Editing Andrew Johnson (section)

== Historical reputation and legacy ==
According to Castel, "historians [of Johnson's presidency] have tended to concentrate to the exclusion of practically everything else upon his role in that titanic event [Reconstruction]."{{Sfn|Castel|1979|p=vii}} Through the remainder of the 19th century, there were few historical evaluations of Johnson and his presidency. Memoirs from Northerners who had dealt with him, such as former vice president Henry Wilson and Maine Senator [[James G. Blaine]], depicted him as an obstinate boor who tried to favor the South in Reconstruction but was frustrated by Congress.{{Sfn|Castel|1979|p=218}} According to historian [[Howard K. Beale]] in his journal article about the historiography of Reconstruction, "Men of the postwar decades were more concerned with justifying their own position than they were with painstaking search for truth. Thus [Alabama representative and historian] [[Hilary Herbert]] and his corroborators presented a Southern indictment of Northern policies, and Henry Wilson's history was a brief for the North."{{Sfn|Beale|p=807}}

The turn of the 20th century saw the first significant historical evaluations of Johnson. Leading the wave was Pulitzer Prize-winning historian [[James Ford Rhodes]], who wrote of the former president:{{Sfn|Castel|1979|p=218}}

{{Blockquote|Johnson acted in accordance with his nature. He had intellectual force but it worked in a groove. Obstinate rather than firm it undoubtedly seemed to him that following counsel and making concessions were a display of weakness. At all events from his December message to the veto of the Civil Rights Bill he yielded not a jot to Congress. The moderate senators and representatives (who constituted a majority of the Union party) asked him for only a slight compromise; their action was really an entreaty that he would unite with them to preserve Congress and the country from the policy of the radicals&nbsp;... His quarrel with Congress prevented the readmission into the Union on generous terms of the members of the late Confederacy&nbsp;... His pride of opinion, his desire to beat, blinded him to the real welfare of the South and of the whole country.{{Sfn|Rhodes|p=589}}}}

Rhodes ascribed Johnson's faults to his personal weaknesses, and blamed him for the problems of the postbellum South.{{Sfn|Beale|p=807}} Other early 20th-century historians, such as [[John Burgess (political scientist)|John Burgess]], future president [[Woodrow Wilson]], and [[William Dunning]], concurred with Rhodes, believing Johnson flawed and politically inept but concluding that he had tried to carry out Lincoln's plans for the South in good faith.{{Sfn|Castel|1979|pp=218–219}} Author and journalist Jay Tolson suggests that Wilson "depict[ed Reconstruction] as a vindictive program that hurt even repentant southerners while benefiting northern opportunists, the so-called [[Carpetbaggers]], and cynical white southerners, or [[Scalawags]], who exploited alliances with blacks for political gain."{{Sfn|Tolson}}

[[File:Andrew-johnson-grave-01.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The grave of Johnson in Greeneville, Tennessee]]
Even as Rhodes and his school wrote, another group of historians ([[Dunning School]]) was setting out on the full rehabilitation of Johnson, using for the first time primary sources such as his papers, provided by his daughter Martha before her death in 1901, and the diaries of Johnson's Navy Secretary, [[Gideon Welles]], first published in 1911. The resulting volumes, such as [[David M. De Witt|David Miller DeWitt]]'s ''The Impeachment and Trial of President Andrew Johnson'' (1903), presented him far more favorably than they did those who had sought to oust him. In [[James Schouler]]'s 1913 ''History of the Reconstruction Period'', the author accused Rhodes of being "quite unfair to Johnson", though agreeing that the former president had created many of his own problems through inept political moves. These works had an effect; although historians continued to view Johnson as having deep flaws which sabotaged his presidency, they saw his Reconstruction policies as fundamentally correct.{{Sfn|Castel|1979|p=220}}

Castel writes:

