About a big issue that goes throughout the civil war era, that we need to look at in the antebellum period, the civil war and reconstruction to understand. That question is the United States constitution. One of the things historians have been asking for generations about the constitution and the civil war era, basic questions as to what degree did the constitution shape the civil war era . To what degree did make political actors do certain things . Constrain them or guide their actions . On the flip side, to what degree did the civil war shape the constitution . Some of this is very clear in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, which directly change the constitution, but also different views of the constitution. One of the things people have looked at, looking back at the u. S. Constitution during the civil war era, is how different people, particular president s, have actor have interacted with the constitution. Have they followed it, tried to defend it, did they abridge the constitution . It shapes how people think of president s during civil war era. Two rentable people we are going to be looking at today are Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson and how they interacted , with the constitution or how the constitution shaped your thinking, shaped they are thinking their thinking and how they affected the constitution in turn. Researchs, when you Something Like this, what is the first thing we do . What . If you are going to do research these days, what do you do first . Student go on the internet . Prof. Slap go to google. So preparing for this, the first thing i did was google Abraham Lincoln, constitution. This was the first result i got. U. S. News story revoking civil liberties, lincolns constitutional dilemma. This is often how people think about Abraham Lincoln and the constitution during the civil war. Suspended habeas corpus, infringements on civil liberties, playing fast and loose with the constitution. And it is not just if you google it. If you go through books about Abraham Lincoln and the constitution, many of them focus on those aspects. It is harder, there is not as many internet searches for Andrew Johnson as there are for Abraham Lincoln, amazingly enough. Rather than google it, i decided to get an idea of the representation of Andrew Johnson and the constitution. Lets go to the National Park service. This is from the website of Andrew Johnsons Historic Site in greenville, tennessee. Just a little ways from where we sit now. And they have decided the interpretation of Andrew Johnson is the constitution president. It sounds good, right . They even go on not just on the main site, but in some of their materials. The constitution shall be saved and the union preserved. It is a little different than lincoln and his constitutional dilemma, right . This is a closeup of the pamphlet. Issaid johnson related political formulation early on. A strict interpretation of the constitution, a belief in states rights. Whate want to explain strict constitutionist is . No Government Intervention in the economy. Very lax on personal liberty but also very lax on property, not interfering with property, whether it he slavery or home. Prof. Slap not interfering is early on in the antebellum time. Od. Time peri even more generally you talk about strict constitutions, does the constitution say you can do this . If it doesnt, you cant. The broad construction would be, will it stop me from doing it . It doesnt stop me, ok, i can do it. Here is the strict construction of the constitution going whether the law is what they are saying, how can johnson interpret it . An idea of lincoln play fast and loose with the constitution pervades even until this day, like historical interpretation. I propose we take a look not at one or two incidents but travel from the antebellum all the way from the antebellum period all the way through reconstruction, looking at Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, what they said with the constitution, what they did with the constitution. I think we will find i know because i put this together, is at the end, Abraham Lincoln in any ways is stricter, has stricter construction of the constitution, has more reverence for the constitution and wants to preserve the constitution in its original form in many ways more than Andrew Johnson. And that Andrew Johnson, his actions during reconstruction are often explained partly by the constitution, and trying to adhere to it but also for other reasons. Maybe not quite as noble as trying to save or preserve the constitution. Lets start with Abraham Lincoln. We are starting with Abraham Lincoln, i should also say lets start with understanding that i, like many historians, like Abraham Lincoln and think he is one of the greatest president s of the United States. Like most historians, i also dont like Andrew Johnson. I think he is one of the worst president s of the United States. We should speak biases up front. I think over the next hour, you will see why many historians revere lincoln and dont take kindly to Andrew Johnson. Understand lincoln and his background with the constitution, there is a couple things that informed his understanding of it. One was nationalism. Lincoln, from his earliest days, was a nationalist. We dont have writings from him when he was six or seven years old, talking about nationalism. We can get some sense of this of how important nationalism was from a speech he gave. After being elected president on his trip to washington, d. C. To be inaugurated. He told the crowd, may i be pardoned if i mention way back in my childhood, the earliest days of my being able to read, i got hold of a small book, such a one as a few of the younger members have ever seen, weems life of washington. I remember all of the accounts given of battlefields