What do you think?
Rate this book
The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
Robert S. Levine foregrounds the viewpoints of Black Americans on Reconstruction in his absorbing account of the struggle between the great orator Frederick Douglass and President Andrew Johnson.
When Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, the country was on the precipice of radical change. Johnson, seemingly more progressive than Lincoln, looked like the ideal person to lead the country. He had already cast himself as a “Moses” for the Black community, and African Americans were optimistic that he would pursue aggressive federal policies for Black equality.
Despite this early promise, Frederick Douglass, the country’s most influential Black leader, soon grew disillusioned with Johnson’s policies and increasingly doubted the president was sincere in supporting Black citizenship. In a dramatic and pivotal meeting between Johnson and a Black delegation at the White House, the president and Douglass came to verbal blows over the course of Reconstruction.
As he lectured across the country, Douglass continued to attack Johnson’s policies, while raising questions about the Radical Republicans’ hesitancy to grant African Americans the vote. Johnson meanwhile kept his eye on Douglass, eventually making a surprising effort to appoint him to a key position in his administration.
Levine grippingly portrays the conflicts that brought Douglass and the wider Black community to reject Johnson and call for a guilty verdict in his impeachment trial. He brings fresh insight by turning to letters between Douglass and his sons, speeches by Douglass and other major Black figures like Frances E. W. Harper, and articles and letters in the Christian Recorder, the most important African American newspaper of the time. In counterpointing the lives and careers of Douglass and Johnson, Levine offers a distinctive vision of the lost promise and dire failure of Reconstruction, the effects of which still reverberate today.
When Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, the country was on the precipice of radical change. Johnson, seemingly more progressive than Lincoln, looked like the ideal person to lead the country. He had already cast himself as a “Moses” for the Black community, and African Americans were optimistic that he would pursue aggressive federal policies for Black equality.
Despite this early promise, Frederick Douglass, the country’s most influential Black leader, soon grew disillusioned with Johnson’s policies and increasingly doubted the president was sincere in supporting Black citizenship. In a dramatic and pivotal meeting between Johnson and a Black delegation at the White House, the president and Douglass came to verbal blows over the course of Reconstruction.
As he lectured across the country, Douglass continued to attack Johnson’s policies, while raising questions about the Radical Republicans’ hesitancy to grant African Americans the vote. Johnson meanwhile kept his eye on Douglass, eventually making a surprising effort to appoint him to a key position in his administration.
Levine grippingly portrays the conflicts that brought Douglass and the wider Black community to reject Johnson and call for a guilty verdict in his impeachment trial. He brings fresh insight by turning to letters between Douglass and his sons, speeches by Douglass and other major Black figures like Frances E. W. Harper, and articles and letters in the Christian Recorder, the most important African American newspaper of the time. In counterpointing the lives and careers of Douglass and Johnson, Levine offers a distinctive vision of the lost promise and dire failure of Reconstruction, the effects of which still reverberate today.
336 pages, Hardcover
Published August 24, 2021
45 people are currently reading
2534 people want to read
About the author
Robert S. Levine
63 books27 followersRobert S. Levine (Ph.D. Stanford University 1981) is Distinguished University Professor of English and Distinguished Scholar-Teacher at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Levine is the General Editor of The Norton Anthology of American Literature and is a member of the editorial boards of American Literary History, Leviathan: A Journal of Melville Studies, and J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists.
Levine is the General Editor of The Norton Anthology of American Literature and is a member of the editorial boards of American Literary History, Leviathan: A Journal of Melville Studies, and J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
July 14, 2021
Over the past three years I’ve read quite a few books on Reconstruction, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, and Frederick Douglass*. I thought I wouldn’t learn anything new when I began reading The Failed Promise, I was wrong. Robert Levine’s new book focuses on the mostly unexamined role that Frederick Douglass and other Black leaders played during the time of the Johnson presidency and his subsequent impeachment.
The title The Failed Promise has a double meaning, Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction were both failed promises. Many Radical Republicans and Black leaders had high hopes that Andrew Johnson would be a more progressive and bold president on Reconstruction than Lincoln at the time of his assassination and they had every right to think so because of Johnson’s history of being a Southern Unionist, anti-secessionist, and a proponent of emancipation. But something changed a few months after he became president; Johnson wanted the Southern states to be restored to the Union and not reconstructed. Restoration was essentially a way to let bygones be bygones and allow the Southern states and former Confederate leaders to reenter the Union with no strings attached. Reconstructionists in Congress on the other hand wanted preconditions, they wanted Southerners to ratify the 13th Amendment and allow for Black suffrage before they were welcomed back. This fight between President Johnson and Congress is ultimately what leads to his impeachment. The violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the official charge, but Congress was mostly frustrated with Johnson’s obstruction of Reconstruction.
Levine does a great job showing how Lincoln and Johnson were viewed in this period. Lincoln was criticized and challenged by Douglass when Lincoln was alive, which is seldom talked about, nowadays we focus more on how they were friends. Johnson was a racist who thought he cared about Black people. As you read the book, get use to the refrain that Johnson was a “Moses” to Black people. Anytime Johnson was questioned about his support for Black civil rights he would say that he was Black folks’ Moses which is akin to saying “I love the Blacks” or “I’ve done more for Black people than anyone” in modern times.
Levine gives excellent coverage of the relationship between Johnson and Douglass. He covers the infamously tense meeting between Johnson, Douglass, and other Black leaders on Reconstruction, and how Johnson and his aides kept tabs on Douglass’s public activities. Good thing the FBI or J. Edgar Hoover wasn’t around during this period, otherwise Douglass rights were sure to be violated.
Levine, an English Professor, gives special attention to the speeches delivered by these two leaders during this period. First, there is Johnson’s “Swing Around the Circle” speaking tour, where he preached racist rhetoric, advocated violence against his political opponents, and as a result his public standing suffered because of it. Then there is Douglass’s lesser known speech “Sources of Danger to the Republic”, in it Douglass attacks Johnson and calls the U.S. Constitution one of the dangers to the Republic. What is fascinating about this speech is that Douglass basically becomes a constitutional scholar and attacks certain aspects of the Constitution that he found problematic, such as the veto power, pardoning power, the presidential two term principle, and the office of the vice presidency. Levine also reveals that Douglass had different versions of this speech depending on the racial makeup of his audience, i.e. he was more folksy in front of a Black audience and challenged his White audience to bring about constitutional reform. What makes this book even more special is that Douglass’s 1867 speech before a Black audience in Philadelphia is reprinted for the first time in the Appendix; trust me it is well worth the read.
What I find the most fascinating about this book is the role of Black leaders during the Reconstruction period. Levine writes that during Johnson’s impeachment trial, Black elites did not focus on the Tenure of Office Act in their impeachment brief instead they focused on how Andrew Johnson betrayed Black Americans and also his antipathy to the Freedman’s Bureau. This just goes to show that Black leaders have always been the moral conscious of this nation. When establishment politicians focused on the technicality of Johnson firing Stanton and violating the Tenure of Office Act, Black leaders focused on the stain that Johnson’s racism had on the lives of Black people.
Overall, The Failed Promise is a quick read. I like that Levine presents how complex and nuanced Johnson was. He doesn’t blame all of Reconstruction’s failure on Johnson although he was an important force against Reconstruction. Readers will definitely develop more of an appreciation for Douglass and learn how he almost became a pivotal figure in Johnson’s impeachment. Finally, you will get a glimpse of other notable Black leaders who don’t get their due like Frances Ellen Watkins Harper and John Langston.
*See Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B. Du Bois, Stony the Road by Henry Louis Gates Jr. , The Impeachers by Brenda Wineapple, and Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom by David Blight.
Thanks to NetGalley, W. W. Norton Company, and Robert Levine, for a free ARC copy in exchange for an honest review. This book will be released on August 24, 2021.
Review first posted here: https://medium.com/ballasts-for-the-m...
The title The Failed Promise has a double meaning, Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction were both failed promises. Many Radical Republicans and Black leaders had high hopes that Andrew Johnson would be a more progressive and bold president on Reconstruction than Lincoln at the time of his assassination and they had every right to think so because of Johnson’s history of being a Southern Unionist, anti-secessionist, and a proponent of emancipation. But something changed a few months after he became president; Johnson wanted the Southern states to be restored to the Union and not reconstructed. Restoration was essentially a way to let bygones be bygones and allow the Southern states and former Confederate leaders to reenter the Union with no strings attached. Reconstructionists in Congress on the other hand wanted preconditions, they wanted Southerners to ratify the 13th Amendment and allow for Black suffrage before they were welcomed back. This fight between President Johnson and Congress is ultimately what leads to his impeachment. The violation of the Tenure of Office Act was the official charge, but Congress was mostly frustrated with Johnson’s obstruction of Reconstruction.
Levine does a great job showing how Lincoln and Johnson were viewed in this period. Lincoln was criticized and challenged by Douglass when Lincoln was alive, which is seldom talked about, nowadays we focus more on how they were friends. Johnson was a racist who thought he cared about Black people. As you read the book, get use to the refrain that Johnson was a “Moses” to Black people. Anytime Johnson was questioned about his support for Black civil rights he would say that he was Black folks’ Moses which is akin to saying “I love the Blacks” or “I’ve done more for Black people than anyone” in modern times.
Levine gives excellent coverage of the relationship between Johnson and Douglass. He covers the infamously tense meeting between Johnson, Douglass, and other Black leaders on Reconstruction, and how Johnson and his aides kept tabs on Douglass’s public activities. Good thing the FBI or J. Edgar Hoover wasn’t around during this period, otherwise Douglass rights were sure to be violated.
Levine, an English Professor, gives special attention to the speeches delivered by these two leaders during this period. First, there is Johnson’s “Swing Around the Circle” speaking tour, where he preached racist rhetoric, advocated violence against his political opponents, and as a result his public standing suffered because of it. Then there is Douglass’s lesser known speech “Sources of Danger to the Republic”, in it Douglass attacks Johnson and calls the U.S. Constitution one of the dangers to the Republic. What is fascinating about this speech is that Douglass basically becomes a constitutional scholar and attacks certain aspects of the Constitution that he found problematic, such as the veto power, pardoning power, the presidential two term principle, and the office of the vice presidency. Levine also reveals that Douglass had different versions of this speech depending on the racial makeup of his audience, i.e. he was more folksy in front of a Black audience and challenged his White audience to bring about constitutional reform. What makes this book even more special is that Douglass’s 1867 speech before a Black audience in Philadelphia is reprinted for the first time in the Appendix; trust me it is well worth the read.
