Brenda WineappleBesprekingen

A nicely written and deeply researched biography of Hawthorne.

The Impeachers is a fascinating look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The similarities to Trump are uncanny. The phenomenal research is mind boggling. Despite Johnson being a Democrat, he was Lincoln’s running mate. As a Democrat of the 1860’s he did everything imaginable to prevent Black men from voting. The fights with congress with vetoes, firing of cabinet members and pardons flying faster than a speeding bullet are scary funny real. The literary comments about Johnson by Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Melville and Dickens are priceless. The violence against the black community during the reconstruction period is horrifying. This cautionary tale gives a bit of hope that the constitution and our country survived the failed impeachment proceedings.

An early writing. Well written, well researched - but not about a nice person in any obvious way, without being nasty, without really being interesting. Rather read Gertrude Stein or the Alice Toklas Cookbook. Or that great book about the history of the New Yorker by Brendan Gill. Not a book to recommend - or pass on. I was amazed it arrived, ordered by post on a whim, so I had to read it.

I had to return this to the library so did not get to finish. Will I put it on hold again? Maybe. It seemed all over the place in time. It does humanize historical figures of the period which I found interesting.

Clunky writing at the start and I found I was giving a hard time keeping the people straight.

A readable and well-crafted account of the presidency of Andrew Johnson, focusing on the efforts of the Radicals to remove him from the office (which they probably would have succeeded in doing had there been a vice president in place and Ben Wade not in line for the presidency). I don't think Wineapple is entirely fair to Seward, and she's a little too sympathetic to Johnson, but it's a good read, anyway.

The 13th amendment had some unintended consequences. One was the abolition of the 3/5ths rule that counted slaves as only 3/5ths of a person for representation. That meant that when and if the southern states were readmitted to the union they instantly gained 20 more representatives and the opportunity to win back everything they had lost during the war. Already, former slave owners and whites were attacking, beating, and killing any black who might venture onto the street, especially anyone they suspected of having been in the union army. The Memphis, TN riots of 1866 were just a taste of what might be coming and Tennessean Andrew Johnson was no help at all. Conditions in the south had become intolerable as Johnson emissary, Carl Shurz, discovered to Johnson’s dismay.

The “cheerful” South of President Johnson was not the South described in German immigrant leader Carl Schurz’s report. The former Major General would report on a post-war region whose people alternated between depressed prostration at the hands of a conqueror and a desire for vengeance against blacks and Southern Unionists. Schurz wrote that even the shooting of uniformed United States soldiers was not “unfrequently” reported.

Worse was the situation of freedmen and the Northerners working with them. Officials from the Freedman’s Bureau were often mobbed and their contractors assaulted and murdered. Blacks were expected to behave as slaves by 95% of the white Southerners Schurz talked to. One former slaveholder even suggested they should submit willingly to whippings by whites. Those that did not “act like slaves” were sometimes tortured or killed. Blacks who left the plantations where they had been enslaved were “shot or otherwise severely punished”, Schurz wrote. A diligent investigator, Schurz met with former slaves and examined the “bullet and buckshot wounds in their bodies”.

Brenda Wineapple has done a masterful job of describing the background of Johnson, his trial and the personalities of the Senators involved. There's no question that Johnson had no interest in helping former slaves gain an appropriate footing after decades of subjugation. He certainly did not want them to have the vote and considered them subhuman. His only goal was getting the union back together and if that meant letting former slave owners back into positions of authority in the south, removing federal troops that were the only guarantee of protection for former slaves, and dismantling the Freedman's Bureau, well then, so be it. His argument was that the Constitution had supported slavery so what was the big deal. In fact, he supported amendments to the Constitution that would have guaranteed the perpetual right to have slaves and another that would have made those amendments unamendable. (Where he found that piece of idiocy in the Constitution I have no idea.)

Johnson famously said he believed in “government for white men”. Hundreds of African Americans died in riots in New Orleans and Memphis that showed the new freedoms would not be easily kept. Johnson’s supporters dismissed the scores of murders as “isolated incidents”. Johnson dismissed military leaders in the southern states and appointed governors who would support him.

Even though the book was written before the current impeachment crisis, similarities abound. Johnson took a train around the country holding rallies to whip up support and making remarks such as “I don’t care about my dignity.” Senator John Sherman of Illinois complained that Johnson had “sunk the presidential office to the level of a grog-house”. No one it seems liked him. Wineapple highlights “the president’s morbid sensitivity, his need for absolute loyalty, and his wariness”. Johnson revered Andrew Jackson, another populist. He hated elitists (i.e. lawyers) and plutocrats.

Clearly, Johnson was guilty of violating the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson always claimed it was unconstitutional, and it probably was. It certainly was according to the Supreme Court in 1926 that ruled a similar law unconstitutional. The original had been repealed in 1887. But the article on which Johnson was most nearly convicted was the catch-all 11th article, which accused him of offenses including violations of the separation of powers but also of autocratic actions and other behavior inconsistent with the office.

The final tally in the Senate failed to convict by one vote and it's clear according to David Stewart that Ross's vote -- contrary to the hagiography in Profiles in Courage -- was purchased.

