Talk:Andrew Johnson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

The early history section ungrammatically insists that Johnson had "specail needs" and was the first "retarded mayor." As inspiring as that sounds, I don't think it's accurate. Under the edit page, however, it doesn't appear, and I'm not sure how to fix it otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.64.59 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More Vandalism?

From the current text: " He always attended every type of school; he beat his wife, Eliza McCardle Johnson with sticks because she taught him to read and write. " Somehow this strikes me as suspect. --pbannister 00:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Adolf Hitler

"There were two attempts to remove President Andrew Johnson from office. The first occurred in the fall of Adolf Hitler". What is Fall of Adolf Hitler?

• It's vandalism, but it's been fixed, with (hopefully) correct information provided by another user. Silver Streak 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment

The section about Johnson's first impeachment is weak and needs to be fixed: "There were two attempts to remove President Andrew Johnson from office. The first occurred in the fall of 1867. On November 21st of that year, the House Judiciary committee produced a bill of impeachment that was basically a vast collection of complaints against him.". This just means that the author was too lazy to provide a factual summary of the charges; however spurious they may be, dismissing them as irrelevant is POV. Bspeakmon 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This page needs a deeper explanation of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The ignorant reader (me) is left with no greater understanding of what Andrew Johnson was impeached than I had before I arrived at this page. The link at the bottom is a bit TOO much information - it is source material from the Harpers Weekly of the time. It has archaic prose and no analysis, so it's not very helpful. I really have no idea why Johnson was impeached, what he did to anger the radical faction. Thanks! Scarykitty 20:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, one should add something about the disagreement over the Tenure of Office Act, among other reasons for his impeachment. Stasa

I think it also needs more on the rest of Johnson's Presidency, and why he didn't run for re-election in 1868.

I definately agree with the above. It needs to tell about the importances of the impeachment. - IRT

Someone should put in Johnson's 1875 service in the senate in the term box at the bottom of the page. Srcastic

I think this little hand grenade needs some explanation: "He is regarded to be one of the worst presidents." The article explains why he was unpopular (Southerner sympathetic to the former Confederate states opposed by a Northern Congress united against him) but fails to explain what made him a bad President. Unless someone can specifically explain his defeciencies or incompetence, the "worst president ever" line seems a little biased and unjustified. --70.160.160.175 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the Tenure of Office Act, it should probably be noted that Johnson actually named Ulysses S. Grant as Secretary of War (who then turned the post back to Stanton after the Senate refused to acknowledge it). After that, Johnson then went on to name Lorenzo Thomas. As far as I've understood it, this is why Ulysses S. Grant went on to run as Republican in his own Presidential election. Thanks! -carcrashprncess

I'm taking out the "Of course" in a sentence because it seems biased to me.

"One of the most shameful episodes in the history of the Federal Government" is not NPOV and is furthermore based on in the Dunning school which has been somewhat discredited by Foner's reconstruction history which is more commonly accepted now. I've changed it to what I think is a balance between the pro-Johnson and anti-Johnson views, but either way the idea that it was a shameful act, a mistake, and a power grab is representative of one point of view, not of objective history. Also, Wade was not really of the "same ideology" as Congress (he was much more radical than most) but maybe I'm just splitting hairs on that one so I left it for now. IceJew 09:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a "Citation needed" mark on the edit mentioned here. Every historian I've ever encountered has continued in the 21st Century to portray the impeachment of Johnson as purely political and lacking in constitutional merit. IceJew seems to be suggesting a different interpretation is prevalent now, so it seems only fair that he provide some documentation of it. Msclguru 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know if this is the right place to put this, but the beginning of this article about Adrew Johnson is nonsense. This is what it says: "Andrew Jacksonwas never alive and was the seventeenth President of the United States (1865–1869),he was the person who assassinated Abraham Lincoln." I went to the edit this page tab and the right statement is there. Don't know how to fix it. 1st of all this is Johnson, not Jackson. Secondly, the rest of the sentence is nonesense. Can someone who knows how please fix this article. 72.79.44.5 04:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the article.72.79.44.5

Acquittal

This line doesn't make sense:

Johnson was acquitted by a vote of thirty-five for conviction to nineteen for acquittal. He had avoided removal from office by a single vote.

How could he have been acquitted if 35 voted for conviction, whilst only 19 voted for acquittal? Kewpid 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm guessing that they needed a certain percentage of the vote to convict not just more than 50%. -philatio

That's right, the Senate had to vote 2/3 majority (In this case, 36-guilty to 18-Not guilty), for conviction & removal from office. As Johnson got 35 G to 19 NG. (1 vote short of conviction), he was aquitted and got to complete his term. GoodDay 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the US anything from Congress against the president requires a 2/3 majority, such as overriding presendential vetoes or impeaching the president. 68.40.190.172 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Alaska Purchase

According to the Alaska article and Alaska_Purchase article, the territory was purchased for US $7,200,000. This article says it was US $10,900,000. Which is the correct number? Python 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the 10 mil number was adjusted for inflation? 68.40.190.172 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dates

I can't find the edit point where the dates got goofed up, but the early life section says:

At the age of 10 he was apprenticed to a tailor, but ran away to Greeneville, Tennessee in 1826

If he was born in 1808 and an alderman as early as 1828, that makes no sense. But is the date wrong or the age or what? --Tysto 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh hang on. I think I get it. He became an apprentice when he was 10 in 1818, served as an apprentice for 8 years, then ran away in 1826 when he was 18. Right? That's seems long for an apprenticeship. And "ran away" seems an odd choice of words for an 18-year-old leaving his job. Am I still misunderstanding? That section needs to be clearer overall, I think. --Tysto 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When he was 10 or so his mother signed this labor contract that obliged him to work only for a certain tailor names Selby until he was 21. They had a falling out and Selby threatened to sue so Johnson left the state and went to Tennessee. Rjensen 00:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Assumption

Unless I am nuts John Tyler was the only VP before Johnson to assume the Presidency. WBcoleman 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Taylor died in 1850 and VP Fillmore took over. Therfore you ar nuts. Rjensen 16:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're both nuts, I guess. John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison in 1841, and then Fillmore succeeded Taylor, which makes Johnson the THIRD, not first or second, VP to assume the Presidency upon the death of a President. Michaeltmccorkle 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's plan of leniency?