What I find the most fascinating about this book is the role of Black leaders during the Reconstruction period. Levine writes that during Johnson’s impeachment trial, Black elites did not focus on the Tenure of Office Act in their impeachment brief instead they focused on how Andrew Johnson betrayed Black Americans and also his antipathy to the Freedman’s Bureau. This just goes to show that Black leaders have always been the moral conscious of this nation. When establishment politicians focused on the technicality of Johnson firing Stanton and violating the Tenure of Office Act, Black leaders focused on the stain that Johnson’s racism had on the lives of Black people.
Overall, The Failed Promise is a quick read. I like that Levine presents how complex and nuanced Johnson was. He doesn’t blame all of Reconstruction’s failure on Johnson although he was an important force against Reconstruction. Readers will definitely develop more of an appreciation for Douglass and learn how he almost became a pivotal figure in Johnson’s impeachment. Finally, you will get a glimpse of other notable Black leaders who don’t get their due like Frances Ellen Watkins Harper and John Langston.
*See Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B. Du Bois, Stony the Road by Henry Louis Gates Jr. , The Impeachers by Brenda Wineapple, and Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom by David Blight.
Thanks to NetGalley, W. W. Norton Company, and Robert Levine, for a free ARC copy in exchange for an honest review. This book will be released on August 24, 2021.
Review first posted here: https://medium.com/ballasts-for-the-m...
March 5, 2025
"Not a negro problem, not a race problem but a national problem; whether the American people will ultimately administer equal justice to all the varieties of the human race in this Republic.
- Frederick Douglass
In my ongoing journey to read about every US president, I tend to take some side quests. I still plan to read a biography of Andrew Johnson, but I wanted to start with his God-awful presidency and his role in the failure of Reconstruction.
The Failed Promise refers to Reconstruction, which was supposed to integrate the formerly enslaved into wider society. Black people went from property to eventually becoming US citizens. Andrew Johnson stopped the majority of the Reconstruction from being enacted. Johnson is now known as one of the worst US presidents. He was an evil and immortal president with blood on his hands, and that's not just me saying that Frederick Douglass said that.
But he wasn't always that way.
He was for the majority of his political career (despite being a slave owner) in support of ending slavery. As Vice President he wanted to punish the Confederates and supported giving plantation land to freed slaves. But as President everything changed.
But why?
That's the question I left this book with. What turned a man who was known as "The Moses of the Blacks" into a pro confederacy President. He abandoned the Black community he had spent decades building support in.
I doubt I will ever get an answer to that since even people who knew him personally didn't understand what happened. This book has only made me more interested in Andrew Johnson. Not in a good way....I hate him. But I am still highly fascinated.
I highly recommend this book but only as supplemental reading. Don't pick up this book if you haven't read anything else about The Civil War or Reconstruction. This author assumes you know the basics and proceeds from there. This book is short but still very detailed and I flew through this book.
Once again I hate Andrew Johnson and I'm going to leave you with another quote:
"What happens when a bad man occupies the White House? What kind of power can he assume under the U.S. Constitution? What are the dangers to look out for and how might they be forestalled?"
- Frederick Douglass
In my ongoing journey to read about every US president, I tend to take some side quests. I still plan to read a biography of Andrew Johnson, but I wanted to start with his God-awful presidency and his role in the failure of Reconstruction.
The Failed Promise refers to Reconstruction, which was supposed to integrate the formerly enslaved into wider society. Black people went from property to eventually becoming US citizens. Andrew Johnson stopped the majority of the Reconstruction from being enacted. Johnson is now known as one of the worst US presidents. He was an evil and immortal president with blood on his hands, and that's not just me saying that Frederick Douglass said that.
But he wasn't always that way.
He was for the majority of his political career (despite being a slave owner) in support of ending slavery. As Vice President he wanted to punish the Confederates and supported giving plantation land to freed slaves. But as President everything changed.
But why?
That's the question I left this book with. What turned a man who was known as "The Moses of the Blacks" into a pro confederacy President. He abandoned the Black community he had spent decades building support in.
I doubt I will ever get an answer to that since even people who knew him personally didn't understand what happened. This book has only made me more interested in Andrew Johnson. Not in a good way....I hate him. But I am still highly fascinated.
I highly recommend this book but only as supplemental reading. Don't pick up this book if you haven't read anything else about The Civil War or Reconstruction. This author assumes you know the basics and proceeds from there. This book is short but still very detailed and I flew through this book.
Once again I hate Andrew Johnson and I'm going to leave you with another quote:
"What happens when a bad man occupies the White House? What kind of power can he assume under the U.S. Constitution? What are the dangers to look out for and how might they be forestalled?"
September 13, 2021
I have been interested in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for years. I have read many of the books written on the subject and alway perk up when the topic comes up in others books (e.g. biographies on Stanton, Grant, Seward).
Due to the two impeachment efforts involving Trump, there has been a ressurection in interest of Andrew Johnson's impeachment.
When I first saw that another book was being published on Andrew Johnson, I initially discounted it, "Another book wherein the author is trying to tap into the current euphoria on impeachment." But I saw a GoodRead friend---who like me is interested in the period---say that they learned something new in this book.
Levine's book became one of the few books that I've pre-ordered. It became one of the fewer books that I've pre-ordered and have no regrets about!
So, let's get this out of the way. I am the target audience for this book. I am an avid reader of the period---particularly the politics and social aspects. Presidential history and legal history are two of my niches. So this book checks all of the boxes for me.
The question becomes, does the book cover the topic is a new manner or present a perspective I have not seen before?
The answer is YES!
If you want a detailed analysis of what occurred during the impeachment and why the events unfolded the way they did, then I highly recomment Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy. That is the single best book (IMHO) on the subject, but may be too dry for some. Other books such as The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation talk about the major personalities involved in the Impeachment. Other books focus on specific individuals--Walter Stahr wrote biographies on Stanton and Seward that go into great detail on the subject.
But Levine approaches the subject from angles that I have not seen before:
1) Why did the general public turn on Johnson?
2) Why did blacks turn on Johnson?
3) What role did Frederick Douglass play in Johnson's impeachement.
Johnson was a Southern Democrat who was added to Lincoln's presidential ticket in an effort to "balance" the ticket. Many of the ideas which he espoused were original Lincoln's---one could argue that he tried to follow in Lincoln's footsteps.
But he blundered.
Some of those blunders affected how northern whites viewed him. Some affected how the black community viewed him.
But Levine paints an interesting portrait that how Douglass viewed him played a surprising role in how the events of 1867-68 played out.
While I do not think this book would be the best introduction to the topic of the Johnson impeachment, I do believe that it is a must read for anybody who wants to understand the subject.
This is more of the more interesting and digestable treatises on the subject!
Due to the two impeachment efforts involving Trump, there has been a ressurection in interest of Andrew Johnson's impeachment.
When I first saw that another book was being published on Andrew Johnson, I initially discounted it, "Another book wherein the author is trying to tap into the current euphoria on impeachment." But I saw a GoodRead friend---who like me is interested in the period---say that they learned something new in this book.
Levine's book became one of the few books that I've pre-ordered. It became one of the fewer books that I've pre-ordered and have no regrets about!
So, let's get this out of the way. I am the target audience for this book. I am an avid reader of the period---particularly the politics and social aspects. Presidential history and legal history are two of my niches. So this book checks all of the boxes for me.
The question becomes, does the book cover the topic is a new manner or present a perspective I have not seen before?
The answer is YES!
If you want a detailed analysis of what occurred during the impeachment and why the events unfolded the way they did, then I highly recomment Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy. That is the single best book (IMHO) on the subject, but may be too dry for some. Other books such as The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation talk about the major personalities involved in the Impeachment. Other books focus on specific individuals--Walter Stahr wrote biographies on Stanton and Seward that go into great detail on the subject.
But Levine approaches the subject from angles that I have not seen before:
1) Why did the general public turn on Johnson?
2) Why did blacks turn on Johnson?
3) What role did Frederick Douglass play in Johnson's impeachement.
Johnson was a Southern Democrat who was added to Lincoln's presidential ticket in an effort to "balance" the ticket. Many of the ideas which he espoused were original Lincoln's---one could argue that he tried to follow in Lincoln's footsteps.
But he blundered.
Some of those blunders affected how northern whites viewed him. Some affected how the black community viewed him.
But Levine paints an interesting portrait that how Douglass viewed him played a surprising role in how the events of 1867-68 played out.
While I do not think this book would be the best introduction to the topic of the Johnson impeachment, I do believe that it is a must read for anybody who wants to understand the subject.
This is more of the more interesting and digestable treatises on the subject!
May 26, 2021
The impeachment trail of Andrew Johnson is often referenced, but I knew little about this president and even less about his ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ I eagerly opened The Failed Promise to fill in this gap in my understanding. Robert S. Levin has written the book I needed to read.
Johnson claimed to be a friend to the negro. His own slaves admitted that he treated them well. When he became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, he promised to fulfill his claim of being a ‘Moses’ to lead blacks to a promised land where they could reap the fruits of their own labor. Yet he fought the Republican congress on Reconstruction, and warned that Black suffrage risked a race war–and essentially a disenfranchisement of white power in the South.
Andrew Johnson was a Southern, slave-owning Democrat who believed that the Constitution did not allow succession. Therefore, the South never ‘left’ the country and did not require reconstruction.
Johnson made an enemy of Frederick Douglass who directly challenged his policies. Douglas believed that the vote would give blacks representation to shape policy without a federal occupying force.
The underlying racism that pervaded society was evident even in the Radical Republicans who championed abolition. As Douglass pointed out, the Northern states would not grant blacks the right to vote even while pressuring suffrage in the South.
Douglass warned of Constitutional flaws that allowed a president too much power: the patronage system that corrupted the president and those who received patronage; how the president became the leader of the political party that kept him in office; and the presidential veto power. He even posed a conspiracy theory behind the Lincoln assassination!
The Failed Promise is a fascinating study of the epic battle between Congress and Johnson that led to his impeachment trial. This rich history offers insight into the past and the problems that persist to this very day. The huge personalities and political drama kept me riveted. Douglass emerges a moral visionary as relevant to 2021 as he was in the 19th c.
I received a free egalley from the publisher through NetGalley. My review is fair and unbiased.
Johnson claimed to be a friend to the negro. His own slaves admitted that he treated them well. When he became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, he promised to fulfill his claim of being a ‘Moses’ to lead blacks to a promised land where they could reap the fruits of their own labor. Yet he fought the Republican congress on Reconstruction, and warned that Black suffrage risked a race war–and essentially a disenfranchisement of white power in the South.
Andrew Johnson was a Southern, slave-owning Democrat who believed that the Constitution did not allow succession. Therefore, the South never ‘left’ the country and did not require reconstruction.
