200 Presidential Reconstruction (1866)
The resolutions as I understand them are complimentary of the policy which has been adopted and pursued by the Administration since it came into power. I am free to say to you on this occasion that it is extremely gratifying to me to know that so large a portion of our fellow-citizens endorse the policy which has been adopted and which is intended to be carried out.
This policy has been one which was intended to restore the glorious Union — to bring those great States, now the subject of controversy, to their original relations to the Government of the United States.
I assume nothing here today but the citizen — one of you — who has been pleading for his country and the preservation of the Constitution. These two parties have been arrayed against each other and I stand before you as I did in the Senate of the United States in 1860. I denounced there those who wanted to disrupt the Government. I remarked though, that there were two parties. One would destroy the Government to preserve slavery. The other would break up the Government to destroy slavery. The objects to be accomplished were different, it is true, so far as slavery was concerned. But they agreed in one thing — the destruction of the Government, precisely what I was always opposed to. And whether the disunionists came from the South or from the North, I stand now where I did then, vindicating the Union of these States and the Constitution of our country. The rebellion manifested itself in the South. I stood by the Government. I said I was for the Union with slavery. I said I was for the Union without slavery. In either alternative I was for the Government and the Constitution. The Government has stretched forth its strong arm and with its physical power it has put down treason in the field. Now what had we said to those people? We said, “No compromise. We can settle this question with the South in eight and forty hours.” I have said it again and again and I repeat it now, “Disband your armies, acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, give obedience to the law and the whole question is settled.”
What has been done since? Their armies have been disbanded. They come now to meet us in a spirit of magnanimity and say, “We were mistaken. We made the effort to carry out the doctrine of secession and dissolve this Union. And having traced this thing to its logical and physical results, we now acknowledge the flag of our country and promise obedience to the Constitution and the supremacy of the law.” I say then, when you comply with the Constitution, when you yield to the law, when you acknowledge allegiance to the Government I say let the door of the Union be opened and the relation be restored to those that had erred and had strayed from the fold of our fathers.
Who has suffered more than I have? I ask the question. I shall not recount the wrongs and the sufferings inflicted upon me. It is not the course to deal with a whole people in a spirit of revenge. I know there has been a great deal said about the exercise of the pardon power, as regards the Executive. And there is no one who has labored harder than I to have the principals, the intelligent and conscious offenders brought to justice and have the principle vindicated that “treason is a crime”.
But as for the great mass who have been forced into the rebellion — misled in other instances — let there be clemency and kindness and a trust and a confidence in them. The rebellion is put down by the strong arm of the Government, in the field. But we are now almost inaugurated into another rebellion. There is an attempt now to concentrate all power in the hands of a few at the Federal head and thereby bring about a consolidation of the Republic which is equally objectionable with its dissolution. By a resolution reported by a committee upon whom and in whom the legislative power of the Government has been lodged, that great principle in the Constitution which authorizes and empowers the legislative department, the Senate and House of Representatives, to be the judges of elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members has been virtually taken away from the two respective branches of the National Legislature and conferred upon a committee who must report before the body can act on the question of the admission of members to their seats. By this rule they assume a State is out of the Union and to have its practical relations restored by that rule, before the House can judge of the qualifications of its own members. What position is that? You have been struggling for four years to put down a rebellion. You contended at the beginning of that struggle that a State had not a right to go out. You said it had neither the right nor the power and it has been settled that the States had neither the right nor the power to go out of the Union. And when you determine by the executive, by the military, and by the public judgment that these States cannot have any right to go out, this committee turns around and assumes that they are out and that they shall not come in.
I am free to say to you as your Executive that I am not prepared to take any such position. I am opposed to the Davises, the Toombses, the Slidells, and the long list of such. But when I perceive on the other hand men still opposed to the Union, I am free to say to you that I am still with the people. I am still for the preservation of these States — for the preservation of this Union and in favor of this great Government accomplishing its destiny. The gentleman calls for three names. I am talking to my friends and fellow citizens here. Suppose I should name to you those whom I look upon as being opposed to the fundamental principles of this Government and as now laboring to destroy them. I say Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. I say Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. I say Wendell Phillips of Massachusetts. I know, my countrymen, that it has been insinuated — nay, said directly in high places — that if such a usurpation of power had been exercised two hundred years ago, in particular reigns, it would have cost an individual his head. What usurpation has Andrew Johnson been guilty of? My only usurpation has been committed by standing between the people and the encroachments of power.
They may talk about beheading but when I am beheaded I want the American people to be the witness. Are they not satisfied with one martyr? Does not the blood of Lincoln appease the vengeance and wrath of the opponents of this Government? Is their thirst still unslaked? Do they want more blood? Have they not honor and courage enough to effect the removal of the Presidential obstacle otherwise than through the hands of the assassin? But if my blood is to be shed because I vindicate the Union and the preservation of this Government in its original purity and character, let it be so. But when it is done, let an altar of the Union be erected and then if necessary lay me upon it. And the blood that now warms and animates my frame shall be poured out in a last libation as a tribute to the Union. And let the opponents of this Government remember that when it is poured out, the blood of the martyr will be the seed of the church. The Union will grow. It will continue to increase in strength and power, though it may be cemented and cleansed with blood.
Have you heard them at any time quote my predecessor who fell a martyr to his cause as coming in controversy with anything I advocated? An inscrutable Providence saw proper to remove him to, I trust, a better world than this and I came into power. Where is there one principle in reference to this restoration that I have departed from? Then the war is not simply upon me, but it is upon my predecessor.
Source: “President’s Policy” by Andrew Johnson in the Daily National Intelligencer, February 23, 1866. https://archive.org/details/americanhistoryt00ivunse/page/468/mode/2up
