to vote 2/3 majority (In this case, 36-guilty to 18-Not guilty), for conviction & removal from office. As Johnson got 35 G to 19 NG. (1 vote short of conviction), he was aquitted and got to complete his term. GoodDay 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the US anything from Congress against the president requires a 2/3 majority, such as overriding presendential vetoes or impeaching the president. 68.40.190.172 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska Purchase

According to the Alaska article and Alaska_Purchase article, the territory was purchased for US $7,200,000. This article says it was US $10,900,000. Which is the correct number? Python 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the 10 mil number was adjusted for inflation? 68.40.190.172 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

I can't find the edit point where the dates got goofed up, but the early life section says:

At the age of 10 he was apprenticed to a tailor, but ran away to Greeneville, Tennessee in 1826

If he was born in 1808 and an alderman as early as 1828, that makes no sense. But is the date wrong or the age or what? --Tysto 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh hang on. I think I get it. He became an apprentice when he was 10 in 1818, served as an apprentice for 8 years, then ran away in 1826 when he was 18. Right? That's seems long for an apprenticeship. And "ran away" seems an odd choice of words for an 18-year-old leaving his job. Am I still misunderstanding? That section needs to be clearer overall, I think. --Tysto 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When he was 10 or so his mother signed this labor contract that obliged him to work only for a certain tailor names Selby until he was 21. They had a falling out and Selby threatened to sue so Johnson left the state and went to Tennessee. Rjensen 00:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assumption

Unless I am nuts John Tyler was the only VP before Johnson to assume the Presidency. WBcoleman 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Taylor died in 1850 and VP Fillmore took over. Therfore you ar nuts. Rjensen 16:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're both nuts, I guess. John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison in 1841, and then Fillmore succeeded Taylor, which makes Johnson the THIRD, not first or second, VP to assume the Presidency upon the death of a President. Michaeltmccorkle 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln's plan of leniency?

"-and in many ways followed the similar plan of leniency that Lincoln advocated before his death." Unless I am very wrong, Lincoln did not advocate any plan for Reconstruction before his death, though he seemed to favor the idea of black suffrage. Aside from a single speech the evening of his assassination when he spoke of difficult times ahead, he never publicly commented on the issue as far as I know. Johnson certainly did not follow Lincoln's plans for southern freedmen. Anyone have a comment? 68.40.190.172 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Grant's Personal Memoirs he says that he was aware of Lincoln's plans for the South after the war, and they would have been much milder than Johnson's. Lincoln told him (on an occasion in 1864 when several members of the Confederate government came to meet with Lincoln to discuss terms) that he (Lincoln) had told them that there were only two conditions he insisted upon: that the Union must be preserved, and that slavery must be abolished. According to Grant, "If they would accept those two conditions Lincoln would sign his name to a blank piece of paper and give it to them." Fumblebruschi 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the articles on Lincoln and on Reconstruction discuss Lincoln's elaborate plans, which he started to put in effect in several states (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia). He fought with the Radicals who had a very harsh policy. Until summer 1865 the Radicals thought Johnson was with them, but AJ turned against them in the fall. See Harris, William C. With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the Union (1997). For an online text see Nicolay & Hay at [1] Rjensen 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vice-President

Does anyone know why Johnson (when he was president) didn't have a vice president? 72.92.84.100

The only reason I can think of for him not having a Vice President is that one was not elected after he assumed office unexpectadly. I'm by no means an expert on this, but everything I've heard and read agree that Johnson had no Vice President. One way to find out for sure would be to see if any of the other "Accidental Presidents" (Vice Presidents who became President due to a death) had a Vice President.--70.113.79.34 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. 72.92.84.100 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawyers striking deal with moderates

This is mentioned in Trefousse but I don't have the book anymore so I can't get the page. It's also in Foner, Short History of Reconstruction, p 144, but it's only a brief mention of it so the Trefousee quote would be better. If I come across it I'll add it at that point in time I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceJew (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Amnesty

Did the amnesty apply to Jefferson Davis? Richard75 14:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No it did not apply to top people like Davis or Lee. Lee was never arrested but he feared he might be put on trial for treason (there were no treason trials at all). Rjensen 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page needs to have vandalism removed 1-11-07

please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.160.178.124 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] hodgepodge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Impeachment:_the_first_attempt

I dont like the wording of this 71.62.10.130 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)