"-and in many ways followed the similar plan of leniency that Lincoln advocated before his death." Unless I am very wrong, Lincoln did not advocate any plan for Reconstruction before his death, though he seemed to favor the idea of black suffrage. Aside from a single speech the evening of his assassination when he spoke of difficult times ahead, he never publicly commented on the issue as far as I know. Johnson certainly did not follow Lincoln's plans for southern freedmen. Anyone have a comment? 68.40.190.172 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Grant's Personal Memoirs he says that he was aware of Lincoln's plans for the South after the war, and they would have been much milder than Johnson's. Lincoln told him (on an occasion in 1864 when several members of the Confederate government came to meet with Lincoln to discuss terms) that he (Lincoln) had told them that there were only two conditions he insisted upon: that the Union must be preserved, and that slavery must be abolished. According to Grant, "If they would accept those two conditions Lincoln would sign his name to a blank piece of paper and give it to them." Fumblebruschi 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the articles on Lincoln and on Reconstruction discuss Lincoln's elaborate plans, which he started to put in effect in several states (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia). He fought with the Radicals who had a very harsh policy. Until summer 1865 the Radicals thought Johnson was with them, but AJ turned against them in the fall. See Harris, William C. With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the Union (1997). For an online text see Nicolay & Hay at [1] Rjensen 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vice-President

Does anyone know why Johnson (when he was president) didn't have a vice president? 72.92.84.100

The only reason I can think of for him not having a Vice President is that one was not elected after he assumed office unexpectadly. I'm by no means an expert on this, but everything I've heard and read agree that Johnson had no Vice President. One way to find out for sure would be to see if any of the other "Accidental Presidents" (Vice Presidents who became President due to a death) had a Vice President.--70.113.79.34 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. 72.92.84.100 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Until the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1967, a vice-president who succeeded to office did not have a VP. The President of the Senate was the next in line. That's why the Radical Republicans were so enthusiastic about kicking Johnson out of office: the next guy in line was their leader Ben Wade. -- Stewart king (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, a vice president who rises to the Presidency under the 25th Amendment doesn't automatically have a VP. The 25th just provides a way to fill a vacancy in the event that one occurs.

Lawyers striking deal with moderates

This is mentioned in Trefousse but I don't have the book anymore so I can't get the page. It's also in Foner, Short History of Reconstruction, p 144, but it's only a brief mention of it so the Trefousee quote would be better. If I come across it I'll add it at that point in time I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceJew (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Amnesty

Did the amnesty apply to Jefferson Davis? Richard75 14:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No it did not apply to top people like Davis or Lee. Lee was never arrested but he feared he might be put on trial for treason (there were no treason trials at all). Rjensen 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to have vandalism removed 1-11-07

please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.160.178.124 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

hodgepodge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Impeachment:_the_first_attempt

I dont like the wording of this 71.62.10.130 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel source?

The sentence 'Johnson also reportedly said "This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men."' uses a Weasel word, even though the word is used in the source. Since the source itself is "weasely", I would recommend striking this sentence completely. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I made minor additions to the quote and provided a less weaselly source, Trefousse's biography of Johnson. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement if he was removed

The article says that if Johnson was removed from office he would have been replaced by Benjamin Wade. Unless I am missing something, which I don't think I am but you never know, that would not follow the normal line of succession to the presidency. If he was removed Johnson would have been replaced by the Speaker of the House, Schuyler Colfax, who would be next in line since there was no VP at the time. Am I correct in this assertion or am I missing some fact of history that alters the line of succession? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.177.205 (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The line of succession was indeed changed quite some time. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession Until 1886 the president pro tempore was second in line after the Vice President, so it is correct that Ben Wade would have been the replacement of Johnson, which might in fact be one of the motives for the seven Republican senators voting for acquittal, as Wade was for various reasons quite unpopular within the Moderate faction of the Republican Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.123.251 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunning School and Johnson

The paragraph concerning the Dunning Schools treatment of Johnson needs to be revised. While Dunning himself was partly favorable to the president, the other members of the Dunning School were in fact very critical toward him. While Dunning defends some of the actions of Johnson (like his veto of the Civil Rights Bill) it was the obstinacy and political weakness of Johnson that was in large parts responsible for the failure of "Presidential Reconstruction" and the triumph of the "Radicals" according to most of Dunnings disciples: „Their victory was due to adroit tactics on their own part and to mistakes, bad judgment, and bad manners on the part of the president." (Walter Fleming, Sequel to Appomattox, p. 121)

Fleming, arguably the most important of the Dunning disciples also wrote describing the character of the president: „Johnson was ill-educated, narrow, and vindicative and was positive that those who did not agree with him were dishonest.“ (Fleming, Sequel to Appomattox, p. 71)

According to the Dunning School, Johnson was NOT the heir of Lincoln because he lacked the political capacity of his predecessor.

Johnson in fact only became the heroic martyr in the late 1920s and 1930s due to the works of Beale, Bowers and some others. Flohru (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored Greeneville house image

The Johnson home in Greeneville, Tennessee, today known as the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.

I'm not much of a fan of the quality of the image on the restored house - or of it's location in the article. Going over other possibilities, I've noticed these options:

• [2] - same image, quality could be reworked in photoshop.
• [3] - different angle.
• [4] - Image from 1886, you can see that the door is different (and prettier) than the restoration. Looking at it some more, there seems to be other changes as well - and this house looks much better in my opinion. (extra text) 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • here's the gallery from where I took the links from [5].

I have a few ideas on what might be done with these, but I thought I'd ask others for their own thoughts/suggestions on this one.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the third image better than the others, personally. The image could be moved down to the Post-presidency section, since this is the house he lived in after he left office, and the presidential engraving just above that section could move up around where the house photo is now, near the beginning of the Presidency section -- Foetusized (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's house 1886

I fixed up image 3 some and upped it on commons, there seems to be some problem with the file and I have no clue on how to resolve it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA drive

Not a bad start. Needs a lot of citation. I could do a restoration on a portrait? Formatted/copyedited a little. Good choice for a GA drive: one of the more noteworthy nineteenth century presidents. Durova^Charge! 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Johnson's tenure as President & Vice President, should be at the top, even though his last office was Senator. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between the running text, which says that Lorenzo Thomas was appointed interim secretary of war because Grant refused the position and the info box, which says that Grant was interim secretary of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesc49 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

add military governor link

Add >> Category:United States military governors

Archive 1

Maybe

I don't really inderstand. Did you put vandalism? Or did someone else? I agree to put up semi-protection, but what if someone put something that was not true and it was semi-protected? --Dottykim (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, Would you please consider correcting a statement contained in "Break with the Republicans: 1866", specifically "It extended citizenship to every person born in the United States". This is misleading and factually incorrect. It actually says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.....

There is a very great difference in the scope and effect of your wording, as that it may lead people to believe that they are subject to the "jurisdiction" of the "United States", when they are not. This could have great legal ramifications if someone was misled by it.

Thank you William Eugene 98.206.222.240 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

the context is clear that we're talking about ex-slaves here, not children of diplomats. Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote from James Ford Rhodes appears redundant - should it remain?