Johnson made an enemy of Frederick Douglass who directly challenged his policies. Douglas believed that the vote would give blacks representation to shape policy without a federal occupying force.
The underlying racism that pervaded society was evident even in the Radical Republicans who championed abolition. As Douglass pointed out, the Northern states would not grant blacks the right to vote even while pressuring suffrage in the South.
Douglass warned of Constitutional flaws that allowed a president too much power: the patronage system that corrupted the president and those who received patronage; how the president became the leader of the political party that kept him in office; and the presidential veto power. He even posed a conspiracy theory behind the Lincoln assassination!
The Failed Promise is a fascinating study of the epic battle between Congress and Johnson that led to his impeachment trial. This rich history offers insight into the past and the problems that persist to this very day. The huge personalities and political drama kept me riveted. Douglass emerges a moral visionary as relevant to 2021 as he was in the 19th c.
I received a free egalley from the publisher through NetGalley. My review is fair and unbiased.
May 2, 2022
This is the book I’ve been waiting for. It put the pieces together to help me understand the Johnson Presidency and the impediments to a successful Reconstruction.
Robert Levine gives the best explanation I’ve seen as to how Andrew Johnson became the running mate for Abraham Lincoln. He shows how Johnson’s impeachment came to focus on the firing of Edwin Stanton and not his undermining Congressional Reconstruction goals. Through the focus on Frederick Douglass he shows how racism influenced not only Johnson’s ability to weaken the Freeman’s Bureau but also the delay in giving the former slaves citizenship and voting rights.
I was not aware that Johnson promoted himself as a "Moses" for the slaves and how disappointed those who supported him on this alone were. Johnson either had or developed the thesis that the states could not and did not leave the Union. To him this meant that the federal government should focus on "restoration" not "reconstruction". With this philosophy, the Freeman's Bureau, the 14th and 15th amendments (citizenship and voting rights for the newly freed), etc. were unnecessary.
Levine gives background on Lincoln, who while not having the temperament of Johnson (nor his nastiness) might have also led to conflict with the Congress. During the war he was positive on the "back to Africa" movement and was for limiting voting rights.
This book is an excellent companion to Brenda Wineapple’s The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation which focuses on the impeachment itself and the character of those in the House and Senate that made those decisions. Both Wineapple and Levine give detail on how Johnson undermined the Union victory through his pardons, appointments and vetoes of anything that might assist the newly freed in transition.
The book is short and clear. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this period. If you are to read "The Impeachers", "The Failed Promise" should be read first.
For those interested in how these failures played out at the local level I recommend Life of a Klansman: A Family History in White Supremacy which, through a family history, shows how without federal protection violence against Black populations became entrenched and lasted for generations.
Robert Levine gives the best explanation I’ve seen as to how Andrew Johnson became the running mate for Abraham Lincoln. He shows how Johnson’s impeachment came to focus on the firing of Edwin Stanton and not his undermining Congressional Reconstruction goals. Through the focus on Frederick Douglass he shows how racism influenced not only Johnson’s ability to weaken the Freeman’s Bureau but also the delay in giving the former slaves citizenship and voting rights.
I was not aware that Johnson promoted himself as a "Moses" for the slaves and how disappointed those who supported him on this alone were. Johnson either had or developed the thesis that the states could not and did not leave the Union. To him this meant that the federal government should focus on "restoration" not "reconstruction". With this philosophy, the Freeman's Bureau, the 14th and 15th amendments (citizenship and voting rights for the newly freed), etc. were unnecessary.
Levine gives background on Lincoln, who while not having the temperament of Johnson (nor his nastiness) might have also led to conflict with the Congress. During the war he was positive on the "back to Africa" movement and was for limiting voting rights.
This book is an excellent companion to Brenda Wineapple’s The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation which focuses on the impeachment itself and the character of those in the House and Senate that made those decisions. Both Wineapple and Levine give detail on how Johnson undermined the Union victory through his pardons, appointments and vetoes of anything that might assist the newly freed in transition.
The book is short and clear. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this period. If you are to read "The Impeachers", "The Failed Promise" should be read first.
For those interested in how these failures played out at the local level I recommend Life of a Klansman: A Family History in White Supremacy which, through a family history, shows how without federal protection violence against Black populations became entrenched and lasted for generations.
July 5, 2022
Another thing they didn’t teach me in the U.S. school system! Quite an interesting tale of the successor of Lincoln to the presidency! Johnson was a liar who said whatever he thought the audience wanted to hear and also survived an impeachment trial. That sounds eerily familiar.
September 4, 2021
What did Reconstruction promise to do, and what problems caused it to fall so flat? Robert Levine answers these questions by exploring the intertwined careers of both Frederick Douglass and Andrew Johnson. Levine allows the reader to “inhabit the past” (to borrow a phrase from Joseph Ellis); to experience historical moments as they unfolded, without the sense of inevitability that well-trodden history can breed. Though we know of Johnson’s eventual faults, this book helped me understand the hope that the nation had in him and the slow realization of his ineffectiveness and secretive tendencies.
Johnson comes across as a “pitiable” figure (WEB DuBois) that showed much promise but failed on all counts. Instead of presenting Johnson as a scourge of the nation or an inherently evil man, careful reflection on his letters, actions, and the national context recasts him as a lamentable symptom of the chronic and pervasive disease of post-Civil War racism. Johnson does not leave unscathed, however, as the book addresses his shortcomings in excoriating detail through the eyes of Douglass, who continued to hold Johnson responsible for racial tension decades after he left office. He is “partly responsible for, and partly the incarnation of, the Failed Promise of Reconstruction.”
The author drew out a few conflicts that helped me understand the tensions driving the larger issues: between Congressional and Presidential authority, between the constitutionality and unconstitutionality of secession, and between restoration or reconstruction of the Southern states. With so many competing narratives and confusing political machinations, Levine employed these dichotomies to keep the story clear and readable.
This is the essential sequel to Team of Rivals by Goodwin. The humble, conciliatory president followed by the secretive, prejudiced accidental president.
Thanks to W. W. Norton & Company and NetGalley for the advance copy!
Johnson comes across as a “pitiable” figure (WEB DuBois) that showed much promise but failed on all counts. Instead of presenting Johnson as a scourge of the nation or an inherently evil man, careful reflection on his letters, actions, and the national context recasts him as a lamentable symptom of the chronic and pervasive disease of post-Civil War racism. Johnson does not leave unscathed, however, as the book addresses his shortcomings in excoriating detail through the eyes of Douglass, who continued to hold Johnson responsible for racial tension decades after he left office. He is “partly responsible for, and partly the incarnation of, the Failed Promise of Reconstruction.”
The author drew out a few conflicts that helped me understand the tensions driving the larger issues: between Congressional and Presidential authority, between the constitutionality and unconstitutionality of secession, and between restoration or reconstruction of the Southern states. With so many competing narratives and confusing political machinations, Levine employed these dichotomies to keep the story clear and readable.
This is the essential sequel to Team of Rivals by Goodwin. The humble, conciliatory president followed by the secretive, prejudiced accidental president.
Thanks to W. W. Norton & Company and NetGalley for the advance copy!
Want to read
September 6, 2021Goodreads Giveaway copy, want to read.
April 6, 2025
Rip Andrew Johnson you probably would have loved Trump lol
January 22, 2024
An excellent book, well researched and written. I highly recommend this book for those interested in American history.
October 4, 2022
Despite reading much about Lincoln and Grant, the terrible but critical four years of Johnson was a gap for me. Most have universally deemed his term as one of the worst in our nation's history, but I did not know that he seemed like THE guy for the job - some seeing him as more progressive (more radically Republican) than Lincoln!
Word to the wise, don't believe someone who refers to themselves as "The Moses of the Colored Man"
A solid job of interweaving the lives of Frederick Douglass and Andrew Johnson, even though much of it had to be speculation.
Word to the wise, don't believe someone who refers to themselves as "The Moses of the Colored Man"
A solid job of interweaving the lives of Frederick Douglass and Andrew Johnson, even though much of it had to be speculation.
December 4, 2022
What a concise and informative publication. It was easy to understand President Johnson's ideology on Restoration and Reconstruction and the opposing ideas, by the Black people at that time. The author quoted Frederick Douglas and other Black leaders to portray the struggles of both viewpoints and why it was so difficult for progress to be made in consideration of equality. President Johnson was not impeached but his political expectations were not realized because of his vacillating theories and character.
November 10, 2021
Levine writes with clarity without sacrificing nuances. I had little knowledge of the progress that was asked for by Douglass and how it was denied by Johnson. I better understand now the forces at work in the wake of the civil war. Highly recommend!
April 25, 2022
Levine's ultimate thesis, well argued, is that whether Johnson had been convicted or not by the Senate, and even more, whether Lincoln had been assassinated or not to let Johnson become president ...
Frederick Douglass and Black America was facing a tough uphill sled on Reconstruction.
What follows below the line, especially from the second paragraph on, is semi-spoiler...
====
This book starts with the idea, going beyond the likes of an Eric Foner, of looking at early Reconstruction through the eyes of African Americans, at least in the lead. And, of course, that means you start with Frederick Douglass.
The author notes that Douglass’ main memoir, written in 1881, was detached enough from the times that it’s not totally trustworthy in its framing.
That said, Douglass himself pandered to English and Scotch-Irish White Americans with stereotypes about Germans and Irish, and otherwise was less than perfect, including on American Indians, per this great bio of him a few years ago. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... (Also, writing more than one memoir, his stories changed in the telling even more than Levine tells us. And, as this bio indicates, Douglass didn’t always play well with other Black abolitionists, which Levine also doesn’t tell us.)
OK, from there, we also look at Andy Johnson. Racist? Absolutely? Was he that much more racist than Ben Wade, who was horrid before the Civil War and arguably never repented, and surely never fully repented? No. (This is part of why some Republican senators blanched at convicting Johnson at his impeachment trial; president pro tem Wade was at that time next in line, and the idea of him as president? Appalling. It’s why the “Sinful Seven,” while taking Johnson Administration kickbacks, might have been backed by other Republican if needed.)
And, that’s where Black abolitionists, not just Douglass, came in. They knew plenty of Ben Wades. They also knew that Andy Johnson was right, albeit for hypocritical reasons, for calling out Northern Whites for not backing Black voting rights.
Levine also notes that, in 1867, Douglass warned about such kickbacks, or otherwise challenging the whole presidential establishment.