and struggles for the liberties of the country. As you all know, for you have all been boys, you know how long how these impressions last longer than others. This biography of washington, one of his earliest memories, and it sticks with him. It helps inform that sense of nationalism. Zach mentioned earlier, we talk about nationalism and the antebellum period in the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s, one of the strongest symbols of nationalism at this time is something we have talked about before. The american system, it comes about after the war of 1812. Henry clay is one of the greatest proponents. It is the idea of using the federal government to help build infrastructure. Canals, ports, to help the economy throughout the country thrive and promote industry and commerce. It was the idea of protective tariffs to help industry grow in and creating another National Bank to help finance the economy. This envisioned an idea of an active federal government, but to promote wellbeing of everyone. Of course, if you are going to talk about the federal government helping to build canals, you have to have a broad construction of the constitution. Nowhere does the constitution say federal government can build canals, or have a National Bank. Period, a lotlum of the fierce debates between the whigs and democrats like Andrew Johnson and andrew jackson. Lincoln thought the constitution allowed this, the federal government, to do this. Because of this, he was protective of the constitution. He did not think it needed to be changed to allow him internal improvements on the american system. He repeatedly throughout the 1840s and 1850s talked about the perfection of the constitution and how much he revered it. Here is a speech out to speech to the house of representatives in 1848. He said i have already said no one who is satisfied with the expediency of making improvements needs to be much uneasy about constitutionality. Making improvements, that is where he is talking about the american system. I wish now to submit a few remarks on the general proposition of amending the constitution. As a general bull rule, we would much better let it alone. Occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not to take the first step which could alter it. Better rather to have that you wait ourselves as thinking of it as unalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is good new provisions would introduce new difficulties, create increased appetite for further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it, the men who made it have done their work and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did . They did . Cannot be much clearer than that, can you . One thing we will come back to again and again is, i am sure most of us, most people, sometimes Say Something and then change our minds or Say Something contradictory later. Somebody says something just once, maybe it does not mean what we think. That is even more so the case for politicians. Lets try to find a couple of examples of this. Nearly a decade later, lincoln, different crowd, saying dont interfere with the constitution, and must be maintained because it is the only space of liberty. Not to democrats alone do i make this appeal but to all who love these great and true principles. A decade later, different circumstances, he is once again saying dont touch the constitution. One of the questions about this , though, is of course lincoln and republicans started in the 1850s, wanted to eventually end slavery. They were antislavery, wanting to restrict it with the eventual goal of eliminating slavery. The question is, how could they argue as he is here saying it is democrats attacking the constitution when, as we have talked about before, lincoln and republicans accept the constitution protect slavery . That is where we come to this, one of the top historians of his generation. He said history is what the present chooses to remember about the past. Lincoln and many republicans at the time selectively read history, to see the constitution as antislavery. This was not just lincoln. This was widespread throughout the north. But lincoln in particular focused on this with his reference of the constitution , that a particular interpretation of that constitution. He turned to two of his heroes, henry clay, senator from kentucky, and thomas jefferson, from virginia, and looked at what they said about slavery. Both of them repeatedly wrote about the evils of slavery and the ways to eliminate slavery. He did not concentrate as much that both of them were major slaveowners. Jefferson owning over 100 slaves, clay with over 50 during their lifetimes. And that though they talked about it, they didnt push legislation through that would have limited or ended slavery. At least not very often. Selectively taking what was useful from henry clay and jefferson, they are able to start looking at the United States and the constitution itself as guiding the nation towards ending slavery. Lincoln, in a speech in 1854, said the theory of our government is everyone is created free and equal, said this declaration of independence. He is going back to jefferson. The declaration of independence says all men are free and equal. That is antislavery. The word slavery is not found in the constitution. The constitution did not affirm slavery, it looked to its ultimate extinction. They start with saying everyone is equal, everyone should be free. The constitution doesnt mention slavery. The founders were on a path to try to end it. From this interpretation, he takes his understanding of the constitution as a support of the american system, the individual the eventual end of slavery, that is the constitution that we that lincoln wants to protect. And he frames it as he is the conservative, he is the one preserving the