I'm not sure that Mr. Rhodes' lengthy quote (in the "Break with Republicans" section) adds anything to what is said or quoted elsewhere in regards to Johnson's failure to negotiate with Congress. Please comment on whether it should stay. Hoppyh (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the political sophistication of Rhodes' analysis and think it tells the readers a great deal. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Rhodes statement, I believe is accurate, since McFeely-Woodward's (1974) assessment of President Andrew Johnson was that he was in complete defiance of implementing the laws passed by Congress and there were two impeachment attempts. As Executive, he did not execute the Reconstruction laws passed by Congress and went out of his way to nullify the laws. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review required per WP:IMAGE and WP:MOSIM

I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding per WP:image: File:Republican presidential ticket 1864b.jpg|thumb|upright|Currier and Ives print of the National Union Party presidential and vice presidential candidates, 1864. Lithograph and watercolor. Hoppyh (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding per WP:image: File:Lincoln and Johnsond.jpg|thumb|A political cartoon of Andrew Johnson and Abraham Lincoln, 1865. The caption reads (Johnson to the former rail-splitter): Take it quietly Uncle Abe and I will draw it closer than ever!! (Lincoln to the former tailor): A few more stitches Andy and the good old Union will be mended!. Hoppyh (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding per WP:image: File:AJohnsonimpeach.jpg|thumb|The 1868 Impeachment Resolution. Hoppyh (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding per WP:image: File:The situation.jpg|thumb|The Situation
A Harper's Weekly cartoon gives a humorous breakdown of "the situation". United States Secretary of War|Secretary of War Edwin Stanton aims a cannon labeled "Congress" on the side at President of the United States|President Johnson and Lorenzo Thomas to show how Stanton was using congress to defeat the president and his unsuccessful replacement. He also holds a rammer marked "Tenure of Office Bill" and cannon balls on the floor are marked "Justice". Ulysses S. Grant and an unidentified man stand to Stanton's left. Hoppyh (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding and for lack of significance per WP:image: File:Andrew Johnson 1938 Issue-17c.jpg|thumb|180px U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps|1938 Issue. Consensus has been reached in other U.S. Presidents' articles that postage images lack sufficient significance - see articles on Kennedy, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt for consensus. A link is provided to provide the reader with adequate referral to presidential postage images. Hoppyh (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning on restoring one of the Lincoln/Johnson images, either the campaign lithoggraph or the political cartoon. The impeachment resolution image really doesn't seem to add anything to the article. The other political cartoon, if it needs that much of a caption to explain what is going on, isn't much use either. I also agree on removing the postage stamp. I'm still debating which of the first two images to put back in the article. I also don't understand removing content from the article (even if just a photo caption) with no better explanation than "for layout" -- Foetusized (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The removals I've done I believe would eliminate overcrowding of images and breakups in the section headings, which would be objected to if the article were being reviewed as a GAC or FAC. Obviously, it is not under that review - so FEEL FREE TO RESTORE AS DESIRED. Based on my other experiences in this area, the article is still overcrowded in the Political Rise & VP section and the Post President and changing views section. Just FYI. See WP:image and WP:MOSIM Hoppyh (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also FYI, I just started Trefousse, and am adding more detail (hopefully not too much) so we may end up with more room for images. I look forward to our collaboration on AJ. Hoppyh (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added an essential image of Mrs. J. to the Early life section - FAC reviewers may consider this overcrowding. Hoppyh (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I replace an undated useless image of AJ with powerful editorial cartoon that reveals the mood of the nation; the caption is needed because the cartoon's text is too small to read on for most browsers. History textbooks typically use editorial cartoons to illustrate the issues. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment bribery

David O Stewart's book (2010), Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy, stated there was an outright bribery scheme among Senators to acquit President Andrew Johnson. Sen. Ross received extreme favors from President Johnson after Ross's vote for Johnson's acquittal. Is Stewart a reliable source? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, Stewart is a leading expert on impeachment issues and a prize-winning historians. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rjensen. Apparently McFeely-Woodward (1974) did not find any corruption, other then defiance of the Reconstruction laws, during Andrew Johnson administration. If there was bribery, I would call that corruption. President Johnson almost gave anything Sen. Ross wanted after the impeachment trial acquittal. Stewart also exposed the myth that these Senators acquitted Johnson out of altruistic purposes. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Over-reliance on Trefousse

It appears that there is over-reliance on Trefousse. While he had a biography, other scholars have written about Johnson and his struggles with Congress, and the context of Radical Republicans and other players during Reconstruction. It may be useful to include other sources for interpretations of what was going on and is in keeping with Wikipedia policy.Parkwells (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern regarding in the creation of the page

I would just like to say that I am very impressed with what you have done with the page and I only found out recently off my Father that I am related to Andrew Johnson and he referred me to this page. Thank you for helping me in a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.95.184 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong name?

Shouldn't it be:

". . . President Polk came to refuse some of Johnson's patronage suggestions. Polk later wrote in his diary that Johnson was 'vindictive a . . . . '"?

Richard Ong (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Homestead act - which year?

More than one place says 1862, one place says December 1852. The page for the Homestead act says ~May 1862. Simply typo or more than one act? Shenme (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

More than one piece of legislation. In 1952, it passed the House but not the Senate, so it should be called the "Homestead Bill" instead of "Homestead Act" at that point in time -- Foetusized (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I've cleared that up?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The hatnote for this article referencing the disambiguation page is no longer the accepted form, as Andrew Johnson is the main name for any article, disambiguation being non-necessary in this article. It therefore will perpetually come up on DAB-Solver until pointed to another listing or it is removed altogether—the two-step process I was in the middle of when you reverted. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There are other Andrew Johnsons of note, why should we not have a link as a hat note to the proper disambiguation page?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian policy

I believe this article needs to have an Indian policy section. Although Indian wars escalated to over 100 a year, President Johnson and Congress did implement a Peace Commission to study if Indians wars could be stopped. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if my sources speak about it. I'm currently away but will be home in a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wewalt. I found a web source: Andrew Johnson and the Indians. This article gives information on the Peace Commission. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more a blog, I'm afraid. Hopefully we can find better sources. I think The Presidency of Andrew Johnson has some discussion of Indian matters, but need to find it and check once I'm home on Wednesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

One source stated that Andrew Johnson had little interest in Indian policy. That would go along with his statement that America was only for white people. Source: Robert Wooster (1988), The Military and United States Indian Policy, 1865-1903, p. 23. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but you are going to find very few egalitarians in his time. If I send you an email, can you send me an image of that page?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

andrew johnson's photo

why above Andrew Johnson's photo does it say my uncle Jasperhunt (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

John Aiken hometown

I changed his hometown from "Jonesville" to Jonesborough. Here is a source, if needed: [6]. Bms4880 (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please reconsider/explain this.