On the impeachment trial? Levine faults the House managers for engaging in dry legalese, first. Second, he notes, as have others, such as Brenda Wineapple https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... that Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase gave a number of unfavorable legal rulings. Levine adds that this may be because Chase had his own eyes on the presidency in 1868. (He never lost the bug, having run in 1860, thought of running in 1864 before Lincoln packed him off to SCOTUS, and trying for the brass ring in both 1868 and 1872.)
And, then there’s Lincoln. Was Johnson THAT much more racist than Lincoln? Maybe not. Other than his “Swing Around the Circle,” his general lack of decorum, and his belief that he could out-orate Congress, did he handle Presidential Reconstruction that much worse than Lincoln would have, had he lived? Maybe not.
Lincoln surely would have cracked down on the Klan, the Knights of the Camellia, etc., quicker than Johnson. Given that Southern Democrats worked with forerunners of Liberal Republicans to cut the Freedman’s Bureau funding in 1869 and kill it in 1872, it’s doubtful that, assuming Lincoln didn’t veto its 1866 renewal, he would have fought hard for more money. Lincoln, like Johnson, also likely would have opposed the military edge of Congressional Reconstruction. He might, like Johnson, have opposed tying Congressional readmission to approval of the 14th Amendment. (Levine doesn’t get into speculative history, but I think all the above is arguable.)
Frederick Douglass and Black America was facing a tough uphill sled on Reconstruction.
What follows below the line, especially from the second paragraph on, is semi-spoiler...
====
This book starts with the idea, going beyond the likes of an Eric Foner, of looking at early Reconstruction through the eyes of African Americans, at least in the lead. And, of course, that means you start with Frederick Douglass.
The author notes that Douglass’ main memoir, written in 1881, was detached enough from the times that it’s not totally trustworthy in its framing.
That said, Douglass himself pandered to English and Scotch-Irish White Americans with stereotypes about Germans and Irish, and otherwise was less than perfect, including on American Indians, per this great bio of him a few years ago. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... (Also, writing more than one memoir, his stories changed in the telling even more than Levine tells us. And, as this bio indicates, Douglass didn’t always play well with other Black abolitionists, which Levine also doesn’t tell us.)
OK, from there, we also look at Andy Johnson. Racist? Absolutely? Was he that much more racist than Ben Wade, who was horrid before the Civil War and arguably never repented, and surely never fully repented? No. (This is part of why some Republican senators blanched at convicting Johnson at his impeachment trial; president pro tem Wade was at that time next in line, and the idea of him as president? Appalling. It’s why the “Sinful Seven,” while taking Johnson Administration kickbacks, might have been backed by other Republican if needed.)
And, that’s where Black abolitionists, not just Douglass, came in. They knew plenty of Ben Wades. They also knew that Andy Johnson was right, albeit for hypocritical reasons, for calling out Northern Whites for not backing Black voting rights.
Levine also notes that, in 1867, Douglass warned about such kickbacks, or otherwise challenging the whole presidential establishment.
On the impeachment trial? Levine faults the House managers for engaging in dry legalese, first. Second, he notes, as have others, such as Brenda Wineapple https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... that Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase gave a number of unfavorable legal rulings. Levine adds that this may be because Chase had his own eyes on the presidency in 1868. (He never lost the bug, having run in 1860, thought of running in 1864 before Lincoln packed him off to SCOTUS, and trying for the brass ring in both 1868 and 1872.)
And, then there’s Lincoln. Was Johnson THAT much more racist than Lincoln? Maybe not. Other than his “Swing Around the Circle,” his general lack of decorum, and his belief that he could out-orate Congress, did he handle Presidential Reconstruction that much worse than Lincoln would have, had he lived? Maybe not.
Lincoln surely would have cracked down on the Klan, the Knights of the Camellia, etc., quicker than Johnson. Given that Southern Democrats worked with forerunners of Liberal Republicans to cut the Freedman’s Bureau funding in 1869 and kill it in 1872, it’s doubtful that, assuming Lincoln didn’t veto its 1866 renewal, he would have fought hard for more money. Lincoln, like Johnson, also likely would have opposed the military edge of Congressional Reconstruction. He might, like Johnson, have opposed tying Congressional readmission to approval of the 14th Amendment. (Levine doesn’t get into speculative history, but I think all the above is arguable.)
September 14, 2022
Excellent and timely book on the crucible of race relations immediately after the Civil War. This book interprets the period as a series of clashes between Andrew Johnson and Frederick Douglass. The centerpiece is the infamous 1866 White House meeting between the two. As Johnson fancied himself a Moses for Tennessee Blacks because of his courage during the Coivil War, Douglass exposed the President's moral cowardice and political failings during Presidential Reconstruction. There are multiple strategic references to primary sources (often letters and speeches printed in The Atlantic and Harper's Weekly) that resurrect resistant to Black voting rights after emancipation. The author notes that this archaeological exercise in excavating the grievances at the heart of the Lost Cause Narrative is meant to be a mirror held up to our contemporary difficulties in discussing race. Stubborn antebellum prejudice morphs and hardens after the war into Black Codes and Race Riots (the book brings to light the 1866 Memphis and New Orleans Riots). I loved the way that Levine contrasts the pointed rhetorical language that would not be lost on the contemporaries of Johnson and Douglas. I also appreciated his lifting up the voice of Francis Harper, an unsung hero. The intrigue of the Tenure of Office Act pales in comparison to the moral duel of the protagonists.
March 20, 2025
I've read many books about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War with the general knowledge that things generally fell apart after Lincoln's assassination leading to a century of Jim Crow. Levine's book fills in the details of the first chapter of how that happened - focusing on the failed presidency of Andrew Johnson, largely through the eyes of Frederick Douglass and other black leaders. It becomes clear throughout the book that Johnson's approach to the presidency has many parallels to the current president - a thought Levine states explicitly toward the end of the book. Johnson is portrayed in the book as a tragic figure of much promise - a self-titled Moses to the Black people whose racism and siding with the ex-confederates of the south becomes apparent over time. In a way though, as with our current president, he is a symptom of the racism, both southern and northern of the times. Douglass, who saw through Johnson early on is treated as a prophet (we can use one in our own day). My favorite line of his - 'A government that cannot hate cannot love'. This book is well written. I learned a lot about this dark period and how a disastrous presidency can set the country on a course that we still haven't recovered from; but serves as a model for other ill-conceived presidencies. An important read.
September 15, 2021
Great book on a little known part of our history that we are still seeing the effects today
with lingering racism and poverty as a result of it.
Basically Johnson had great promise when Lincoln picked him to be his vice-president as he was a southerner who stood against slavery, but when he became president he stood in the way
of much of the progress that the progressive leaders were pushing. As a result the South never changed and the former slaves did not make much progress as a result. The South also did everything they could to keep Blacks from voting and realizing the progress that they had great hope in. Today we see the same as the GOP is doing everything they can to keep people of color from voting.
with lingering racism and poverty as a result of it.
Basically Johnson had great promise when Lincoln picked him to be his vice-president as he was a southerner who stood against slavery, but when he became president he stood in the way
of much of the progress that the progressive leaders were pushing. As a result the South never changed and the former slaves did not make much progress as a result. The South also did everything they could to keep Blacks from voting and realizing the progress that they had great hope in. Today we see the same as the GOP is doing everything they can to keep people of color from voting.
March 12, 2022
Interesting analysis of the failings of the Johnson administration against the brilliant prescience of Frederick Douglass. In some ways the Union won the war but lost the peace. There is much to be learned here about why the present remains infected with the mistakes of the past.
November 12, 2023
Thought provoking on several fronts and pushed me to think beyond Johnson on merely a surface level. The intricacies of his impeachment were fun to read into.
July 5, 2023
As President of the United States, he is ranked at or near the bottom by most historians, a dramatic contrast to the man whose untimely death elevated him to that office, who is consistently ranked at or near the top. When some today bemoan the paradox of a south that lost the Civil War but yet seemed in so many ways to have won the peace, his name is often cited as principal cause. While he cannot solely be held to blame, he bears an outsize responsibility for the mass rehabilitation of those who once fomented secession and led a rebellion against the United States, a process that saw men who once championed treason regain substantial political power—and put that authority forcefully to bear to make certain that the rights and privileges granted to formerly enslaved African Americans in the 14th and 15th amendments would not be realized. He was Andrew Johnson.
As foremost black abolitionist, as well as vigorous advocate for freedom and civil rights for African Americans before, during, and after the Civil War, he is almost universally acclaimed as the greatest figure of the day in that long struggle. Born enslaved, often hungry and clad in rags, he was once hired out to a so called “slave-breaker” who frequently whipped him savagely. But, like Abraham Lincoln, he proved himself a remarkable autodidact who not only taught himself to read but managed to obtain a solid education that was to shape a clearly sophisticated intellect. He escaped to freedom, and distinguished himself as orator, author, and activist. Lincoln welcomed him at the White House. He lived long enough to see much of the dreams of his youth realized, as well as many of his hopes for the future dashed. He was Frederick Douglass.
At first glance, it seemed a bit odd and even unsettling to find these two men juxtaposed in The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson [2021], but it was that very peculiarity that drew me to this kind of dual biography by Robert S. Levine, a scholar of African American literature who has long focused on the writings of Frederick Douglass. But back to that first glance: it seemed to me that the more elegant contrast would have been of Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant, since the latter was the true heir to Lincoln’s (apparent) moderate stances on reconciliation with the south that also promoted the well-being of the formerly enslaved—which at times put Grant uncomfortably at odds with both Johnson and his eventual opponents who controlled Congress, the Radical Republicans, who were hell-bent on punishing states once in rebellion while insisting upon nothing less than a social revolution that mandated equality for blacks in every arena. Meanwhile, while Johnson was president of the United States in 1865, Douglass himself had neither basic civil rights nor the right to vote in the next election.
Still, with gifted prose, a fast-paced narrative, and a talent for analysis that one-ups a number of credentialed historians of this era, Levine sets out to demonstrate that Johnson’s real rival in his tumultuous tenure was neither Grant nor a recalcitrant Congress, but rather Douglass who—much like Martin Luther King a full century later—unshakably occupied the moral high ground. In this, he mostly succeeds.