constitution. This is before he becomes president. Cooper union address, what is the frame of government under which we live . The answer must be the constitution of the United States. And then he tells the crowd, also talking about democrats, he said but you say you are conservative. Eminently conservative while we are revolutionary or destructive or something of the sort. What is conservatism . Is it not adherence to the old and tried . We stick to identical old policy on controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the government under which we live. He said, while you with one accord reject and spit on that policy and insist on substituting something new. You are laughing, drew. What about . He just kind of stuck it to them. He kind of turned it back on them, saying they are the ones that spit on the old policy. I dont know, he is just very blunt, i guess. He is a good politician. Prof. Slap going back, saying look at the declaration of independence, look at the old northwest ordinance, which prohibits slavery in the old northwest, which becomes the midwest today, which was written by thomas jefferson. You can find abolitionist origins or antislavery principles among the founding fathers. You can find proslavery elements, but lincoln is focusing on selectively reading the antislavery abolitionist sentiments and amplifying those in his understanding of the constitution. He says that is the constitution he is protecting. This is a cartoon from 1860. Just before the president ial election. You can see Abraham Lincoln walking a tightrope with an africanamerican on his shoulders, and the balancing pole is the constitution. This was a tightrope he was walking, of how to be antislavery and want the eventual demise of slavery. While at the same time recognizing that to a large degree, the constitution protected the rights of states to have slaves, even if eventually he thought the constitution intended for the end of slavery. Here you can see the balance in lincolns approach to both slavery and the constitution. He was firmly antislavery, becoming more and more abolitionist, but early in the war, he faced a crisis. Or i should say, he faced many crises in the beginning of the war. One of these though was made by the union itself, one of his generals and political rival, john c fremont. Fremont had been the first nominee for president for the republicans in 1856. No one expected him to win. He was just famous like campaigning. Fremont is the first republican nominee, then when the republicans take power, he is very well politically connected and he is appointed to command a military district in the west. Out there, he decides to issue a proclamation on his own without consulting lincoln, freeing slaves of confederates. Keep in mind the timing of this. This is in 1861. Lincoln is worried about the border states, kentucky and missouri, that have slaves but have not left the union, of keeping them in the union. He does not want to move too fast on slavery. It is not part of the war yet officially. Lincoln asks fremont to rescind his proclamation. Fremont says no. Lincoln asks him again. Fremont says no. Finally lincoln removes fremont from command and revokes the proclamation. We talked about that balancing act with the constitution and slavery. There is also a political balancing act he has. On one hand he is trying to keep the border states in the union. He is trying to pacify and keep happy democrats and moderate, conservative republicans, but radical republicans, abolitionists, are aghast at what he does undoing that proclamation. One of them is an old friend in illinois, o. H. Browning, who wrote to lincoln complaining about what he had done regarding fremont proclamation. Lincoln writes back a lengthy letter explaining why he did it. We will take a look at a few different sections of this letter, because they are interesting for both understanding lincoln and the viewed hisn, how he role as president and it puts later actions in interesting light. Midway through he says the same is true of slaves. If the general needs them, he can use them, but when the need is not for him to fix their permanent future conditions, that must be settled according to the laws made by lawmakers and not military proclamations. The proclamation, the point in question is simply dictatorship. It assumes the general may do anything he pleases, confiscate the land and free the slaves of loyal people as well as disloyal. Going the whole figure i doubt it will be more popular than that which has been done. The general issuing a command, proclamations freeing the slaves, is taking over what should be civilian government, what lawmakers should do. That if you needed the slaves for military purposes, ok, but you should not be making legislation. He said, i cannot assume this reckless position nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. You speak of it being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary, it is in itself a surrender of the government. Kennedy pretended that it is any longer the government of the u. S. , any government of constitution and laws, wherein a general or president may make for permanent rule a property proclamation . If you are freeing slaves, slaves are property. By proclamation, you are taking away somebodys property. He goes on to say, i dont say Congress Might not with impropriety pass a law on the point such as the general proclaimed. I do not say i might not as a member of Congress Vote for it. What i object to is i as zeesident shall expressly sei and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the government. Here he is saying morally, he agrees with fremont. That is what he would like. In congress, he might and probably would vote for such a measure. But that is not his position. It is not the position of fremont. Saying as