I find:

"Although Republicans expressed anger with his actions, the 1867 elections generally went Democratic. No seats in Congress were directly elected in the polling, but the Democrats took control of the Ohio General Assembly, allowing them to defeat for re-election one of Johnson's strongest opponents, Senator Benjamin Wade."

What took place in 1867? We are accustomed to even-numbered years for most elections (yes, this is before the SENATE seats were directly elected by the voters). Also, Senator Wade's term didn't end until March 4, 1869. (In the meantime, he was the President Pro Tem of the Senate, and under the laws of that time 1st in line for Presidential succession, since this was still Lincoln's unexpired term; and he still was among the senators sitting in judgement when Andrew Johnson went on trial after being impeached.)

Until the constitution of 1905 passed, Ohio had legislative elections in odd number years. Under the act governing Senate elections by the legislatures, passed by Congress in 1866, the election was to take place roughly a week after the legislature that would be in office when the term ended convened and chose officers. This did result, in Ohio, in senators-elect hanging around for 14 months before taking office. So Wade (term ends March 1869) was defeated for re-election in January 1868 by the legislature elected in the fall of 1867, and he spent 14 months as lame duck. I give a fuller explanation at the FAC--Wehwalt (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you on behalf of all those who contributed, including the reviewers and others.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Error on edit on May 16, 2015

This edit on May 16, 2015, left a citation that is not properly formatted. I am unable to access the link to correct it, so I'm hoping one of the watchers here can take care of it. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

impeachment section

The impeachment section seems overly wordy/detailed and it is hard to figure out why he was impeached by skimming the article. Of course, all the information is there, but I'm wondering if it could be summarized better/written more clearly/get to the point more quickly. Any other thoughts on this? -KaJunl (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate parameters

The following is invalid syntax and has been reverted

|allegiance    = [[United States of America]]<br/>[[Union (American Civil War)|Union]]<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Hodge|editor1-first=Carl C.|editor2-last=Nolan|editor2-first=Cathal J.|title=US Presidents and Foreign Policy|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=137|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qXeRALIwozgC&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate=December 4, 2015}}</ref>
|allegiance    = {{flag|United States of America}}
|branch        = {{army|United States}}<br/>[[Union Army]]

There are two things wrong here: (1) We can't have two |allegiance = parameters. (2) The citation is being clobbered by the second parameter. The solution is to merge the information in the two, or remove one entirely. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Time for Semi-Protection?

My counts may be off, but since January 11, I came up with 37 edits on this article. 17 (46%) have been vandalism, 13 (35%) have been reverting vandalism. Another 6 (16%) were three other problem edits and their reversions. Only one edit (3%), adding an image to the article, has been left to stand. The vandalism was all from IP users or newly created accounts. Is it time to try semi-protection? -- Foetusized (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of merging this page with Andrew Johnson. Jacob wasn't Raleigh's most prominent citizen, but it's through the notoriety of his son that we have some knowledge and understanding of this man's life - and I believe that contributes to our understanding of Antebellum Raleigh enough that it merits its own page. Genealogists may also appreciate the page. Mike Helms (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am for semi-protection from the Article. President Andrew Johnson was famous for his disagreement over Congress and Congressional Reconstruction. In my opinion, he is an understudied President. More could be learned. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson will be hard to expand due to varied opinions on the matter. I tend to agree that most of the additions are vandalism including several "quotes" currently listed with can't be referenced in the cited material and or are opinion based publications on the presidency and reconstruction. I feel instead of adding or using "Op Ed" Material which could be considered vandalism we should stick to Purely historical fact based authenticated definition of the subject page. Respectfully Devereux1859 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Innacurate Quotes

Quotes used in citation that can't be verified in source cited. Opinions being used as historical precident?? Should this be allowed within Wikipedia? Devereux1859 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Castel The Presidency of Andrew Johnson (1979) pp 219-20 says: "at the end of the 1920s, an historiographical revolution took place. In the span of three years five widely read books appeared, all highly pro-Johnson....They differed in general approach and specific interpretations, but they all glorified Johnson and condemned his enemies. According to these writers, Johnson was a humane, enlightened, and liberal statesman who waged a courageous battle for the Constitution and democracy against scheming and unscrupulous Radicals, who were motivated by a vindictive hatred of the South, partisanship, and a desire to establish the supremacy of Northern “big business.” In short, rather than a boor, Johnson was a martyr; instead of a villain, a hero." Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Devereux1859: The content (removed in this edit) marked out as being quoted material exists as such in the cited source/s and is not inaccurate concerning some historians' rehabilitation of Johnson during the 1920s/30s & is not inaccurate in its quoting of Beale.

I am, frankly, confused about the statement that the content "can't be verified in the source cited" unless the editor is referring to the fact that these are quotes from books and are somewhat unavailable online? That consideration doesn't matter for Wikipedia's purposes, not all cited sources used in Wikipedia articles 'have to be available online.

Oddly enough, though, the quoted material/content is available online - see Castel, page 808 and Baker (page 147 - quoting Beale's "On Rewriting Reconstruction History").Shearonink (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@shearonink, see new discussion thread below for better understanding as to my meaning of "verifying cited source." As to how can opinion based quotes be used and or verified as historically factual content?

Opinion based quotes?

How can Wikipedia justify opinion based quotes as "historical content facts," from works written as interpretations of historical events as being part of a factual fact based encyclopedia looked to for reference? I fear this path will lead to an opinion based reference site as opposed to a purely historical fact based site, thus dimenishing credibility. Devereux1859 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Our job as editors is to state what the RS say. The RS are based on years of research that is vetted by other scholars and editors. Stating that Historian X wrote "ABC" is a fact, not an interpretation. Rjensen (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140526020140/http://millercenter.org/index.php/academic/americanpresident/johnson to http://millercenter.org/index.php/academic/americanpresident/johnson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnson's slaveholdings and the Crittenden-Johnson resolution