The outline to his story of Johnson is a mostly familiar one, yet punctuated by some keen insights into the man overlooked in other studies. Johnson, who (also like Lincoln) grew from poverty to prominence, was a Democrat who served as governor of Tennessee and later as member of Congress. A staunch Unionist, he was the only sitting senator from a seceding state who did not resign his seat. Lincoln made him Military Governor of Tennessee soon after it was reoccupied, and in 1864 he replaced Hannibal Hamlin as Lincoln’s running mate on the Republican Party’s rechristened “National Union” ticket in an election Lincoln felt certain he would lose. Johnson showed up drunk on inauguration day—sparking an unresolved controversy over whether the cause was recreation or self-medication—which tarnished his reputation in some quarters. Still, there were some among the Radical Republicans who wished that Johnson was the president and not Lincoln. Johnson, a former slaveowner who had first emancipated his own human property and later Tennessee’s entire enslaved population, had an abiding hatred for the plantation elites who had long scorned men of humble beginnings like himself, and a deep anger towards those who had severed the bonds of union with the United States. He seemed to many in Congress like the better agent to wreak revenge upon the conquered south for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost to war than the conciliatory Lincoln, who was willing to welcome seceded states back into the fold if a mere ten percent of its male population took loyalty oaths to the union.
The inauguration with an inebriated Johnson in attendance took place on March 4, 1865. On April 9, Lee surrendered at Appomattox. On April 15, Lincoln was dead and Johnson was president. Quietly—very quietly indeed—some Radical Republicans rejoiced. Lincoln had led them through the war, but now Johnson would be the better man to make the kind of unforgiving peace they had in mind. Moreover, Johnson—who had styled himself as “Moses” to African Americans in Tennessee as he preemptively (and illegally) freed them statewide in 1864—seemed like the ideal candidate to lead their crusade to foster a new reality for the defeated south that would crush the Confederates while promoting civil equality for their formerly chattel property. In all this, they were to be proved mistaken.
Meanwhile, Douglass brooded—and entertained hopes for Johnson not unlike those of his white allies in Congress. While there’s no evidence that he celebrated Lincoln’s untimely demise, Levine brilliantly reveals that Douglass’s appraisal of Lincoln evolved over time, that his own idolatry for the president was a creature of his later reflections, long after the fact, when he came to fully appreciate in retrospect not only what Lincoln had truly achieved but how deeply the promise of Reconstruction was irrevocably derailed by his successor. In their time, they had forged a strong relationship and even a bond of sorts, but Douglass consistently had doubts about Lincoln’s real commitment to the cause of African American freedom and civil liberties. Douglass took seriously Lincoln’s onetime declaration that “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,” and he was suitably horrified by what that implied. Like some in Congress, Douglass was deluded by the fantasy of what Johnson’s accession might mean for the road ahead. This serves both as a strong caution and timely reminder to all of us in the field that it is critical to evaluate not only what was said or written by any individual in the past, but when it was said or written.
The author’s analysis of Johnson proves fascinating. Levine maintains that Johnson’s contempt for the elites who once disdained him was genuine, but that this was counterbalanced by his secret longing for their acceptance. And he reveled in freeing and enabling the enslaved, but only paternalistically and only ever on his own terms. If he could not be Moses, he would be Pharaoh. Levine also argues that whatever his flaws—and they were manifold—Johnson’s vision of his role as president in Reconstruction mirrored Lincoln’s. Lincoln believed that Reconstruction must flow primarily from the executive branch, not the legislative, and he intended to direct it as such. Lincoln’s specific plans died with him, but Johnson had his own ideas. This suggests that it is just as likely there would have been a clash between Lincoln and the Congress had he lived, although knowing what we know of Lincoln we might speculate at more positive results.
Levine breaks no new ground in his coverage of the failed impeachment, which the narrative treats without the kind of scrutiny found, for instance, in Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy, by David O. Stewart. But there is the advantage of added nuance in this account because it is enriched by the presence of Douglass as spectator and sometime commentator. And here is Levine’s real achievement: it is through Douglass’s eyes that we can vividly see the righteous cause of emancipation won, obtained at least partially with the blood of United States Colored Troops (USCT), a constitutional amendment passed forever prohibiting human chattel slavery, and subsequent amendments guaranteeing civil rights, equality, and the right to vote for African Americans. And through those same eyes we witness the disillusion and disgust as the accidental president turns against everything Douglass holds dear. Those elite slaveholders who led rebellion, championing a proud slave republic, have their political rights restored and later show up as governors and members of Congress. The promise of Reconstruction is derailed, replaced by “Redemption” as unreconstructed ex-Confederates recapture the statehouses, black codes are enacted, African Americans and their white allies are terrorized and murdered. Constitutional amendments turn moot. The formerly enslaved, once considered three-fifths of a person, are now counted as full citizens but despite the 15th Amendment denied the vote at the point of a gun, so representation for the former slave states that engineered the war effectively increases after rejoining the union. That union has been restored with the sacrifice of more than six hundred thousand lives, and while slavery is abolished Douglass grows old observing the reconciliation of white men on both sides of the Mason-Dixon along with an embrace of the “Lost Cause” ideology that sees the start of a process that enshrines repression and leads to the erasure of African Americans from Civil War history.
That Levine is a professor of literature rather than of history is perhaps why the story he relates has a more emotional impact upon the reader than it might have if rendered by those with roots in our own discipline. The scholarship is by no means lacking, as evidenced by the ample citations in the thick section of notes at the end of the volume, but thankfully he eschews the dry, academic tone that tends to dominate the history field. This is a work equally attractive to a popular or scholarly audience, something that should be both celebrated and emulated. As an added bonus, he includes as appendix Douglass’s 1867 speech, “Sources of Danger to the Republic,” which argues for constitutional reforms that nicely echo down to our own times. Among other things, Douglass boldly calls for eliminating the position of vice president to avoid accidental presidencies (such as that of Andrew Johnson!) and for curbing executive authority. It is well worth the read and unfortunately not easy to access elsewhere except through a paywall. The Failed Promise is an apt title: the optimism at the dawn of Reconstruction holds so much appeal because we know all too well the tragedy of its outcome. To get a sense of how it began, as well as how it went so wrong, I recommend this book.
Here’s a link to a rare free online transcript of Frederick Douglass’s 1867 speech: “Sources of Danger to the Republic”
I reviewed Stewart’s book here: Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy, by David O. Stewart
Review of: The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, by Robert S. Levine – Regarp Book Blog https://regarp.com/2023/07/05/review-...
As foremost black abolitionist, as well as vigorous advocate for freedom and civil rights for African Americans before, during, and after the Civil War, he is almost universally acclaimed as the greatest figure of the day in that long struggle. Born enslaved, often hungry and clad in rags, he was once hired out to a so called “slave-breaker” who frequently whipped him savagely. But, like Abraham Lincoln, he proved himself a remarkable autodidact who not only taught himself to read but managed to obtain a solid education that was to shape a clearly sophisticated intellect. He escaped to freedom, and distinguished himself as orator, author, and activist. Lincoln welcomed him at the White House. He lived long enough to see much of the dreams of his youth realized, as well as many of his hopes for the future dashed. He was Frederick Douglass.
At first glance, it seemed a bit odd and even unsettling to find these two men juxtaposed in The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson [2021], but it was that very peculiarity that drew me to this kind of dual biography by Robert S. Levine, a scholar of African American literature who has long focused on the writings of Frederick Douglass. But back to that first glance: it seemed to me that the more elegant contrast would have been of Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant, since the latter was the true heir to Lincoln’s (apparent) moderate stances on reconciliation with the south that also promoted the well-being of the formerly enslaved—which at times put Grant uncomfortably at odds with both Johnson and his eventual opponents who controlled Congress, the Radical Republicans, who were hell-bent on punishing states once in rebellion while insisting upon nothing less than a social revolution that mandated equality for blacks in every arena. Meanwhile, while Johnson was president of the United States in 1865, Douglass himself had neither basic civil rights nor the right to vote in the next election.
Still, with gifted prose, a fast-paced narrative, and a talent for analysis that one-ups a number of credentialed historians of this era, Levine sets out to demonstrate that Johnson’s real rival in his tumultuous tenure was neither Grant nor a recalcitrant Congress, but rather Douglass who—much like Martin Luther King a full century later—unshakably occupied the moral high ground. In this, he mostly succeeds.
The outline to his story of Johnson is a mostly familiar one, yet punctuated by some keen insights into the man overlooked in other studies. Johnson, who (also like Lincoln) grew from poverty to prominence, was a Democrat who served as governor of Tennessee and later as member of Congress. A staunch Unionist, he was the only sitting senator from a seceding state who did not resign his seat. Lincoln made him Military Governor of Tennessee soon after it was reoccupied, and in 1864 he replaced Hannibal Hamlin as Lincoln’s running mate on the Republican Party’s rechristened “National Union” ticket in an election Lincoln felt certain he would lose. Johnson showed up drunk on inauguration day—sparking an unresolved controversy over whether the cause was recreation or self-medication—which tarnished his reputation in some quarters. Still, there were some among the Radical Republicans who wished that Johnson was the president and not Lincoln. Johnson, a former slaveowner who had first emancipated his own human property and later Tennessee’s entire enslaved population, had an abiding hatred for the plantation elites who had long scorned men of humble beginnings like himself, and a deep anger towards those who had severed the bonds of union with the United States. He seemed to many in Congress like the better agent to wreak revenge upon the conquered south for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost to war than the conciliatory Lincoln, who was willing to welcome seceded states back into the fold if a mere ten percent of its male population took loyalty oaths to the union.
The inauguration with an inebriated Johnson in attendance took place on March 4, 1865. On April 9, Lee surrendered at Appomattox. On April 15, Lincoln was dead and Johnson was president. Quietly—very quietly indeed—some Radical Republicans rejoiced. Lincoln had led them through the war, but now Johnson would be the better man to make the kind of unforgiving peace they had in mind. Moreover, Johnson—who had styled himself as “Moses” to African Americans in Tennessee as he preemptively (and illegally) freed them statewide in 1864—seemed like the ideal candidate to lead their crusade to foster a new reality for the defeated south that would crush the Confederates while promoting civil equality for their formerly chattel property. In all this, they were to be proved mistaken.
Meanwhile, Douglass brooded—and entertained hopes for Johnson not unlike those of his white allies in Congress. While there’s no evidence that he celebrated Lincoln’s untimely demise, Levine brilliantly reveals that Douglass’s appraisal of Lincoln evolved over time, that his own idolatry for the president was a creature of his later reflections, long after the fact, when he came to fully appreciate in retrospect not only what Lincoln had truly achieved but how deeply the promise of Reconstruction was irrevocably derailed by his successor. In their time, they had forged a strong relationship and even a bond of sorts, but Douglass consistently had doubts about Lincoln’s real commitment to the cause of African American freedom and civil liberties. Douglass took seriously Lincoln’s onetime declaration that “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,” and he was suitably horrified by what that implied. Like some in Congress, Douglass was deluded by the fantasy of what Johnson’s accession might mean for the road ahead. This serves both as a strong caution and timely reminder to all of us in the field that it is critical to evaluate not only what was said or written by any individual in the past, but when it was said or written.