commanderinchief, he cant do that because he is stepping in and taking over powers that belong to congress. There are a couple of ways to look at this letter. One, we talked about how a big question originally what degree does the civil war era shape the constitution, or the constitution shape the civil war era . Lincoln was specifically stating that the constitution, at least his understanding of it, is shaping his actions. It limits what he can do. Also there is the matter of what he does later in the war. When i was reading all of this, what were you thinking about . Emancipation proclamation. Prof. Slap i anticipated what you were going to say. It is about a year later lincoln is issuing the emancipation proclamation. In some ways doing exactly what he said he should not do. What fremont should not do. Are claimed by the pressure of the war. He had to. [indiscernible] prof. Slap the question was you are asking whether he thought it was not time to do it with fremont . Yeah, because of the politics, the border states, there would be even more repercussions then when he did it later in 1862. The nature of the war started changing by that point. Some of it you can say is expediency that politically, strategically, it was not the right thing to do in 1861, and by the end of 1862, suddenly that makes more sense to the war effort. And the political politics had changed. That is some aspect of it. It is interesting that as soon as he issues the emancipation operation, lincoln starts pushing for the 13th amendment. What is the difference between the emancipation proclamation and the 13th amendment . The emancipation proclamation is a war measure, and the 13th amendment is validated by the constitution. Prof. Slap the 13th amendment is law. Thats what hes talking about, lawmakers creating law. Part of the reason he goes the proclamation was slaves are free ends hr in rebellion, but in the 13th amendment, all slaves are free. Prof. Slap but the 13th amendment freed slaves in places where there was rebellion. It does not end the institution of slavery and there are slaves in parts that had been conquered by the union. While the 13th amendment ends the institution of slavery. That is one big distinction. Another big distinction, important for what we are talking about today, getting at the mind of lincoln, is he is worried his emancipation proclamation is not constitutional. Is this going to hold up . Could this be reversed . Trying to cement that into place with legislation by congress, by the lawmakers, not by a general or a president acting as commander in chief. Any questions on lincoln and the constitution . Ok. In a few months of passing the 13th amendment through congress, Abraham Lincoln is assassinated. He is replaced by Andrew Johnson. His Vice President. Before i talk about johnson, you are lucky because we have someone who works at the Andrew JohnsonHistoric Site. Would you like to give us a brief synopsis of johnsons background . Johnson was originally born in raleigh, North Carolina in the early 1820s, had actually grew up in North Carolina but his father died when he was very young. His mother raised him. During this time, she helped him find an apprenticeship with a tailor. With this, he moved all around the state. He moved through South Carolina a few times, alabama, got exposed to the deep south in general. Came back to North Carolina and got another apprenticeship at another tailor. With the apprenticeship, another form of basically slavery by another means. They were entitled to every wish of that master until they were 18. Johnson decided to end up leaving raleigh with his mother and stepfather and found his way into greenville. Whenever that happened, he ended up buying his own tailor shop and ended up buying a house in greenville, where he stayed at until 1857, then he bought a new house in greenville, which is his actual homestead. One thing about johnson is he is a great political leader in east tennessee. East tennessee was really a whig heavily politically active state. East tennessee was not a democratic stronghold but he turned it into a democratic stronghold because he was the epitome of a democrat. Andrew johnson, his hero was andrew jackson. His other hero was thomas jefferson. So states rights, protection of slavery, another thing he is also known for, and he was also a slave owner himself. He owned over nine slaves . Prof. Slap 10 to 12. Johnson played up the apprenticeship, that he was treated as a slave. There was a difference in actuality. In his mind, he conflated the two. That is one of the reasons why attackeden he planters, the wealthy slaveowners who he sees looking down on the poor whites like him even when he becomes wealthy. He still identifies and sees himself as a poor white. That guides a lot of his philosophy. A lot of what he does in his life is that selfimage of being the poor hardscrabble white person pulling himself up. I talked about how he did not like planters. He viewed himself even before the war and certainly when secession started ripping the country apart, he was with the honest yeomen fighting the slaveocracy, the words he was what he called the pampered, bloated, corrupted aristocracy. These are people with huge plantations from nashville, going to memphis and down the mississippi river. People who really did control much of the southern economy and politics, even though johnson was a United States senator, he still thought he was being looked down upon by these people. These people were controlling the economy and everything in Southern Society for their benefit and hurting poor whites like he had been and who he thought he was representing. Eventually, as zach was mentioning, he does rather well for himself. Makes a lot of his money in property investment. Throughout the area, buying and selling different