My edit adding Johnson's slaveholdings as of 1860 pursuant to the U.S. Census was reverted, supposedly as already covered in the article. However, I did a search within the article before adding it, and only found mentions of his treating a slave well, as well as a vague and poorly-cited reference to his slaveholdings in 1840 and broad mentions of him as a slaveholder. I believe his slaveholdings in 1860 particularly important because of his sponsorship of the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution of 1861, but don't have time to revise this article to highlight Johnson's slaveholdings, which about doubled from the already-included mention of "8 or 9" slaves in 1840. Please note that today's wikipedia front page mentions that resolution, but the article as currently written does not (much less have a wikilink). Frankly, I have other matters to attend to, and even a limited screen size here at the library (did I miscount the number on the linked census page compared to 3 more slaves on ancestry.com's metadata on mouse-over?). Of course, too, I have no desire to engage in a flame war, but I believe the article as currently written is misleading, as is the rationale for today's reversion.Jweaver28 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It is simply a matter of timeline. Data about 1860 does not belong in the section on his political career prior to 1843. I have added the data to the section where it seems to fit, clarifying a less exact count of his slaves when he was in the US Senate -- Foetusized (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the corrected placement, now that I've seen it,though I still think some mention/wikilink should be made of the Crittenden-Johnson resolution--both since it has his name on it and because it fills in a 9-month plus timeline gap in the chronological section. I just don't have the time to become an expert on the era's Congressional politics, simply gnomed a whole lot of related changes to an article that didn't made much sense, though it was linked on the main page Wednesday morning.Jweaver28 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Informal peer review

(transferred from User:Brianboulton/Sandbox2)

Lead

• "making Johnson the only former president to serve in the Senate" - this is factually incorrect, John Quincy Adams also served in the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.15.49 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• "acquitted by the Senate by one vote" → "acquitted in the Senate by one vote" runs more smoothly
• Last sentence: I've looked at the various league tables, which generally confirm Johnson's lowly regard but, as far as I can see, don't relate this to his "opposition to federally guaranteed rights for African-Americans." Is there a specific source for this?

I can if you like source to Castel p. 223 "By the time these historians got through, Johnson's historical reputation was once more quite low ... This new school of revisionist historians, however, considered the president's Reconstruction program inadequate at best and vicious at worst; and about the only thing they found wrong with the congressional program was that after a while the North and the Republicans ceased to enforce it, thereby betraying the Negro and the cause of equal rights."

Boyhood

• "One of his employees was detailed to teach the boy rudimentary literacy skills, and he was boarded with his mother for part of his service." Two unrelated facts linked by an "and"; also pronoun confusion ("his employee", "his mother" not "he")
• "The boys went to Carthage, North Carolina, where he worked as a tailor" - again, "he" not defined
• "Fearing he would be taken and returned to Raleigh, Andrew Johnson moved on to Laurens, South Carolina for two years, where Andrew found work in his craft." Clumsy: suggest delete the Johnson and convert the second Andrew to a "he"

Move to Tennessee

• Minor: "tailor shop" doesn't sound right ("tailoring" or "tailor's", perhaps?). Also "his talents as tailor" surely needs to be "a tailor".

Tennessee politician

• "Johnson often voted with the Whigs, who had organized in opposition to Jackson, fearing the concentration of power in the Executive Branch of the government." Was it Johnson, or the Whigs, who feared the concentration of power etc?
• "As a result, he was defeated for re-election in 1837. Defeated by Brookins Campbell in the legislative election, Johnson would not lose another race for thirty years." Can these two sentences be combined, e.g. "As a result, in the 1837 legislative election he was defeated by Brookins Campbell; he would not lose another race for thirty years."
• Close repeat of "powerful" should be avoided
• There is a hint of ambiguity in the sentence "He had also acquired additional real estate, including a larger home and a farm where his mother and stepfather took residence, as well as securing ownership of as many as eight or nine slaves". Maybe "as well as securing" could be replaced by "and secured". And "as many as" might be said to represent a judgement.

Congressman (1843–1853)

• Shouldn't there be some introduction before the bald statement that in 1843 Johnson was elected as a US congressman? When did he decide (oe was persuaded) to run? Was there a campaign? Who was his opponent and what was the victory margin? Such information could be very briefly summarised.
• "insisted on limited spending by the government" - I think he could "insist", though he could have "argued for". And I think what he argued for was for the government to limit its spending, which is not quite the same thing.
• "In the presidential election in 1848" - two "ins" unnecessary
• "In the campaign for election to his fourth term in August 1849..." - awkward positioning of the date. Better: "In August 1849, during the campaign for election to his fourth term..."

August 1849 was the election date. I've clarified.

• "A group of Democrats who opposed Johnson nominated Landon Carter Haynes as his rival for a fifth term." I've swapped the name and pronoun from the original, but the sentence still doesn't make sense. Haynes was not Johnson's "rival for a fifth term"; he was a rival for the Democratic nomination.

He was a general election rival. Things were a little loose in backwoods Tennessee. I'll look at it.

• Absolute vote totals don't give an indication of the scale of a victory unless the total vote is give, so we don't know if a margin of 1600 was a large or a small victory. (This problem recurs)

I've done this for the first election for congress, and for governor. After that, the reader knows the size of the electorate, more or less.

• "...redrew Johnson's First District under the leadership of Gustavus Adolphus Henry, Sr." This needs turning: "...under the leadership of Gustavus Adolphus Henry, Sr. redrew Johnson's First District" - and perhaps amplify for non-political readers clarify "redrew the boundaries of".

Much more to go, will continue tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Governor of Tennessee (1853–1857)

• We need a date, or at least a year, for Johnson's initial election as governor.
• "due to the illness of Henry's family members." I'd just say "illness in Henry's family"

Homestead Bill advocate

• "Richmond Whig"; For clarification: " Richmond newspaper Whig"
• The Douglas quote has some oddities, including "we did not want you to to go to the Senate". If the double "to" is in the original, it ought to have a [sic]
• I think the "After his death" sentence is premature at this point. There is a "Historical view and legacy" section

It's difficult. I'm trying to give the reader some sense of Johnson as a campaigner and person, and why he got to the position he was. I'll play with it.

• "first time as senator" → "first term as senator"

This came up at the GAN. I am reluctant to say "term" as that implies six years, and is usually used in the context of the first of a multiple of six-year terms. He did not complete either of his terms in the Senate. "Tenure" works, "time", a needed synonym, not as much.

"suspicions over the slavery issue" - is "suspicions" the best word here? Arguments, controversies?

I like suspicions better, it ties in to Johnson's view about the Ten Commandments.

Secession crisis

• "With few Republicans in the state, Lincoln looked to Johnson for help in deciding who would receive federal appointments in Tennessee". Not questioning this, but the sentence looks out of place here, when the topic is secession.

Military Governor of Tennessee

• "shutting down newspapers run by sympathizers" - presumably "Confederacy sympathizers"
• Clatify for the benefit of us aliens that Nashville is the state capital - or was Johnson's headquarters.

I'll do that, but upstream a bit.

• "conducted led by General Nathan Bedford Forrest" - one word too many.
• The "nevertheless" looks redundant

Vice President

• "Lincoln's secretaries and biographers, John Hay and John Nicolay, believed that Lincoln did not choose his running mate, based on a telegram Hay sent to Nicolay in 1864, stating that the President was not involving himself in the decision." Needs rephrasing. It is the assumption that Hay and Nicolay believed Lincoln didn't choose his running mate that is based on the telegram, not Hay's and Nicolay's belief itself.

Deleted.

• "... to investigate or interview the governor" - better make that "military governor"
• "George McClellan hoped to avoid additional bloodshed by negotiation, and so this effectively disenfranchised his supporters." It is not obvious what disenfranchised McClellan's supporters.
• What is meant by "the irregularities"?
• "Now Vice President-elect, Johnson was anxious to complete the work of re-establishing civilian government..." - add "in Tennessee"
• Maybe "acclaimed" = peacock?

I don't think there's much historical doubt on this one. And all I say is that it is acclaimed, which it is.

I will deal with his presidency later Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Except as noted, done (hopefully).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

More

Accession

• Sherman's agreement with Johnson was to accept the surrender of Confererate forces...etc etc
• Surratt: the significance of this is that, as I recall, she was scarcely a member of the conspiracy, but owned the boarding house where they met. Should the reason why Johnson's approval of her execution was controversial be clarified?

Well, it was that, and she was a woman. Additionally, there was a question of whether certain evidence was presented to Johnson in considering clemency by the Attorney General, or if it was withheld. It became an issue against Johnson in his 1872 congressional race, and I feel brevity avoids getting into it all.

Reconstruction

• " African-American suffrage was a delay and a distraction..." etc - make clear that this was Johnson's position, not an established fact.
• "...a feat no man who had succeeded a deceased president..." Perhaps "neither man" rather than "no man", which rather implies more than two predecessors
• Does "insurgents" mean the Confederacy army, or some other specific group? And why were those owning $20000+ exempted from the amnesty?\\

Presumably because they were likely supporters of the rebel cause. Johnson granted several thousand pardons, mostly of people under this provision.

• We have Civil Rights Bill and civil rights bill
• I'm a bit muddled over the Fourteenth Amendement. If the president has no part in the process, can it be said that Congress "bypassed" him?
• "It also guaranteed the federal war debt and voided all Confederate war debts." What does this mean in everyday terms?

It meant the US promised to pay bonds issued during the war, and meant that neither the Confederate nor rebel state bonds were going to get paid. I'll play with it.

• "The battle was the election of 1866..." Perhaps "The first battle..."
• Avoid "... the same day. The same day..."
• Are "Cabinet officials" the members of the Cabinet? In the UK the etrm would refer to the Cabinet secretariat, not to the members themselves.

Yes, I'll make the switch.

• "... with some senators doubting its constitutionality, and that its terms applied to Johnson, whose key Cabinet officers were Lincoln holdovers." I think the "that" should be a "whether".

More coming Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I'll work through these tonight. Thanks.

They're done.

Continuing

Impeachment

• Mention of Davis's release on bail - no previous note of his capture
• "No congressional seats were directly elected..." - presumably this refers to US Congress? Could be clearer.
• "...adamant that he make no appearance at the trial or public comments about the proceedings..." Does not read easily - seems like a word or two is missing. Consider something smoother, e.g. "adamant that he did not appear at the trial or make public comments about the proceedings"
• "lame duck" needs link or explanation
• A slight diversion: in Profiles of Courage, Ross is nominated for his courage in voting to acquit Johnson. Yet your account reads more as though he was bought off by a promise of political favours, and there is certainly nothing to suggest he was any more courageous than the other Republicans who voted for acquittal. Did JFK (or Sorenson) get it wrong?

He was constantly asking Johnson for patronage appointments for the remainder of Johnson's term. I'd say that Sorenson er, put a certain gloss on things. I'm not educated enough on Kansas politics of the postbellum era to know if Ross would have been re-elected otherwise. But it's pretty clear Ross was not entirely disinterested.

Foreign policy

• "Seward persuaded him to follow the secretary's lead". Wouldn't it be easier just to say "Seward dissuaded him", and avoid possible confusion as to who "the secretary" was? (Lower case suggests a typist)
• Is it sufficient to say the Russians "feared loss of influence", in what was after all their colonial territory at the time? From my brief knowledge, the Russians didn't want it; they could no longer see any commercial advantages in keeping the colony, which was expensive to administer for diminishing returns.

Completion of term

• "and never endorsed him" → "and he never endorsed him"

Post-presidency

• Briefly, by what means did Johnson regain most of the $73,000 he lost through a bank failure?

Money came in, I gather, as the bank's affairs were wound up. He was a bondholder. I'll play with it.

• What is meant by his "Jeffersonian leanings"?

Agrarian. I'll make it clearer.

• "When the balloting opened on January 20, 1875..." Clarify that this is balloting for the senatorial vacancy

Historical view and legacy

• As the only other mention of Gideon Welles is in the Cabinet table, it would help if he were identified here by reference to his office.

Got caught in the cuts, nice catch.

That completes my review. After you ave completed your responses I will transfer any remaining comments to the FAC page. I learned something from the article, which is always good.

I learn quite a bit from yours, but I enjoy that as much as the other way around. Thanks for the review. I should be done tonight, though no doubt you won't be on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's everything, but as you know, sometimes I overlook something. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:JOHNSON, Andrew-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 29 December 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-12-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Andrew Johnson (December 29, 1808 – July 31, 1875) was the 17th president of the United States, serving from 1865 to 1869. Johnson assumed the presidency as he was vice president of the United States at the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A Democrat who ran with Lincoln on the National Union ticket, Johnson came to office as the Civil War concluded. The new president favored quick restoration of the seceded states to the Union. His plans did not give protection to the former slaves, and he came into conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote. Although his ranking has fluctuated over time, he is generally considered among the worst American presidents.Engraving: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; restoration: Andrew Shiva

yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.109.165 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

There should be a reference to, history of, and explanation of, Johnson overturning Sherman’s original Freed Slaves Reparations Order, typically known as, “40 acres and a mule.” 24.198.65.226 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific edits, not for general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

I can never keep the two Andrew J...sons straight, so a pair of additional, cross-linking hatnotes would be nice:

Not to be confused with Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States.

Not to be confused with Andrew Johnson, the 17th president of the United States.

(The Jackson article is semi-protected as well.) Or maybe others don't have that problem?