The author’s analysis of Johnson proves fascinating. Levine maintains that Johnson’s contempt for the elites who once disdained him was genuine, but that this was counterbalanced by his secret longing for their acceptance. And he reveled in freeing and enabling the enslaved, but only paternalistically and only ever on his own terms. If he could not be Moses, he would be Pharaoh. Levine also argues that whatever his flaws—and they were manifold—Johnson’s vision of his role as president in Reconstruction mirrored Lincoln’s. Lincoln believed that Reconstruction must flow primarily from the executive branch, not the legislative, and he intended to direct it as such. Lincoln’s specific plans died with him, but Johnson had his own ideas. This suggests that it is just as likely there would have been a clash between Lincoln and the Congress had he lived, although knowing what we know of Lincoln we might speculate at more positive results.
Levine breaks no new ground in his coverage of the failed impeachment, which the narrative treats without the kind of scrutiny found, for instance, in Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy, by David O. Stewart. But there is the advantage of added nuance in this account because it is enriched by the presence of Douglass as spectator and sometime commentator. And here is Levine’s real achievement: it is through Douglass’s eyes that we can vividly see the righteous cause of emancipation won, obtained at least partially with the blood of United States Colored Troops (USCT), a constitutional amendment passed forever prohibiting human chattel slavery, and subsequent amendments guaranteeing civil rights, equality, and the right to vote for African Americans. And through those same eyes we witness the disillusion and disgust as the accidental president turns against everything Douglass holds dear. Those elite slaveholders who led rebellion, championing a proud slave republic, have their political rights restored and later show up as governors and members of Congress. The promise of Reconstruction is derailed, replaced by “Redemption” as unreconstructed ex-Confederates recapture the statehouses, black codes are enacted, African Americans and their white allies are terrorized and murdered. Constitutional amendments turn moot. The formerly enslaved, once considered three-fifths of a person, are now counted as full citizens but despite the 15th Amendment denied the vote at the point of a gun, so representation for the former slave states that engineered the war effectively increases after rejoining the union. That union has been restored with the sacrifice of more than six hundred thousand lives, and while slavery is abolished Douglass grows old observing the reconciliation of white men on both sides of the Mason-Dixon along with an embrace of the “Lost Cause” ideology that sees the start of a process that enshrines repression and leads to the erasure of African Americans from Civil War history.
That Levine is a professor of literature rather than of history is perhaps why the story he relates has a more emotional impact upon the reader than it might have if rendered by those with roots in our own discipline. The scholarship is by no means lacking, as evidenced by the ample citations in the thick section of notes at the end of the volume, but thankfully he eschews the dry, academic tone that tends to dominate the history field. This is a work equally attractive to a popular or scholarly audience, something that should be both celebrated and emulated. As an added bonus, he includes as appendix Douglass’s 1867 speech, “Sources of Danger to the Republic,” which argues for constitutional reforms that nicely echo down to our own times. Among other things, Douglass boldly calls for eliminating the position of vice president to avoid accidental presidencies (such as that of Andrew Johnson!) and for curbing executive authority. It is well worth the read and unfortunately not easy to access elsewhere except through a paywall. The Failed Promise is an apt title: the optimism at the dawn of Reconstruction holds so much appeal because we know all too well the tragedy of its outcome. To get a sense of how it began, as well as how it went so wrong, I recommend this book.
Here’s a link to a rare free online transcript of Frederick Douglass’s 1867 speech: “Sources of Danger to the Republic”
I reviewed Stewart’s book here: Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy, by David O. Stewart
Review of: The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, by Robert S. Levine – Regarp Book Blog https://regarp.com/2023/07/05/review-...
May 25, 2022
This was a great introduction to the people and events of the the Reconstruction era. I had never read anything on the period before, but Levine made each character memorable through slowly and carefully introducing each one.
However, I don’t think I really believe the editorialized perspective that he gives on Johnson. He makes multiple and direct claims to Johnson’s racism and even “narcissism.” But every time he mentions something good that Johnson did for the Black cause, such as donating his own land, Levine claims it was for some nefarious or manipulative reason. Instead of bringing Johnson to life, he made him 2 dimensional. I simply don’t believe the story that Levine puts forward about Johnsons motivations. Humans are complex, rarely having only 1 motive throughout years of their life.
He did a much better job with Douglass, whom he presents as a well-thought and consistent person, but also seems to have less-then-perfect recollection of past events in subsequent writings.
Again, good introduction, but I feel that I need to read a biography of Johnson now that does a little more justice to the nuance of pressures and motivations behind his decisions.
However, I don’t think I really believe the editorialized perspective that he gives on Johnson. He makes multiple and direct claims to Johnson’s racism and even “narcissism.” But every time he mentions something good that Johnson did for the Black cause, such as donating his own land, Levine claims it was for some nefarious or manipulative reason. Instead of bringing Johnson to life, he made him 2 dimensional. I simply don’t believe the story that Levine puts forward about Johnsons motivations. Humans are complex, rarely having only 1 motive throughout years of their life.
He did a much better job with Douglass, whom he presents as a well-thought and consistent person, but also seems to have less-then-perfect recollection of past events in subsequent writings.
Again, good introduction, but I feel that I need to read a biography of Johnson now that does a little more justice to the nuance of pressures and motivations behind his decisions.
March 1, 2022
"Because the articles of impeachment focused almost entirely on the Tenure of Office Act, the Republicans found it difficult over the course of the ensuing trial to condemn Johnson for the consequences of his policies. They also found it difficult to raise questions about his racism or fitness for office or even to explore the philosophical conflict between presidential restoration and congressional reconstruction. This is not to say that such issues didn't come up, but over the more than two months of the trial, reported in the approximately 1,200 page trial transcript, the House managers only occasionally spoke bluntly about what the Tenure of Office Act represented: an effort to restrain a president who had been doing everything in his power to support white supremacist southerners, many of them former Confederate leaders, by thwarting congressional initiatives that sought to improve the condition of the freed people."
- From The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson by Robert S. Levine
The Failed Promise is an exploration and explanation of the failure of post-Civil War Reconstruction, an era in US (and especially southern US) history that many contemporaries - especially black Americans - looked upon with hope to create lasting change. The author takes care to center the voices of black activists and leaders, particularly Frederick Douglass, to give not just a political or legal perspective on Johnson (both on him as a highly visible and influential public leader in addition to his administration and policies) but also to illustrate the effect those policies had on everyday people, particularly when the words Johnson espoused ("I am your Moses") clashed so violently with the actual lived experience of what he wrought (and not just figuratively, as in case of the 1866 riots in Memphis).
This mostly revolved around exploring the differences between - and, crucially, the differences in the effects of - restoration vs. reconstruction of the post-Civil War South. Johnson was of the opinion that it was impossible for states to secede from the Union so, even though the Confederate states had been open rebellion and started a war that resulted in millions killed, those states should have been readmitted to the Union with all rights and privileges as soon as fighting had ceased and 'traitors' restored to their places (legally, socially, financially) as soon as possible with as few negative effects as possible. Basically, Johnson argued - and acted on his argument - that the South needed to be restored as if the Civil War had never happened. Conflict arose when Congress, not buying this (who can blame them - it sounds bonkers!), instead acted as if the South were occupied enemy territory (which, for all practical purposes, it was) and there needed to punishment and changes before the South could be accepted into the Union once more. Chief among the issues that Congress insisted must be addressed was social and political treatment of the freed people, specifically voting rights. Congress argued that black Americans should have voting rights in order to defend their interests and fight back against malicious reprisals, while Johnson and other white southerners repeatedly rebutted this by arguing that they shouldn't have to deal with voting blacks when several northern states refused to allow black suffrage. While I think the latter is a realistic point, it also deliberately fails to recognize that the situations for black Americans living in the North and South at the time were very different. (Additionally, savvy activists and political leaders wanted to pass black suffrage nationally to get around the failed state referendums on black suffrage and help all black Americans, including those in the North.) With this in mind, Congress refused to seat several delegates from southern states that had refused black suffrage, leading Johnson to attack the ability of Congress to pass legislation at all and he started refusing to sign bills on the grounds that Congress didn't have legislative power.
At the same time, the black community - who had viewed Johnson as progressive on race (more progressive than Lincoln, even) - starting challenging him on his words and actions: on his pardoning of Confederate leaders, his refusal to fund the Freedman's Bureau, his refusal to interfere with federal troops when locals attacked blacks, and his racial fearmongering (as in 'all blacks want to kill whites'), among others. In response, Johnson - who'd basically said what needed to potential political allies to get their support - doubled down in the face of this challenge. By the time of the Memphis riot (begun when white policeman attacked black Union veterans) and the New Orleans massacre (begun when a political gathering of black freedman, mostly veterans, were attacked and slaughtered by a white mob) occurred and Johnson attacked the victims, pretty much the entire black community abandoned faith in Johnson. It was the "there were very fine people on both sides" except much, much worse because in each incident there were dozens of (almost entirely black) dead. And the president had fomented the circumstances leading to each outrage, along with smaller scale outrages that happened daily.
Not really knowing how to put into words concerns about the undermining of congressional authority, abuses of power, and concerns that the president was morally (if not legally) responsible for the many and varied attacks on black Americans - and with some insisting that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' meant there had to be an actual crime of the specified type - the House deliberately made breaking the Tenure of Office Act fall into that legal zone, then wrote up impeachment articles centered on the Tenure of Office Act when Johnson did so anyway. The author ultimately argues that impeaching Johnson wasn't really about the Tenure of Office Act, but about abuses and concerns that led Congress to create and pass a legal trap in the first place. And, as one can surmise from the above quote, he also argues that it was the overreliance on the Tenure of Office Act that turned what should have been a public airing of reasonable concerns into a snoozefest that no one cared about because it couldn't articulate why anything was important.
All in all, The Failed Promise is an excellent and well written book. This is a book that I learned a lot from and it is one that I would highly recommend, especially for its exploration of the black community around the period of Reconstruction. (For those wanting something more focused on Congress, Brenda Wineapple's The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation is also excellent.)
- From The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson by Robert S. Levine
The Failed Promise is an exploration and explanation of the failure of post-Civil War Reconstruction, an era in US (and especially southern US) history that many contemporaries - especially black Americans - looked upon with hope to create lasting change. The author takes care to center the voices of black activists and leaders, particularly Frederick Douglass, to give not just a political or legal perspective on Johnson (both on him as a highly visible and influential public leader in addition to his administration and policies) but also to illustrate the effect those policies had on everyday people, particularly when the words Johnson espoused ("I am your Moses") clashed so violently with the actual lived experience of what he wrought (and not just figuratively, as in case of the 1866 riots in Memphis).