Excellent read.

The book is very comprehensive and provides tremendous detail about the events and people involved. It also provides an important perspective about how the impeachment affected the politics of the country from decades and still resonates today. Its not dry and the author presents the story in a very compelling way.

Finally, you will be amazed by the similarities between Andrew Johnson and Trump, as well as the stark difference between the leaders of congress then and now.

Wineapple tries too hard to make the saga of Johnson's impeachment into a parable for the Trump age.

I came across this one on Overdrive, and given current events here in DC, it couldn’t be more timely. Wineapple tells the story of the first impeachment of a US President - Andrew Johnson - during Reconstruction. And as the title says, it’s also about the people involved in the impeachment, with very interesting looks at the personalities involved.

What most fascinated me about the story is how similar it is to today. Johnson was a boorish egotist with an over-inflated sense of Presidential power, and a populist who played to the white South for support. He was opposed by Radical Republicans, the progressives of the day, who couldn’t quite pull together enough support to make impeachment happen. Since there was no Vice President, the Senator next in line to take over was eerily like Bernie Sanders in his politics. The fights in trial could be word-for-word from the current proceedings - whether to allow witness testimony, was there enough evidence to convict, did an actual crime have to take place for this to be impeachable?

Wineapple’s book is well worth a read, and a worthy antidote for anyone who thinks we live in special circumstances. My only criticism is that the editor should have tightened up the story - it did get a bit repetitive towards the end.½

Summary: A history of the accidental presidency of Andrew Johnson, his resistance to the civil rights fought for in the Civil War, and the impeachment proceedings against him.

Impeachment. Only twice in American history has Congress pursued impeachment proceedings against a President of the United States. Neither instance resulted in conviction of "high crimes and misdemeanors." This book chronicles the first instance where this remedy was pursued, during the presidency of Andrew Johnson.

Brenda Wineapple gives us a well-crafted account of the presidency of Andrew Johnson, the circumstances leading to his impeachment, the key figures from the House of Representatives that prosecuted the impeachment, as well as the presiding Chief Justice, the defense, and the final denouement.

Andrew Johnson was always a bit of a lone wolf, rising from tailor to accidental president when Lincoln was assassinated. When the Civil War began, though sympathetic with the white supremacy of the South, Johnson argued against secession as unconstitutional, and that in fact it was impossible for states to secede from the Union, a position he maintained later on as president. When Tennessee seceded, he continued to take his seat in the Senate. Later, Lincoln named him military governor of Tennessee. When it came time for Lincoln the Republican to run for his second term, he did the unusual thing of offering Johnson, a Democrat, the Vice Presidency, partly to weaken the Democrats, and perhaps with a view toward the restoration of the Union.

Wineapple describes how Johnson quickly instituted his own version of Reconstruction, allowing many of the old leaders of the south to return to office, undercutting newly won civil rights for blacks, and looking the other way when blacks were violently attacked, lynched, and slaughtered. He undercut the efforts of moderate Republican Lyman Trumbull to extend the Freedman's Bureau by vetoing the bill, even after Lyman's extensive consultations with Johnson led him to think it would be passed. It increasingly appeared that all the sacrifice of Union troops was for naught, as Blacks still were treated as slaves in all but name. The crowning insult was Johnson's campaign trip, the "swing around the circle" during the 1866 elections where he denounced Republicans Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and Wendell Philips by name.

While Republicans in Congress seethed at this treatment and the reversal of gains fought for during the Civil War, all of this occurred under the cloak of legality. Wineapple then discusses the efforts to limit the military occupation, including the work of Secretary of War Stanton and General Grant. This was one of the remaining protections for Black citizens. To protect Stanton, Congress passed over Johnson's veto the Tenure in Office Act, prohibiting the firing of cabinet officials without Congressional approval. Johnson, believing the act unconstitutional, eventually sacked (or tried to) Secretary Stanton, which represented the crossing of a threshold that triggered the vote of impeachment in the House, and the impeachment trial in the Senate.

Wineapple takes us through the trial, introducing us to the managers for the House prosecution: Benjamin Butler who presented much of the evidence, and George Boutwell, and the courageous Thaddeus Stevens, enfeebled and dying. She gives us sketches of Chief Justice Chase, the defense for the president, key senators like Ben Wade, who stood to succeed to the presidency if Johnson was convicted, and correspondents including Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Georges Clemenceau. Then came the vote, 35-19, with a key Republican, Edmund Ross changing his vote to acquit at the last hour. Six other Republicans joined him and twelve Democrats in voting to acquit. Though never proven, there was evidence of payoffs.

Johnson served out his term, but was disappointed not to receive the appointment of his party. He eventually returned to the Senate, dying in office in 1875. Ulysses Grant succeeded to the presidency, reversing to some degree the effects of Johnson's "Reconstruction." But the promise briefly glimpsed by Lincoln was never to be.