properties, ended up living in a rather nice home, owning 10, 11 slaves. Amazingly enough, historians cant figure out how many he did own during his lifetime. It is a debated point. Unlike Abraham Lincoln, who repeatedly talked about his preference for leaving the constitution alone in the 1840s and 1850s, johnson, who is going to save the constitution and is the constitution president , repeatedly throughout life wanted to change the constitution, to amend it. In 1860 and 1868 and multiple times did multiple proposals to amend the constitution. Right here is the difference between lincoln and johnson. It is also interesting to see what he is trying to change about it. He wants a direct election of u. S. Senators, 12 year term on federal judges, eliminating the electoral college. A populist. Prof. Slap in many ways a populist, at least in some ways. But in all of these things he is trying to say lets give power, more political power to average americans. But he is also in doing this, one, these are major changes. Eliminating the electoral college. Also doing direct election of u. S. Senators, what does that in effect mean . He wants the federal government to tell states how they should select their senators. Does that sound like states rights . The electoral college, people are discussing it even to this day, based on the idea of the states coming together. If you get rid of the electoral college, just have a Popular National election, it is limiting the influence of states. In many ways throughout his life, johnson at some times is a strict constructionist and wants to save the constitution and wants states rights. At other times though, he is like, lets rip up the constitution and change them. Lets take away power at least in some ways from the states or tell states what to do. Of course, johnson had been made Abraham Lincolns Vice President nominee in 1864 because he was a democrat so lincoln could run on a union party ticket. He could be a republican, johnson a democrat to try to attract broader political support. During the middle of the war. So the democrats could vote for Abraham Lincoln and say we are voting not for a republican but we are voting for a republican and a democrat who are going to prosecute this war fully. This would have dire repercussions when lincoln is assassinated. They are not from the same party, dont have the same philosophy. And this is seen within just several months of johnson taking power to becoming president. Many radical republicans initially thought johnson would work better with them than lincoln had. Lincoln pocket vetoed. One of the radical republicans attempts at reconstruction, but he was turning to negotiate with starting to negotiate with them to try to figure out how to go forward. Johnson had been severe throughout the war against southern planters and the southern aristocracy and pushed to fight a hard war. At heart, this quote of his explains. The negroes, i am fighting their aristocratic masters. He was fighting to preserve the union and possibly punish the people he thought were responsible for the war. We see this carry out, carry on in reconstruction. So he was saying like slaveowners was the reason for the war, and prof. Slap not just slaveowners. From johnsons perspective, the people most responsible for the war were the wealthy planters, people with 20, 30, 40, 100 slaves, with outsized political power and influence. Did you have a question . Remember, this is a struggle that we talked about earlier with fremonts proposal of who is what is the role of the president , what is the role of congress . Lincoln had taken a great deal of power as president during the war. Congress and lincoln had fought over that periodically. In the fremont case he is saying, i dont have the power constitutionally to do the things i want to do. Congress needs to do it. That is why when he takes a step in the emancipation proclamation he is still pushing the 13th amendment to have congress, the lawmakers decide. Congress after lincolns death continues to try to dictate reconstruction policy. They think it is their role. To decide how the nation is supposed to be reconstructed. They start passing various pieces of legislation. One of the first ones is the Freedmens Bureau bill. An extension of the Freedmens Bureau. The idea was to create an agency that was going to help africanamericans adjust to freedom. Provide money for schools, provide people who can negotiate between former slaves and former slaveowners, for them to work together. Economically, get jobs, to be able to help resettle them on millions of acres of land. And johnson vetoes it. This came as a shock to many of the republicans. The author of the Freedmens Bureau bill was a moderate. The definition of a moderate republican. He specifically has written the bill try to keep it as conservative as possible to bring on more conservative republicans to support it and so johnson would sign it. He was surprised that it got, that it was vetoed, along with many other republicans. Republicans had to go back to rewrite the bill, make it even more conservative so they could get enough votes to override johnsons veto. They ended it ended up limiting the effectiveness of the Freedmens Bureau. This set a pattern going on into 1866. One of those patterns is johnsons interaction with congress and vetoes. Some of you may notice the formatting. This comes from the old faithful wikipedia. I dont suggest you always trust them. They are useful for getting charts and graphs. This is a summary of vetoes from George Washington through Andrew Johnson. Here is the number of vetoes, the total number of all vetoes and the number of vetoes overridden. What do you notice . Johnson is double the next man. 29. Prof. Slap johnson is equal of even the next two. He is more than the next two. Most of them