This mostly revolved around exploring the differences between - and, crucially, the differences in the effects of - restoration vs. reconstruction of the post-Civil War South. Johnson was of the opinion that it was impossible for states to secede from the Union so, even though the Confederate states had been open rebellion and started a war that resulted in millions killed, those states should have been readmitted to the Union with all rights and privileges as soon as fighting had ceased and 'traitors' restored to their places (legally, socially, financially) as soon as possible with as few negative effects as possible. Basically, Johnson argued - and acted on his argument - that the South needed to be restored as if the Civil War had never happened. Conflict arose when Congress, not buying this (who can blame them - it sounds bonkers!), instead acted as if the South were occupied enemy territory (which, for all practical purposes, it was) and there needed to punishment and changes before the South could be accepted into the Union once more. Chief among the issues that Congress insisted must be addressed was social and political treatment of the freed people, specifically voting rights. Congress argued that black Americans should have voting rights in order to defend their interests and fight back against malicious reprisals, while Johnson and other white southerners repeatedly rebutted this by arguing that they shouldn't have to deal with voting blacks when several northern states refused to allow black suffrage. While I think the latter is a realistic point, it also deliberately fails to recognize that the situations for black Americans living in the North and South at the time were very different. (Additionally, savvy activists and political leaders wanted to pass black suffrage nationally to get around the failed state referendums on black suffrage and help all black Americans, including those in the North.) With this in mind, Congress refused to seat several delegates from southern states that had refused black suffrage, leading Johnson to attack the ability of Congress to pass legislation at all and he started refusing to sign bills on the grounds that Congress didn't have legislative power.
At the same time, the black community - who had viewed Johnson as progressive on race (more progressive than Lincoln, even) - starting challenging him on his words and actions: on his pardoning of Confederate leaders, his refusal to fund the Freedman's Bureau, his refusal to interfere with federal troops when locals attacked blacks, and his racial fearmongering (as in 'all blacks want to kill whites'), among others. In response, Johnson - who'd basically said what needed to potential political allies to get their support - doubled down in the face of this challenge. By the time of the Memphis riot (begun when white policeman attacked black Union veterans) and the New Orleans massacre (begun when a political gathering of black freedman, mostly veterans, were attacked and slaughtered by a white mob) occurred and Johnson attacked the victims, pretty much the entire black community abandoned faith in Johnson. It was the "there were very fine people on both sides" except much, much worse because in each incident there were dozens of (almost entirely black) dead. And the president had fomented the circumstances leading to each outrage, along with smaller scale outrages that happened daily.
Not really knowing how to put into words concerns about the undermining of congressional authority, abuses of power, and concerns that the president was morally (if not legally) responsible for the many and varied attacks on black Americans - and with some insisting that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' meant there had to be an actual crime of the specified type - the House deliberately made breaking the Tenure of Office Act fall into that legal zone, then wrote up impeachment articles centered on the Tenure of Office Act when Johnson did so anyway. The author ultimately argues that impeaching Johnson wasn't really about the Tenure of Office Act, but about abuses and concerns that led Congress to create and pass a legal trap in the first place. And, as one can surmise from the above quote, he also argues that it was the overreliance on the Tenure of Office Act that turned what should have been a public airing of reasonable concerns into a snoozefest that no one cared about because it couldn't articulate why anything was important.
All in all, The Failed Promise is an excellent and well written book. This is a book that I learned a lot from and it is one that I would highly recommend, especially for its exploration of the black community around the period of Reconstruction. (For those wanting something more focused on Congress, Brenda Wineapple's The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation is also excellent.)
March 6, 2024
Andrew Johnson may be best-known to modern Americans as the answer to a trivia question - who was the first American President to be impeached? As a child of the 1970s, this question was used to trip up everyone who immediately said, "Richard Nixon." But no, it was Abraham Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee who earned that unique distinction in 1868, although he managed to squeak through his trial in the Senate.
In "The Failed Promise," professor Robert S. Levine analyzes just how on earth this could occur. After all, Abraham Lincoln picked Johnson to be his Vice President, and after the Civil War, Congress was dominated by the Republican Party. Indeed, the book's title "The Failed Promise" refers to the fact that at points, Johnson was perceived by anti-slavery forces as more committed to the cause than the pragmatic Lincoln.
Johnson, a pro-Union southern Democrat, had emerged as a staunch defender of the Union before and during the Civil War. A prolific public speaker, Johnson astounded many by publicly proclaiming anti-slavery views in areas where he could have easily been killed for holding those views. Johnson even went so far as to tell an audience of African-Americans in Tennessee that he would be their "Moses," in a speech that initially won wild acclaim but eventually became notorious for its hypocrisy.
As President, Johnson quickly abandoned these strident views and became focused on reinstating the southern states to their status in the Union as if the Civil War hadn't occurred. While the Radical Republicans sought to punish the South for abandoning the Union, including seizing large landholdings of plantation owners and barring Confederates from public office, President Johnson took a much more conciliatory approach, claiming the South had never left the Union because that was impossible.
Essentially, Johnson used high-minded constitutional theory as a justification to ease the South gently back into the Union. This enraged the Radical Republicans (and many others) who saw this as an opportunity to reshape American society as well as guard against backsliding in the South to a system effectively the same as before the Civil War.
As a foil to Johnson, Professor Levine uses the wit and wisdom of Frederick Douglass and, to be fair, a few other African American advocates of the age. But it is Douglass who gets the lion's share of attention, and deservedly so. Unfortunately, while Douglass's writings and speeches were full of wisdom and insight, in many respects he was a Cassandra pointing out truths that would be ignored.
All of this builds to the successful impeachment of President Johnson and failed conviction in the Senate. Professor Levine points out that while the Radical Republicans hated Johnson for reasons involving issues of basic human decency and violations of natural rights (essentially turning his back on the mission, the sacrifices, and the meaning of the Civil War), they impeached Johnson for highly legalistic reasons involving alleged violations of the Tenure of Office Act, and these crimes led the Senate trial to be a snooze doomed to fail.
Professor Levine tells this story well, and the book is a brief but well-done addition to Reconstruction-era scholarship. An Appendix includes the entirety of a famous Frederick Douglass speech, "The Sources of Danger to the Republic." That speech by itself is sufficient cause to read this book.
In "The Failed Promise," professor Robert S. Levine analyzes just how on earth this could occur. After all, Abraham Lincoln picked Johnson to be his Vice President, and after the Civil War, Congress was dominated by the Republican Party. Indeed, the book's title "The Failed Promise" refers to the fact that at points, Johnson was perceived by anti-slavery forces as more committed to the cause than the pragmatic Lincoln.
Johnson, a pro-Union southern Democrat, had emerged as a staunch defender of the Union before and during the Civil War. A prolific public speaker, Johnson astounded many by publicly proclaiming anti-slavery views in areas where he could have easily been killed for holding those views. Johnson even went so far as to tell an audience of African-Americans in Tennessee that he would be their "Moses," in a speech that initially won wild acclaim but eventually became notorious for its hypocrisy.
As President, Johnson quickly abandoned these strident views and became focused on reinstating the southern states to their status in the Union as if the Civil War hadn't occurred. While the Radical Republicans sought to punish the South for abandoning the Union, including seizing large landholdings of plantation owners and barring Confederates from public office, President Johnson took a much more conciliatory approach, claiming the South had never left the Union because that was impossible.
Essentially, Johnson used high-minded constitutional theory as a justification to ease the South gently back into the Union. This enraged the Radical Republicans (and many others) who saw this as an opportunity to reshape American society as well as guard against backsliding in the South to a system effectively the same as before the Civil War.
As a foil to Johnson, Professor Levine uses the wit and wisdom of Frederick Douglass and, to be fair, a few other African American advocates of the age. But it is Douglass who gets the lion's share of attention, and deservedly so. Unfortunately, while Douglass's writings and speeches were full of wisdom and insight, in many respects he was a Cassandra pointing out truths that would be ignored.
All of this builds to the successful impeachment of President Johnson and failed conviction in the Senate. Professor Levine points out that while the Radical Republicans hated Johnson for reasons involving issues of basic human decency and violations of natural rights (essentially turning his back on the mission, the sacrifices, and the meaning of the Civil War), they impeached Johnson for highly legalistic reasons involving alleged violations of the Tenure of Office Act, and these crimes led the Senate trial to be a snooze doomed to fail.
Professor Levine tells this story well, and the book is a brief but well-done addition to Reconstruction-era scholarship. An Appendix includes the entirety of a famous Frederick Douglass speech, "The Sources of Danger to the Republic." That speech by itself is sufficient cause to read this book.
December 11, 2021
The choices made during and immediately after the Civil War regarding what to do with the South have rippled throughout time, and impact us today. This book seeks to understand reconstruction by examining the interactions of Frederick Douglass and Andrew Johnson during Johnson’s presidency. It is a relatively shallow and approachable historical snapshot, that uses its limited scope to help understand the complexity of its characters during an important inflection point in US history.
The book does not refurbish the distilled image of Andrew Johnson that many Americans might have: a man who was openly racist who fought against reconstruction in the south. However a good biography adds complexity to characters who seemed binary. It surprised me to read that after Lincoln’s assassination, radical republicans believed Johnson would go further than Lincoln to reconstruct the south and protect black civil rights. There were historical reasons to believe he would take a different course than he did, and even Douglass took a few years to sour on him. He had good relationships in the black community coming into office and a record of pushing for black rights.
One of the cringiest aspects of Johnson to read in 2021 was his insistence (even after impeachment) that he was the black persons Moses.
On Douglass’s side, I interested to read about an abolitionist movement he was involved in before the civil war that did not get involved in the political process because they believe that the constitution was an inherently racist document. A feeling you could find adherents to today. However, Douglass broke with the group because he came to believe that the constitution contained the seeds of abolition and was in spirit supporting his cause, therefore he redirected his efforts towards shaping a country that was truer to this reading of the founding documents.
Lastly I was struck by the prominence of the role of government in dictating (or providing cover for) peoples approach to the post civil war south. Johnson and Lincoln (for a time) believed that the south had never legally seceded and that the federal government had no role dictating internal matters of states. The radical republicans believed the federal government had the right to intervene and reshape states to protect the rights of black people.
This book is a quick worthwhile read for anyone Interested in diving into the complexities of reconstruction and why it failed.
The book does not refurbish the distilled image of Andrew Johnson that many Americans might have: a man who was openly racist who fought against reconstruction in the south. However a good biography adds complexity to characters who seemed binary. It surprised me to read that after Lincoln’s assassination, radical republicans believed Johnson would go further than Lincoln to reconstruct the south and protect black civil rights. There were historical reasons to believe he would take a different course than he did, and even Douglass took a few years to sour on him. He had good relationships in the black community coming into office and a record of pushing for black rights.