{{blockquote|at the end of the 1920s, an historiographical revolution took place. In the span of three years five widely read books appeared, all highly pro-Johnson.&nbsp;...They differed in general approach and specific interpretations, but they all glorified Johnson and condemned his enemies. According to these writers, Johnson was a humane, enlightened, and liberal statesman who waged a courageous battle for the Constitution and democracy against scheming and unscrupulous Radicals, who were motivated by a vindictive hatred of the South, partisanship, and a desire to establish the supremacy of Northern "big business". In short, rather than a boor, Johnson was a martyr; instead of a villain, a hero.{{Sfn|Castel|1979|pp=220–21}}}}

Beale wondered in 1940, "is it not time that we studied the history of Reconstruction without first assuming, at least subconsciously, that carpetbaggers and Southern white Republicans were wicked, that Negroes were illiterate incompetents, and that the whole white South owes a debt of gratitude to the restorers of 'white supremacy'?"{{Sfn|Beale|p=808}} Despite these doubts, the favorable view of Johnson survived for a time. In 1942, [[Van Heflin]] portrayed the former president as a fighter for democracy in the Hollywood film ''[[Tennessee Johnson]]''. In 1948, a poll of his colleagues by historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger]] deemed Johnson among the average presidents; in 1956, one by Clinton L. Rossiter named him as one of the near-great chief executives.{{Sfn|Castel|1979|p=221}} Foner notes that at the time of these surveys, "the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote."{{Sfn|Foner column}}

Earlier historians, including Beale, believed that money drove events, and had seen Reconstruction as an economic struggle. They also accepted, for the most part, that reconciliation between North and South should have been the top priority of Reconstruction. In the 1950s, historians began to focus on the African-American experience as central to Reconstruction. They rejected completely any claim of black inferiority, which had marked many earlier historical works, and saw the developing [[civil rights movement]] as a second Reconstruction; some [[Neoabolitionism (race relations)|neoabolitionist]] writers stated they hoped their work on the postbellum era would advance the cause of civil rights. These authors sympathized with the Radical Republicans for their desire to help the African American, and saw Johnson as callous towards the freedman. In a number of works from 1956 onwards by such historians as [[Fawn Brodie]], the former president was depicted as a successful saboteur of efforts to better the freedman's lot. These volumes included major biographies of Stevens and Stanton.{{Sfn|Castel|1979|pp=223–225}} Reconstruction was increasingly seen as a noble effort to integrate the freed slaves into society.{{Sfn|Tolson}}{{Sfn|Foner column}}

In the early 21st century, Johnson is among those commonly mentioned as the worst presidents in U.S. history.{{Sfn|Tolson}} According to historian Glenn W. Lafantasie, who believes [[James Buchanan]] the worst president, "Johnson is a particular favorite for the bottom of the pile because of his impeachment&nbsp;... his complete mishandling of Reconstruction policy&nbsp;... his bristling personality, and his enormous sense of self-importance."{{Sfn|Lafantasie}} Tolson suggests that "Johnson is now scorned for having resisted Radical Republican policies aimed at securing the rights and well-being of the newly emancipated African-Americans."{{Sfn|Tolson}} Gordon-Reed notes that Johnson, along with his contemporaries Pierce and Buchanan, is generally listed among the five worst presidents, but states "there have never been more difficult times in the life of this nation. The problems these men had to confront were enormous. It would have taken a succession of Lincolns to do them justice."{{Sfn|Gordon-Reed|p=56}}

Trefousse considers Johnson's legacy to be "the maintenance of white supremacy. His boost to Southern conservatives by undermining Reconstruction was his legacy to the nation, one that would trouble the country for generations to come."{{Sfn|Trefousse|p=352}} Gordon-Reed states of Johnson:

{{blockquote|We know the results of Johnson's failures—that his preternatural stubbornness, his mean and crude racism, his primitive and instrumental understanding of the Constitution stunted his capacity for enlightened and forward-thinking leadership when those qualities were so desperately needed. At the same time, Johnson's story has a miraculous quality to it: the poor boy who systematically rose to the heights, fell from grace, and then fought his way back to a position of honor in the country. For good or ill, "only in America", as they say, could Johnson's story unfold in the way that it did.{{Sfn|Gordon-Reed|p=144}}<!-- Note that the sentence does continue, it is clipped for effect -->}}