Wineapple does an outstanding job of unfolding the history and the fascinating characters around the impeachment. Her account of the life and death of Thaddeus Stevens was particularly striking. Her book makes the case for the challenges of impeachment: the ambiguities of language and procedure. The truth was, Andrew Johnson was a disaster and a white supremacist and could not be removed for these reasons alone. Only the violation of a questionable law (later ruled unconstitutional) provided the pretext. Even this effort fell short. Wineapple also shows us that white supremacy is nothing new but has a long and ugly history in our country, one accustomed to the commission of sordid acts and the constraining of civil liberties with the pretext of respectable legality.

Essentially, impeachment is an unproven remedy for the removal of presidents considered to have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Section IV of the 25th Amendment has never been attempted. This brings us back to the critical importance of the choices we make for who we elect to be president and vice-president. Whether in office by vote or accident, the only proven way presidents may be removed from office is by the Electoral College, reflecting (hopefully) on a state by state basis the results at the ballot box, an opportunity that comes only every four years. The attacks of White Supremacists on voting rights in Johnson's day also remind us of the vital task of rigorously protecting voting rights for all our citizens, recognized as critical for "liberty and justice for all" then--and now.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review e-galley of this book from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

I was very excited to read this after listening to a great author interview on Why Is This Happening? but it turned out to be a slog. It has that odd mixture of not enough and too much background. There were alot of people to keep track of and nearly all got a potted biography, which interrupted the flow of the narrative. There were also a great number of diversions that just didn't seem all that interesting. I wanted to learn more from this but I ended up with alot of skimming instead. Rather disappointing.

Interesting book on the presidency and impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Very well researched and documented. Timely book, considering what is going on in Washington at this very moment. Will history repeat itself?

A relatively straightforward biography of the long-time writer for the New Yorker, and fixture on the Paris literary scene. The author does not shy away from some of the more unpleasant aspects of Janet Flanner's character; Flanner comes across as someone that was rather manipulative and inconstant in her personal life, and subject to maddening habit in her writing that must have made working with her a martyrdom. Still, you get a sense of why Flanner was an intriguing writer, and it goes beyond having a good editor. Might be recommended for those interested in literary history, but not a book of broad appeal.

A delightful biography of two complex and fascinating individuals who become more interesting in the conjoining of their stories. Too long considered a "wacky old maid", Dickinson comes off well in this work, without it being a hagiography so much as a correcting of the record that shows her with passions that burn like any other person, and willing to circumvent the onerous conventions that society laid (and still lays) on women. Was she depressed? Suffering from agoraphobia? This book does not engage in such futile speculations, instead presenting Dickinson through her own words and the words of contemporaries, not assuming that something must have been wrong with her, but also not going to great lengths to assure us that there wasn't. Higginson is also presented in his own right, rather than as history later judged him when standards changed and literature became a new type of commodity from what it was when he was writing. She allows them flaws and faults, without feeling that she must carp and scold about those. The writing is interesting and lucid, and the author includes enough photographs of the individuals she mentions to help make it real. Perhaps the one that comes off the worst in this work is Mabel Loomis Todd, but even then the author attempts to be as fair as possible, and avoid drawing conclusions beyond evidence, while presenting the various sides in terms of her motivations and her claims.

While I haven't read any other biographies of Hawthorne (so far) I predict Wineapple's is going to be my favorite. For starters, while Wineapple delves into Hawthorne's lineage she isn't bogged down with multiple generations of pre-Nathaniel Hawthorne history. In fact, she begins Hawthorne's biography with the briefest of glimpses into his childhood before launching into the period when he first started dabbling with the art of writing (keeping a journal and drafting poetry). Mercifully, a writer is born almost immediately. Wineapple's biography reveals Hawthorne's contradictory character with thorough grace, revealing his charms and follies. It's a shame most of his letters were destroyed, not allowing Wineapple to delve deeper into his psyche. I can only imagine what she would have revealed! I was most touched by Hawthorne's over-35 year friendship with President Pierce. While Pierce was not the best president of this country, his relationship with Hawthorne was exemplary.

Nice complement to the Sewall biography. Higginson is an amazing figure in his own right, even without the relationship with Dickinson. I especially loved the description of Emily's funeral.

Ecstatic Nation caught me up completely with its a sweeping, exuberant, unflinching cultural and political history of the era surrounding the American Civil War, 1848--1877, years when the country was deeply divided by slavery, fiercely debating the rights of women, and bent on expanding westward into what was to have been lands set aside for Native Americans. Not just a series of events, Ecstatic Nation also tells the stories of the people of the time and their changing schemes, viewpoints, desires, values, moods, and circumstances.

Embedded in the narrative are incisive mini biographies of characters famous and not, including George Armstrong Custer, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Lydia Maria Childs, Jefferson Davis, Walt Whitman, Red Cloud, P. T. Barnum, William T. Sherman, and Ralph Waldo Emerson among far too many others to note them all here. Fascinating and eye-opening, with almost 600 pages of text supported by over 100 pages of notes Ecstatic Nation still manages to rip along presenting a lively sometimes disturbing but almost always compelling back-story of today’s United States.

Engrossing. Brenda has a way of making non-fiction come alive. She is masterful in combining Dickinson's poetry and Higginson's prose in an intriguing and thoughtful manner.