are overridden. Prof. Slap most of johnsons get overridden. It is constitutional for the president to veto congressional legislation. That is in the constitution. But johnson is acting in a way no previous president had done with regard to that power in the constitution. He is acting in a rather radical, revolutionary way compared to all previous president s. What he does is consistently vetoing congressional attempts at reconstruction. First the Freedmens Bureau bill, civil rights bill, trying to guarantee civil rights for African Americans and other people in the United States, and eventually congress decides it needs to be more aggressive in reconstruction. What they turn to is article 4, section four of the constitution. United states shall guarantee a republican form of government. Remember this. We will be coming back to this language. Lots of different people use it for different purposes during the civil war era. It means the federal government, is the federal governments responsibility to make sure every state, tennessee, massachusetts or california, has a republican form of government, not oligarchy, not despotism, but a republican form of government. Charles sumner, senator from massachusetts, said that clause , that section of the constitution, was a sleeping giant. Never until this recent war awakened but now comes forward with a giants power. There is no cause like it. There is no other clause which gives congress the supreme power over the states. He thinks it is something Andrew Johnson would hate, talking about using this clause of the constitution to give power to the federal government over the states. He does hate the way congress decides to use it. Congress uses that clause to pass an 1867 military reconstruction act, divide the former confederacy into five Different Military districts, put generals in charge and said the government, civilian government put in place under Andrew Johnson after the war were not republican inform. In form. The way they were treating africanamericans and unionists, it meant to be states were not republican and there needed to be federal control until they could establish those republican arms of government. Republican forms of government. Johnson vetoed, not surprisingly, the military reconstruction bill. He said he felt this is according to the Andrew Johnson site, felt the military reconstruction act was an unconstitutional extension of federal power into areas of state jurisdiction that would lead to despotism. In his veto message to congress , i submit to congress whether this measure is not in its holy y character, scope and precedence and without authority to the constitution. Rebellion and Domestic Violence were anticipated when the government was framed. The means of repressing and repelling them were provided for in the constitution. Finally the constitution also forbids the rest of the citizens without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest without warrant at the pleasure of a military commander. He is complaining here about the acte is vetoing, and some of his reasons why, there is no precedent for this. There is no precedent for this military and federal occupation and running civilian governments. And this authorizes arrest without warrant at the pleasure of a military commander. He says this is why hes doing it. This is the problem when you have a long paper record. As a politician. Take a look at what he said a few years earlier in 1862 in nashville. He said such a lamentable crisis , the government of the United States could not be unmindful to its constitutional obligation to guarantee every state a republican form of government. So the basis of what congress is basing their actions on, and he is arguing against, he is using the same justification as congress, republican form of government clause. An obligation which every state has a direct and immediate interest in, having observed towards every other state and for which no action by any people on part of the state can federal government be absolved. The republican form of government with the constitution of United States is one of the conditions of our political existence, by which every part of the country is alike down and from which no part can escape. Heres where irony comes in. The obligation is to discharge. I have been appointed by the state authorities as military governor for the time being. Saying thereo is is no precedent for creating military districts was five years earlier military governor of tennessee. You say, maybe there was an emergency, during wartime. Of course he is going to restore civilian government as quickly as possible. How long do you think it took under Andrew Johnson for there to be civilian government . To replace the military governor in the state of tennessee . Six months . 12 months . Three years. Closer to three. It was actually about 2. 5 years. Even as he was running for Vice President , he was still military governor of tennessee. Maybe there was some precedence. Said, i will say he did not like arrests. You see, check for a few different times. Maybe just said this once . But he said it again in 1863, s restmen whose neck beneath the boot of power, demand you you to carry out the institution. I dont demand it for them as a privilege but as of right, that itors shall be put down. The United States shall, not may, guarantee the states, guarantee to every state republican arm of government. He is coming back to the same constitutional Laws Congress was using to justify the military construction act. I call on the sympathizers here, demand in the name of the constitution as it is, protection and support of a republican form of government for the men of the south. This is a position he is stating publicly. He also says mr. Lincoln came into power administering the constitution like an honest