Yeah he was objectively terrible.
he commanded sherman he could told him to stop at anytime but he didnt the man encouraged carpet baggers and took our states from us
also stonewall jackson if hed made it to gettysburg we would have won the battle and with it foreign aid from england and france
Good. I love seeing slaveowning aristocrats lose power.
Nah, by that point England and France had both committed to not giving aid to the South. Gotta back up a few years.
I can understand how Johnson would be disliked by a non southerner, in fact I'd be surprised if yall didnt dislike him. But he was there for Dixie when we needed him most. When the Civil war ended the south was in ruins and the government was almost completly composed of people who were not exactly fond of the south and wanted to punish us for the war.
But then Lincoln was shot and the lone Southern Unionist in the cabinet was promoted too the presidency. This understandably ticked off the Republicans, but was a much needed break for the South. Johnson protected us from the worst of the radical Republicans and possessed a degree of honesty and integrity sorely lacking in most modern politicians. He did after all reach where he got because he was willing too stand by his belief in a indivisible union, even when all the rest of his peers left for the confederacy.
Admittibley his term was mired by constant battles with Congress over pretty much everything, but what else can you really expect? He was a southern Democrat and former slave owner who took office after the most popular Northern Republican of all time was murderd...by a southern Democrat. Johnson was pretty much destined to fight congress from the first day he sat in the oval office.
Andrew Johnson may not have been the best president for the Unites States as a whole, but he was definitely good for the South. His presidency was like a consolation prize from God to the former Confederacy. And he did help mend the divide between the Southern Unionists and Southern Secessionists, which no doubt would have been worse if there was not a Lincoln Loyalist in office protecting the South from vengeful Yankees. So as far as I'm concerned, he was a good president.
Too be fair you cant blame Grant for Sherman's actions. Sure grant was in charge of Sherman, but it took a while for communications too arrive during those times and it's not like Grant could possibly know everything that Sherman was doing, his reports on the campaign were coming from none other than Sherman himself after all. And Grant had more pressing matters of his own too deal with at the time. So Sherman's atrocities are all on Sherman, Grant cant honestly be blamed for that.
Speaking as a Southerner, Johnson was kinda the worst of both worlds.
Not loyal enough to his state and Dixie to join the Confederacy and fight for independence, but not loyal enough to Lincoln and his party to advance their causes when he was thrust into power.
Pro-slavery in a party of abolition, then he was ok with Emancipation as long as it didn't affect *his* state, then decided to support it as part of his political career. But at the same time he hated slaves, told a bunch of former slaves that visited the White House that they should move to another country, and opposed their gaining citizenship. He was ok with pardoning some Confederates at first, but his resentment of the aristocracy led him to initially refrain from pardoning generals and members of the CSA government.
Then after long-opposing the aristocracy, he started letting them have their lands back and letting them return to power if they came to him personally to ask.
If anything he just drew out reconstruction and guaranteed years of racial strife. It's really no wonder his term was a mess. He had some delusion that by being stubborn enough with everyone North and South he could make the United States the way they were before the war.
Born in Texas, have lived there and North Carolina. Not bull at all.
We somehow have a Secretary of Defense and Navy so I guess we got our bases covered?
Than dont say we only had slave owning aristocrats in the south
I didn't. I said the people who lost power in Reconstruction were former slave owning aristocrats, which they were.
Could you even say that Johnson ever was formally a member of Lincoln's party though? He lived and died a Jacksonian, and moreover, when he was on the ticket, he never called himself a Republican.
Reconstruction policy was obviously necessary; any alternative would have killed the Union at the hour of its victory. Whether individual aspects could have been managed better is a different question.
The South was dominated before the war by slave-owner aristocrats. They obviously weren't a majority of the population or even close.
Anyone have any particular good reads about the Civil War era or about individual personalities? Read a biography of PGT Beauregard last year that I really enjoyed, have a Davis biography sitting on my shelf, and I'm currently reading a study/history of the 14th amendment. My issue is that I haven't found (partially because I haven't looked) for a "consensus" biography of Lee. I don't want to read a hagiography, but I'm worried that anything too modern will veer on a sorta lame attempt at idol-destruction.
I specifically said that took our state's from us I did not say slave owning aristocrats
Try Robert e Lee's biography
The aristocrats stole our states from us long before any shots were fired.
I'm getting telegrams from the region you were from saying you are only here to start trouble
And voting rights were taken from all confederate veterans
Must’ve been a while ago then, only region I caused trouble in was Cyngland and they deserved it.
Which were given back upon swearing an oath of loyalty.