One of the cringiest aspects of Johnson to read in 2021 was his insistence (even after impeachment) that he was the black persons Moses.
On Douglass’s side, I interested to read about an abolitionist movement he was involved in before the civil war that did not get involved in the political process because they believe that the constitution was an inherently racist document. A feeling you could find adherents to today. However, Douglass broke with the group because he came to believe that the constitution contained the seeds of abolition and was in spirit supporting his cause, therefore he redirected his efforts towards shaping a country that was truer to this reading of the founding documents.
Lastly I was struck by the prominence of the role of government in dictating (or providing cover for) peoples approach to the post civil war south. Johnson and Lincoln (for a time) believed that the south had never legally seceded and that the federal government had no role dictating internal matters of states. The radical republicans believed the federal government had the right to intervene and reshape states to protect the rights of black people.
This book is a quick worthwhile read for anyone Interested in diving into the complexities of reconstruction and why it failed.
June 28, 2022
All in all I found Levine’s The Failed Promise a balanced, extremely well researched history of events during and immediately following the Civil War. Many details were new to me, such as the draft riots of New York City in 1863. The oratorical skills of Andrew Jackson and Fredrick Douglass are highlighted as influencers to policy and actions surrounding the abolitionist movement and the struggle to enact Reconstruction of the former Confederate States.
Johnson’s paternalistic actions and racist views were adequately identified by the author, but he also leads the reader to see how Johnson was not the source of those failures at a country-wide level, but more a representative of many Americans, both Southern and Northern. As Levine says, “There is something shortsighted in conceiving of the failure of Reconstruction as the fault of one white man.” Indeed, the pervasiveness of violence by whites against black throughout the country following emancipation shows the broadness of the evil that was not cleansed from the country by the surrender at Appomattox.
Douglass is a bit romanticized, which is typical of great men in history books. His work, particularly with his incredibly impactful speeches, is chronicled well. The fact that either through printing or via lecture circuits, his passion and conviction swayed the white listeners in addition to the black audiences, was what gave him so much power. And as that power rose, some sought to bring him down, while others like Lincoln and Johnson would have tried to leverage it to their own ends. Douglass was intelligent enough and seemingly savvy enough to avoid some of the political traps, at least according to this account.
If you read American History at all, I highly recommend reading this book.
Johnson’s paternalistic actions and racist views were adequately identified by the author, but he also leads the reader to see how Johnson was not the source of those failures at a country-wide level, but more a representative of many Americans, both Southern and Northern. As Levine says, “There is something shortsighted in conceiving of the failure of Reconstruction as the fault of one white man.” Indeed, the pervasiveness of violence by whites against black throughout the country following emancipation shows the broadness of the evil that was not cleansed from the country by the surrender at Appomattox.
Douglass is a bit romanticized, which is typical of great men in history books. His work, particularly with his incredibly impactful speeches, is chronicled well. The fact that either through printing or via lecture circuits, his passion and conviction swayed the white listeners in addition to the black audiences, was what gave him so much power. And as that power rose, some sought to bring him down, while others like Lincoln and Johnson would have tried to leverage it to their own ends. Douglass was intelligent enough and seemingly savvy enough to avoid some of the political traps, at least according to this account.
If you read American History at all, I highly recommend reading this book.
September 30, 2021
This book traces Andrew Johnson’s rise from a Tennessean plantation owner to his vice presidency and subsequent impeachment. During his ascendancy he consistently railed against slavery in his many speeches to the extent that he became known as the black Moses. The blacks rallied around him and even Frederick Douglas thought that he was going to be a tremendous supporter for the black causes after the Civil War and into reconstruction. The author notes however that Andrew Johnson claimed that he never sold a slave while also observing that he bought and owned them.
It turned out that as Vice President he worked assiduously to impede blacks in the south. Blacks began calling Johnson the Black Pharoah. This book also parallels to some extent Fredrick Douglas’s role in trying to improve the condition of the freed slaves and details his efforts to convince Johnson to support black suffrage.
The author states from the beginning that much of the book’s view of Johnson is from Douglas’s side, so it is somewhat difficult to discern the extent to which there may be bias in it.
The impeachment trial is a fiasco as it was based on Johnson’s firing one of his own cabinet members, the secretary of war. This was technically against the Tenure Act, which later proved to be unconstitutional. At the end he wasn’t convicted and finished his term totally diminished. It was interesting to find out that a few years later he was elected Tennessee’s US senator. This book is exceedingly well written and very informative.
It turned out that as Vice President he worked assiduously to impede blacks in the south. Blacks began calling Johnson the Black Pharoah. This book also parallels to some extent Fredrick Douglas’s role in trying to improve the condition of the freed slaves and details his efforts to convince Johnson to support black suffrage.
The author states from the beginning that much of the book’s view of Johnson is from Douglas’s side, so it is somewhat difficult to discern the extent to which there may be bias in it.
The impeachment trial is a fiasco as it was based on Johnson’s firing one of his own cabinet members, the secretary of war. This was technically against the Tenure Act, which later proved to be unconstitutional. At the end he wasn’t convicted and finished his term totally diminished. It was interesting to find out that a few years later he was elected Tennessee’s US senator. This book is exceedingly well written and very informative.
October 16, 2021
(Audiobook) This work looked to analyze the impeachment of Andrew Johnson through the spectrum of his racial policies and the eyes of one of the key figures of that time, Fredrick Douglass. The story of Johnson’s impeachment was not entirely new to me, but some other aspects of this story were new. Never realized that Johnson always had a “Moses” complex when it came to African-Americans. He was a populist at heart, and was not a friend of the landed aristocracy in the South in Antebellum Civil War. Yet, Johnson proclivity to drink, his desire for power, and his resolute belief in his views damaged his attempts to improve the nation, especially for African Americans. While he was never impeached, he was effectively neutered. Yet, that was not quite enough for Douglass. His disgust with Johnson, especially after their infamous meeting in the White House.
This work offered some different perspectives on a critical time in US history. The author doesn’t completed condemn Johnson, even with all of his flaws. Yet, Johnson never came close to living up to whatever promise he had. Douglass was not entirely without flaws, but the author notes his role in trying, unsuccessfully in the end, to improve the lot of his fellow African-Americans. The rating is the same for audiobook as e-copy/hard copy.
This work offered some different perspectives on a critical time in US history. The author doesn’t completed condemn Johnson, even with all of his flaws. Yet, Johnson never came close to living up to whatever promise he had. Douglass was not entirely without flaws, but the author notes his role in trying, unsuccessfully in the end, to improve the lot of his fellow African-Americans. The rating is the same for audiobook as e-copy/hard copy.
May 25, 2022
Public education in the United States has failed to educate it citizens in the nation´s history, to our embarrassment and Sisyphean task of completing that which ended with the ignominious Compromise of 1876. I write, of course, of the end of Reconstruction. The nation would have been better served if a few thousand ex-Confederate lawmakers and military officers had served a stretch in prison and their plantations doled out in a systematic land reform plan. But that never happened.
Andrew Johnson was in large measure responsible for the failure of Reconstruction. Racist, yes, but well aware of class struggle. He reminds me, in some of his rhetoric and positions, of Donald J. Trump. But like Trump, Johnson was never a card-carrying member of the big club, as the late George Carlin said, that you ain´t in. Yet despite Johnson´s good character traits, that even the author, Robert Levine, coolly admires, he is still one of US history´s greatest villains to me.
As to the other protagonist, Frederick Douglass, his reputation has grown ever greater in my estimation. If that man were alive today and ran for president, he´d have my vote! This is a book that should be read by everyone, but only us history buffs and some students will, I guess.
Andrew Johnson was in large measure responsible for the failure of Reconstruction. Racist, yes, but well aware of class struggle. He reminds me, in some of his rhetoric and positions, of Donald J. Trump. But like Trump, Johnson was never a card-carrying member of the big club, as the late George Carlin said, that you ain´t in. Yet despite Johnson´s good character traits, that even the author, Robert Levine, coolly admires, he is still one of US history´s greatest villains to me.
As to the other protagonist, Frederick Douglass, his reputation has grown ever greater in my estimation. If that man were alive today and ran for president, he´d have my vote! This is a book that should be read by everyone, but only us history buffs and some students will, I guess.
October 14, 2021
When Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, the country was on the precipice of radical change. Johnson, seemingly more progressive than Lincoln, looked like the ideal person to lead the country. He had already cast himself as a “Moses” for the Black community, and African Americans were optimistic that he would pursue aggressive federal policies for Black equality.
Despite this early promise, Frederick Douglass, the country’s most influential Black leader, soon grew disillusioned with Johnson’s policies and increasingly doubted the president was sincere in supporting Black citizenship. In a dramatic and pivotal meeting between Johnson and a Black delegation at the White House, the president and Douglass came to verbal blows over the course of Reconstruction.
As he lectured across the country, Douglass continued to attack Johnson’s policies, while raising questions about the Radical Republicans’ hesitancy to grant African Americans the vote. Johnson meanwhile kept his eye on Douglass, eventually making a surprising effort to appoint him to a key position in his administration.
Despite this early promise, Frederick Douglass, the country’s most influential Black leader, soon grew disillusioned with Johnson’s policies and increasingly doubted the president was sincere in supporting Black citizenship. In a dramatic and pivotal meeting between Johnson and a Black delegation at the White House, the president and Douglass came to verbal blows over the course of Reconstruction.
As he lectured across the country, Douglass continued to attack Johnson’s policies, while raising questions about the Radical Republicans’ hesitancy to grant African Americans the vote. Johnson meanwhile kept his eye on Douglass, eventually making a surprising effort to appoint him to a key position in his administration.
October 4, 2021
Eric Foner's books on Reconstruction remain unmatched, but this one is still worth reading as it emphasizes the role (and relationship with Andrew Johnson) of Frederick Douglas, orator and activist for Black rights. The history of Reconstruction is also worth reading as it helps explain the continued plight of Black lives in America. Chattel slavery might have ended with the Civil War, but wage and political slavery long persisted. The Reconstruction was an opportunity to do the right thing. There was plenty of political capital after the Civil War but it was squandered by Johnson who despite declaring himself "the Moses" of the Black people, ultimately sided with the confederate states and the absurd notion that these states, not the federal government, should protect and pave the way for gaining rights for the freed slaves. Well we know how that went. Funny how the political ploys of the elites still to this day propagate the terms "small government" and "state rights" to avoid doing the right thing and thereby ultimately allow moral injustices to persist.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews