Customer Reviews

The Avenger Takes His Place: Andrew Johnson and the 45 Days That Changed the Nation

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The role of Andrew Johnson at the end of the Civil war has not been considered by many authors. This book undertakes two tasks. The first is to show the conspiracy behind Booths assignation (and the surrounding plot) and how that conspiracy shaped Andrew Johnson's policies. The second task is to show how the ideas of reconstruction came under development. The writing style is very clear and well done. For those looking for a short and straight to the point book on what happened immediately following the civil war this cannot be beat. Johnson's role as the avenger and the split in the cabinet are some of the most interesting politics in the history of the United States. Mary Todd Lincoln's treatment of Johnson is particularly interesting considering she considered him a part of the assignation. Highly recommend for those who want to learn more about Andrew Johnson.

When President Lincoln was assassinated, leaving Andrew Johnson in charge of a nation in chaos, most people on both sides of the war wondered what was in store for all of them.

It had only been a short time since Andrew Johnson made a public spectacle of himself at his inauguration. Now it was on the shoulders of this man to bring justice to those responsible for Lincoln's death, finish a war, and knit a country back together. But what was he to do with the "traitors" whom he'd already viciously attacked, and what rights would be granted the former slaves?

The Avenger Takes His Place is a study of what made the man who would be our seventeenth president, as well as the tumultuous six weeks that would determine the future of our United States. It is an engrossing study of communication, or lack thereof, anxiety, distrust, and the atrocity of war.

Author Means provides insight from personal journals and public records on both sides and provides current day comparisons in order to paint the situation abundantly clear to readers. In a time where Johnson's predecessor is nearly sainted, while Johnson himself is remembered poorly, I greatly enjoyed learning more about the man who remade our nation.

A fascinating look into the process that led to the reconstruction of the United States following the Civil War.

Armchair Interviews says: Another interesting peek at history.

This is a nice survey about Johnson and the situation he found himself in April 1865. This is partially a Johnson bio -the start of the book, though interesting, focuses on Johnson pre-presidency, leaving less time for the 45 days of the start of his administration (or, rather, finishing Lincoln's plans). So, if you are looking for super in-depth coverage or brand new research material, this is not your cup of tea. But, it's a well written book, and some of the the old newspaper clippings dealing with Lincoln and Johnson are fun to read.

Howard Means, the author, is excited about the life of Andrew Johnson, even though Johnson was a racist, an inelegant statesman and the first in a long line of forgettable presidents, and he got me excited too.

The title makes you think you will read about Johnson and a 45 day period in or around his inauguration. I kept looking for this, and the suggested "avengence". It was there, but only partly and scattered.

The book goes from details of the night of Lincoln's assassination, (a detailed piece on Leonard Farwell who brought the news to Johnson leads you to believe he will become significant later) to a bio on the early life of Johnson and back to the inauguration of Lincoln and forward to the early days of Johnson administration. Here the time frames go back (with extraneous info such as the economic rationale for why the South would never have won) and forth (impeachment, two years later).

The 45 days (which ones, depend on your chosen starting point) are worthy of a much deeper treatment. The text weaves and the chronology isn't clear. I had to look up dates elsewhere to get a handle on the story. The main events actually range from the March 4 Lincoln Inaugural to the July 6 hanging of the assassination co-conspirators.

Means does a good job of presenting the facts about Johnson, where he came from and his Jacksonian brand of populism. How he went from point A (avenging) to point B (Lincoln's program) is not clear. One result is that when the author blames Johnson for the mess of reconstruction, the reader can't agree (or disagree).

Means is at his best in describing the social climate of Washington at the time and relating a parade of veterans. The description of troops (including Sherman's fresh from the battle soldiers) and viewers is wonderful. Other well described events include the repatriation of prisoners and southerners haunting the capitol looking for pardons.

If there were 3 1/2 stars, I'd use them, because, this book is a starting point for someone to acquire some background to delve more into this neglected period.

I like that the Endnotes begin with the quote from the text. A browse through it makes it seem that he made a selective use of sources, or, perhaps not many exist for this period.

Shortly after Lincoln's murder, while the entire country reeled from rumors that Lincoln's death was the result of a huge conspiracy that involved Confederate leaders, Herman Melville published "The Martyr," an ominous warning to all those who might've been involved. The "Forgiver"--Lincoln--has been murdered. "But the People in their weeping/ Bare the iron hand/Beware the People weeping/When they bare the iron hand." Why? Because "The Avenger [now] takes [Lincoln's] place."

Andrew Jackson was that terrible Avenger--or so the radical Republicans who wanted the South punished even before Lincoln's assassination hoped. There was good cause to think that Johnson was the man to crush the South. Few politicians had been as vocal about the need to punish treason with a hangman's noose than Andy Johnson, Tennessee's military governor. Moreover, the Republicans believed they could control Johnson in a way that Lincoln always successfully resisted: after all, Johnson was a backwoods lout who'd actually been drunk at his own inauguration! So the consensus was that the Avenger was in place: a President who on his own wanted to punish the South, and who could be manipulated by bloodier-minded, vengeance-seeking northern Republicans.

As author Howard Means points out, however, things didn't quite work out as planned. Johnson proved much more independent than Washington powerbrokers anticipated, and his hang-'em-high attitude toward the South proved to be more rhetorical than real. In fact, his plan for reconstruction pretty closely mirrored the 1863 suggestions Lincoln had left: a 10% solution (readmittance to the Union upon the election of new state governments voted in by at least 10% of eligible voters), and constitutionally guaranteed freedom for blacks. Johnson's stubborn refusal to endorse radical Republican plans to enfranchise blacks led to congressional resistance and then impeachment. After the first 45 days of his presidency, Johnson was increasingly powerless. It would take several administrations for the presidency to recover.

Means' account of the "45 days that changed the nation," as his book's subtitle has it, is well-written. The trouble, however, is that it says virtually nothing that hasn't been written about elsewhere, is severely limited in its documentation, and (bizarrely) doesn't really begin to focus on the 45 days until midway through. It's almost as if there are the beginnings of three books crammed between two covers: a bio of Johnson, an account of the national chaos and confusion following Lincoln's murder (Means shines here, and is to be commended), and (finally!) the conflict between Johnson and the Republican congress over Reconstruction. When it comes to this final point, Means' argument ultimately is that Lincoln probably could've pulled off what Johnson attempted. "It wasn't policy that would bring [Johnson] down so much as it was lack of political skills" (p. 212).* Perhaps. But it takes a lot more arguing than Means supplies to give this conjecture weight.

All in all, then, an interesting but not terribly essential book.
________
* To his credit, Means goes on to provide three other reasons besides lack of diplomacy for why Johnson's moderate Lincoln-inspired plan for Reconstruction failed (pp. 206-225)

From the title, I expected a detailed history of the days following his assumption of the presidency. While the tiles mislead me, I found a very readable, balanced enjoyable account of Johnson and Reconstruction. The book is a mini-biography of Andrew Johnson with emphases on the years prior to and during the Civil War, hunt for and trial of Lincoln's killers, the end of the Confederacy and the start of Presidential Reconstruction. This is a huge list of "hot topics" for an author to present in one book. Howard Means succeeds without falling into the Lost Cause Myth or current Politically Correct thinking, constructing a balanced readable and instructive book.

This is an introductory to mid-level history of the beginnings of Reconstruction. Starting with the application of Lincoln's "let `em up easy" and 10% rule to the rise of the Radical Republicans determined to make the South suffer and keep control of Congress. Both efforts, at reconstruction, are doomed from the start and could only increase problems for the nation and the new Freemen. A major strength of the book is the author's refusal to place either group on the side of good. He admits that each had base motives and sought power from reconstruction.

Walking through the turbulence is Andrew Johnson. The "flaws" that helped him in the Senate and as military governor, destroyed him as President. Honest, hard working and unable to comprise what he saw as "right" brought impeachment from men who felt he was wrong. From a respected hero of the Union, he became a hated symbol of the old South.

While not what I expected, this is an enjoyable an instructive read. The book is an excellent introduction to Reconstruction, the issues and people.

A good read, but not fantastic. I think more should be documented about Johnson than actually is, but this is not some long-awaited book on it like I had hoped. Means writes a lot about Johnson's background, which is important, but he really fails to focus in on "the 45 days" following Lincoln's assassination. He does do a great job, though, of painting the pre-impeachment scene, when there was quite a bit of optimism and harmony about Johnson, even in the wake of the fallen Lincoln. It's worth the quick read, but beware of intermittant, oddly-placed, and unnecessary "plunk job" references to modern times (such as Nixon or even the Iraq war). Would have received 3 stars except it failed its own title about the 45 days.

Well, I wasn't sure if I liked Andrew Johnson before I read this book. (I actually knew very little about him.) Traditionally, he is portrayed (when he is portrayed) as the brave successor of Lincoln who "stood up" to those mean old Radical Republicans in Congress, who wanted to punish the South and open the door to all their carpetbagger and scalliwag friends. He made his stand; saved the presidency; and then faded into obscurity. Well, of course it wasn't that simple: Johnson, while admirable for his pluck and courage, was in the main, a hard-headed zealot of limited intellectual and creative range, who kept his own counsel, did what he pleased, and ended up as perhaps the least effective president in American history. It's still probably a good thing that the attempt to remove him from office failed; such would have been a blow from which the presidency might never have recovered. But certainly Johnson's pig-headedness and inability to compromise did as much to weaken the office as anything the Radicals could have done.

This book concerns itself mainly with a very brief period (45 days, the subtitle says) in American history wedged between the assassination of Lincoln and Johnson's impeachment by Congress and trial in the Senate. As such, its focus is somewhat limited. Readers wanting more information on either of those epic events in U.S. history will have to look elsewhere. But it does help to identify the significance of the former, while providing important groundwork for the latter. As such, it is certainly worth reading. Means is a splendid writer, and his text marches swiftly acorss the pages. His research and scholarship seem flawless; but he also is unafraid to draw comparisons with contemporary events in American history and provide the occasional bit of humor and irony. This book is not long (just over 200 pages, exclusive of endnotes) and it moves along very fast. It's worth the read in and of itself, but more importantly as background for later developments in Reconstruction, a too often overlooked (but critcally important, as Means infers) period in our national history.

Andrew Johnson remains one of the largest enigmas in American history. Once praised as one of the republic's stronger presidents, he now is reviled as one of its weakest. Part of the problem is that Johnson has no natural base. History buffs with Union sympathies have little use for Johnson's Reconstruction policies while Southerners do not care for the one Senator who refused to follow his state out of the republic and served as military governor of Tennessee to boot. Scholarly historians, who gush over Woodrow Wilson's academic career, have a hard time relating to the only president who never had a single day of formal education and was frankly rather proud of that. Some of the more partisan minded historians seemed to find hidden virtues in the first Johnson presidency during the Clinton impeachment saga back in 1998-99 but none really took up his cause.

Enter the longtime Washington journalist and novelist Howard Means to look at Johnson in "The Avenger Takes his Place." Most historians of Reconstruction simply do not write for a general public and so many of the leading works on the era by the likes of Cox, Foner, Stamp, McKittrick are simply ignored by non-academics or are distilled by teachers. Means writes for a general audience with mixed results. His tale is an interesting one and one that should be read by a greater audience. He also offers an interesting but brief background sketch of Johnson. Means clearly admires several aspects of Johnson's character including his courage, ambition, and having risen from poverty.

But there are severe problems. Means offers little documentation and very poor endnotes. He also can not escape his creative writing past. While Means's argument that Lincoln knowingly dumped Hamlin and replaced him with Johnson in 1864 for political reasons is probably correct, using Gore Vidal's novel on Lincoln is not the best way of shoring up the argument. There are some odd asides including a study of Lancaster, PA at the time; a detailed sketch of the political career of Leonard Farwell, the first man to let Johnson know he was president before vanishing from the narrative; how news of the deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson traveled when compared news of the death of Lincoln; a narrative of the grand review of the Union armies in Washington; and many other side trips. Emerging from all of this is the sense that the author has lost track of Andrew Johnson himself.

This comes clear at the end of the book. Means argues that Johnson was following Lincoln's political program in his lenient Reconstruction policy. Through an in depth study of sermons across the North as well as the popularity of the Lincoln funeral trains, Means also shows how Lincoln became no mere politician but a martyr. Almost every VP who inherits the office from the death of his predecessor attempts to rally the nation behind the program of the dead president from Coolidge to LBJ's "let us continue" to Arthur and TR to Truman. Why should have Johnson been any different ?

There is one other problem. While not as harsh on Johnson as McKittrick or Foner or Cox, Means believes that Johnson should have been more accommodating to the freed slaves. Fair enough. But this is history in hindsight and does not sit well. Wrapped in the political legacy of Lincoln, could Johnson afford to further punish the white South? Remember Johnson had the French in Mexico to contend with (which Means almost totally overlooks). The United States, while often idealistic in its national political thought, often burns itself out on crusades. Witness the repudiations at the polls Wilson suffered in 1918 and 1920 for instance or the Democratic setback in 1946. To enforce democracy in the South, the North needed to continue maintaining its sons in the armed forces at a high number while contending with a defeated population and an undereducated class of freedmen whose entire way of economic and social life, as cruel and inhumane as it may have been, was no more. This is an almost impossible task. While men of the left like Foner seem to think this could be done in the South in 1866, they agree that it can not be done in modern day Iraq. But Foner is no insider on politics but rather an academic historian. Means, who co-wrote Louis Freeh's autobiography and is a writer for a Washington magazine, has no such excuse. For a political writer, it seems odd that Means does not recognize the limits of Johnson's options. Even in 1868, when Grant comes to office, his phrase was "Let Us Have Peace." There was no groundswell of support for Radical Reconstruction when Johnson came to power and frankly Means should have been shrewd enough to know that a leader can only get so far ahead of the general population.

Still, it is a readable if flawed introduction to a stormy period and figure in our history. Unlike most of the works on the era, this book can actually be read. Nice to see a writer, as opposed to a tenured bureaucrat, working on Reconstruction.