man and loving my country. I determined to sustain them. If he called for amendment of constitutional laws, he has been announced as a desperate. Despot. If he had not called on you when your country was in peril, the same armies raised and the revolution gone on, what government would you have today . Would it not have been despotism . You have complain of the wrong he has done, arrests, habeas corpus, military commanders arresting civilians. He said, if i have any complaint to make it is that president lincoln did not do more to crush the rebellion. He says if he has more complaint, it is not that Abraham Lincoln was using the s ortary to make arrest suspending habeas corpus but not making more arrests. Was not suspending habeas corpus more. And here is the person who is the defender of the constitution. Which gets even a little harder early 1866 when in zach is laughing because this is for the Andrew JohnsonHistoric Site. This is one of their major images, especially for the movie. You have seen this again later today. A speech in washington, Andrew Johnson said i know it was said by some during the rebellion a constitution had been rolled up as a piece of parchment and laid away at the time of war, and there was no constitution. We know sometimes from a great necessity of the case, or great emergency, we must do unconstitutional things to preserve the constitution itself. Do they have that quote at the national Historic Site . Necessity of the case, or great this starts getting up the question of johnson, if he is resisting reconstruction, the efforts of congress, but there s times he is willing to say we need to have arrests and guarantee a republican form of government in every state, what is driving him . Constitutional principles or Something Else . Keep in mind also we talk about said whyedent, when he he rejected earlier. And that he is recognizing once here that North Carolina has a right to have a republican form of government and it is the power of the United States to maintain that. I just mentioned, what is guiding him . He seems to be bouncing around constitutionally. There are times he wants to preserve the republican form of government in each state and other times he doesnt care as much. There is times he wants arrest s and times he says it is horrible. Times were he says there is no precedent for having military governors when he was a military governor himself five years earlier. I would suggest one of the things that drives him and drives his views on the constitution or how he interprets the constitution at various points is the white supremacy. He is for the white mans government in america. I dont know how more explicit you can get. We will see, because he is pretty explicit on this. 1865, one of the biggest debates is africanamerican suffrage nationally but also specifically in washington, d. C. , because that was a place the federal government controlled. Congress wanted and the republicans wanted to give africanamericans the right to vote. They can not necessarily do that in South Carolina or massachusetts without passing a constitutional amendment, but they could do it in washington, d. C. A group of abolitionists led by Frederick Douglass met with Andrew Johnson, trying to talk about getting suffrage broadly throughout the nation, but also in washington, d. C. Frederick douglass thought the meeting had gone fairly well. The delegation left and afterward, just after they left, johnson was reported by a couple of the people at the meeting to have said this about Frederick Douglass. Those blank sons of blank thought they had me in a trap. I know that blank douglass. He is like any other blank and would sooner cut a white mans throat then not. Pretty explicit, right . Maybe it is a one off . Well, Congress Voted to get back to give africanamericans the right to vote in 1866. Johnson vetoes it. He explains his words, he said entirely disregarding the wishes of the people of the district of columbia, congress deemed it expedient to pass the measure. It therefore becomes the duty of the executive standing between legislation of the one and the will of the other to determine whether he should approve a bill and aid the folks of the nation a law against which the people for whom it is to apply solemnly and with unanimity protested. Or whether he should return it with his objections and hope on the consideration, congress, acting as representative of the inhabitants in seat of government, would regulate the willful question. They seem best suited to their interest and conditions. Local white people in washington, d. C. Dont want African Americans voting. And congress should be responsive to them. And it is his job to step in because congress is not listening to local concerns. This sounds fairly reasonable, right . Except remember, johnson himself says, national Historic Site says he believes in strict construction of the constitution. Article one, section eight, legislative powers of congress. Among them, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, meaning what becomes the district of columbia. If you are a strict constructionist, who has the power to legislate for washington, d. C. . Congress. Doesnt say they are doesnt it say doesnt say they are representing people there. Nothing about the president should be involved in this process. It is saying congress have that power. It is explicit. Johnson explained, i yield to no attachment to that rule of general suffrage that extinctions are policies of a nation, but there is a limit widely observed that makes the bout of privilege and trust which requires that some classes at the time suitable for probation and preparation. To give it indiscriminately to a new class, wholly unprepared by previous habits and opportunities to perform the trust it demands is to the grant to degrade it