- 2A02:560:420B:2F00:A4F9:347B:70AC:DCAE (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There's too much disambiguation text going on at the tops of articles in prime space for my taste. I don't support what you are proposing, but you are free to build consensus on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Please add the category Category:Politicians who died in office. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done (He was a state senator) DarthFlappy 18:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC) DarthFlappy 18:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Distinguish hatnote for Andrew Jackson

User:Wehwalt feels that a distinguish hatnote to distinguish Andrew Johnson and Andrew Jackson, who both have similar names and both were U.S. Presidents should not be needed. His argument is that there is too much quantity of hatnotes so that hatnote is not needed. He reverts me again when I reverted his baseless revert, making the claim there is no confusion, forcing me to come to the talk page because he believes he's correct. There's simply no evidence for his claim no confusion and his reverts are illogical. The simple question is does anybody agree this reasonable hatnote should stay? i believe it should because readers who are not as educated on U.S history can easily confuse the two presidents. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:1HAT states that "One single hatnote, which can accommodate several links, is greatly preferable to two or more. Multiple hatnotes may however be appropriate when each serves a different purpose, such as disambiguating the title or distinguishing similar terms." Someone may agree with you or agree with me but certainly neither position is baseless. We've managed 20 years without such hatnotes, so you should be prepared to show that one is necessary, for example through talk page complaints or similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Wehwalt, Your counterclaim is wrong, and I'll tell you why. That hatnote guideline quoting doesn't apply to the one I added because the other one only disambiguates people with name "Andrew Johnson", Not people with the name "Andrew Jackson" or The 7th president, Andrew Jackson. You can add multiple hat notes when they disambiguate different related or distinguish confusing topics, They can have 2 or even 3 hatnotes ,see John Quincy Adams, Lyndon B. Johnson and Michael Jackson for example. And WP:1HAT specifically contradicts you here when disambiguating different topics or names in this case ..."Multiple hatnotes may be appropriate when they serve different purposes, such as disambiguating topics with similar names and explaining redirects." Which the second hatnote does by distinguishing two very similar names for two U.S presidents that can confuse the reader. This hatnote logically has to stay and this ill-suited pushback from you is not improving the process of the article and its ability to easily access similar and confusing subjects. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Examine WP:NAMB. "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." The name of this article is not ambiguous. Remember the reason we try to limit hatnotes to one is "As hatnotes separate the reader from the content they are looking for, hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible." Therefore we should not add a second hatnote out of theoretical or feared confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Wehwalt, Your misusing that guideline. They are semi-ambiguous because they both share the characteristics of having the same first name, very similar J last names and both occupying the office of president in the 19th century United States. And this is not a disambiguation hatnote that is being added, this is a distinguish hatnote, So that Manual of Style guideline doesn't apply here. Distinguish hatnotes are used to distinguish subjects that share similar qualities and can be confused but aren't entirely ambiguous so that a disambiguation template doesn't have to misapplied. Such as Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson, these two U.S. presidents can easily confused to readers not keen on 19th century American presidents who come to their pages to learn about them, heck even the current President, Joe Biden mixed up the two, Source. And if that's not enough, there's literally a consensus that happened on TFD in 2014 that discusses how The distinguish hatnote is used and would apply in this cases such as these, where the subjects are not completely ambiguous but can still be confused easily to the average reader, TFD Discussion. I think you should tag some other editors into the discussion to extradite a consensus because the distinguish hatnote is in a gray area when it comes to MOS hatnote guidelines and needs a firm guideline for that. 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most presidential articles are widely watched. Let's give it a little time to see if this article's talk page watchers have opinions, first of all. And it's my view btw that the MOS as of 2021 overrides old discussions, and that the general rule of limiting in most cases to a single hatnote should govern here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Wehwalt, While I agree some other editors should definitely give their two cents to this specific case so this can be properly assessed, The when to use section of the Distinguish hatnote gives a description to when this should be used, "This hatnote is generally used when readers have misspelled their desired title, and the error would be apparent by simply displaying the alternative term without further explanation". A Non-educated user of wikipedia trying to find information about one of the two presidents can easily misspell one president looking for the other in vice versa. And P.S, weren't some of MOS guidelines written years ago as well? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a post on one of the MOS noticeboards is in order. I just don't think the situation you mention is that common. Most people come to Wikipedia these days as a result of a Google search. I just did one for Andrew Johnson and one of the "related searches", in fact the first, was "Andrew Jackson". Incidentally, Andrew Jackson is not a misspelling of Andrew Johnson, but rather, a mistake. As for the MOS, it is in force as of now, says what it does, and presumably has taken into account that 2014 discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what the guidelines say and how to interpret them, I can say that I have mixed up the two on several occasions, even on this very talk page.[7] I find the hatnote in order. Renerpho (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Renerpho, Thank you for supporting the use of hatnote, at least somebody understands the clear confusion instead of trying to apply guidelines to everything. This is a very common confusion between the two and should have a hatnote to differentiate them both. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

Please remove the template "Lincoln cabinet", as the vice presidency wasn't yet a cabinet position. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

bias

The statement made ending the introduction - "he is regarded by many historians as one of the worst presidents in American history" - is not backed up by the account given of his reputation and legacy below, and should be removed for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be based on the second-to-last paragraph, not counting the block quote at the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing even remotely "biased" about it. "one of the worst presidents in American history" links to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States which thoroughly documents the claim, ranking Johnson in the bottom 10, bottom 2, bottom 3, and bottom 5 according to various surveys of historians and scholars. The statement is also supported by the well-cited claim toward the end of the article that "In the early 21st century, Johnson is among those commonly mentioned as the worst presidents in U.S. history." The assertion that it "is not backed up by the account given of his reputation and legacy below" is irrelevant because a) it's a personal opinion and b) it's not comparative. (And FWIW, few people would agree.) -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comparison with Trump

The legacy section could be amended by adding comparisons with the presidency of Donald Trump, as made by numerous authors. Examples include: What happened the last time a President chose America's enemies over its friends (CNN, 30 November 2018); Why Donald Trump is much more dangerous than Andrew Johnson (Washington Post, 1 October 2019); Donald Trump is more like Andrew Johnson, not Jackson (Chicago Tribune, 9 February 2017); Presidential historian: Trump joins Andrew Johnson 'as the most racist president in American history' (The Week, 15 July 2019). I don't feel qualified to make the addition myself (considering this is a featured article; I am no American, no native English speaker, no expert on American history, and biassed in my evaluation of the Trump presidency), but maybe someone else is up to the task of extracting a somewhat neutral perspective from the news reports. Renerpho (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would think we would await peer-reviewed articles in historical journals. These articles seem to be opinion pieces.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt. And imo it makes more sense to put something like this in the Trump article (due to chronology). After all, historians seem to compare Julius Caesar with Alexander the Great more than vice-versa Aza24 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not add a section comparing Johnson to every other historical person? (Rhetorical question.) Such comparisons don't belong in this article. They might be appropriate for the Trump article, in a discussion of how his Presidency was a recurrence or resurgence of past political currents in U.S. history. BTW, "extracting a somewhat neutral perspective from the news reports" is not how it works--that would be synthesis. If some historian, journalist, or other reliable source has done that, then we can reference their claims. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"None"

Not having a vice_president parameter indicates that there was no vice-president. Therefore, stating that the vice-president was "None" is unnecessary. We don't have spouse=None for unmarried people, children=None for childless people, religion=None for irreligious people, resting_place=None for living people, etc. Pinging Gaarmyvet and Coemgenus. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't hold up. A president may be elected with no wife or no religion, but they were all elected with a VP. Having no vice president means something unusual had happened, andhas political consequences. It's also something a modern reader might not understand, since the constitution had since been amended to allow the president to fill a vacancy in the VP office. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Presidents "always" have vice presidents. "Always" is obviously not true, especially before a procedure was established to appoint someone to fill a vacancy. Leaving a vacant space when we know the answer is unhelpful.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet the infobox does not and cannot explain any of that. Not using the parameter produces the same result as filling it with the word "None", but is less cumbersome. The issue is too trivial to feel overly strong about it, but seeing "None" did strike me as rather odd. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Whereas for me and others, "None" is factual and relevant for the reasons given above. And I see that there is now a footnote, so the infobox can and does explain it. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Occupation

Johnson was a tailor and politician. He should be listed as this in the lead sentence. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

He is notable for being president of the United States, not for stitching. That is what needs to be mentioned first.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I know that he is most notable as president but he also stitched clothes and was a Senator prior to being elected president. This establishes his notability as a tailor and politician. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Work as a tailor receives due mention in the lead, as AJ is not noted for being a tailor, but as a politician who became president and was impeached. Drdpw (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

need clarify

Which Workingmen's Party, New York or Philadelphia according to Workingmen's Party (disambiguation)? Seems should be the latter.--Jarodalien (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That was added post FAC. I'm not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Yea 2601:247:4381:8340:CBB:FE4A:BC08:C94A (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Language choice

He and his brother “apprenticed” vs “became indentured servants” Carllz (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Familial relationship with slaves...

"He was said to have had a compassionate and familial relationship toward them.[21]" violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

It also cannot be a "familial relationship" when he is their owner and they have no freedom or consent to say no. Stidmatt (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

True. It's not particularly supported in the ref, both good reasons for deleting the sentence, which I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the removal (the source doesn't directly support the claim), however, children also have no freedom or consent to a family relationship either, so I think the logic is flawed a skowsh. Buffs (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, historiography-wise, I think this claim comes from the 1928 Robert W. Winston biography (page 103). He had permission from Andrew Johnson Patterson to access Johnson's papers. I'm like 90 percent sure that this line is old white-supremacist code in which "they had a familial relationship" is meant to be suggestive that half of his slaves were his biological children. (Winston does a weird thing were seemingly manifests a servant named Bill that's never mentioned anywhere else--I'm also 90 percent sure that Bill is actually William Andrew Johnson who is actually Andrew Johnson's extramarital child with Dolly Johnson. Andrew Johnson Patterson would technically have been William Andrew Johnson's half-nephew, but they were virtually the same age and were seemingly close friends in childhood. I suspect Winston was introduced to WAJ by Patterson but then put the interview under the name "Bill" for whatever reason.) So long story short, "familial relationship" is a totally bullshit thing to say but in this case I think it's the truth disguised as the usual patronizing white supremacy slavery-rationalizing garbage. All that said, although people have been saying "Hmmmm..." about Dolly and her children since the 1970s, no one is able to prove it yet. I do suspect that there's probably a lot of relevant innuendo in assorted issues of Brownlow's Whig but I'll leave that to some grad student who doesn't have four kids and a trashed house. jengod (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Split historical reputation?

I noticed there's a Historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant article and just wanted to float that someday Historical reputation of Andrew Johnson should maybe exist. I don't want to do it and I definitely don't want to squabble with anyone who opposes; just putting it out there. If multiple other people support and nobody else wants to do it, I'm happy to take on the transfer, but in general involvement in Featured/Good articles scares the pants off me! jengod (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think, should you compile one, it should not greatly affect this article's historical reputation section, which is written in summary style and covers the matter without great dwelling on any point. It would not be a reason for cutting material out of this article. Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers. jengod (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced rumor

"Since Andrew did not resemble either of his siblings, there are rumors that he may have been fathered by another man." Is there a source for this? If not, I don't think it should be in the article. Joyous! Noise! 03:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Johnson (father of Andrew Johnson) (2nd nomination)

This AfD discussion ended with a "merge" decision. However, I found that the relevant material was already here at the target article. Here is a link to the source just before it was converted to a redirect, if someone wants to pull any other content over here. Joyous! Noise! 03:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Joyous! - I saved a copy when it was nominated but good to know it's there. There definitely might be "family of" article to created as there's a scholarly article on JSTOR about his brother William https://www.jstor.org/stable/42621309 (and his mother-in-law who lived with the family for a while was mildly interesting IMHO). Also this might be useful to someone:

• Jordan, Blanche Grey (July 21, 1901). "An Unpublished Chapter in Andrew Johnson's Early Life". The Journal and Tribune. Vol. XV, no. 91. Knoxville, Tenn. p. 5 – via Newspapers.com.

"Early life of Andrew Johnson" is an actually interesting way to examine the economic history of the Appalachian section of the United States, again, IMHO. ANYWAY! Thank you for leaving this link here. Cheers. jengod (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Relation to LBJ (or lack thereof)

Just a suggestion, but a brief mentioning that Presidents Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Baines Johnson were unrelated (or a description of how they are related if they are), would be a worthwhile addition to the introductory section. Since every other presidential pair with shared last names are in fact related, it might perhaps lead many to make an incorrect assumption. If anyone is able to edit this article, please consider this addition. I was unable to find any sources explicitly stating the two are unrelated aside from IMDB, which I would not exactly hail as an unimpeachable source with regard to presidential historicity. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

extraneous quotes around "discriminated"

Regarding the edit of 23:46, 16 April 2024... the article previously had the text stated that the law "discriminated in favor of African Americans ...". I certainly understand that "discrimination" frequently connotes a harmful effect, but it jars me trying to figure out what is meant when we have "discriminated" in quotes followed by "in favor of".

If the phrasing were "... it discriminated based on their race", then the "scare quotes" make sense, but with it being immediately followed by "in favor of", their presence creates confusion. Fabrickator (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Specific reference to a Reconstruction Law

Under the Reconstruction section, reference is made to a Reconstruction Act intentionally presented to be passed over Johnsons veto. Do we know which act this is? If so perhaps a hyperlink or source can be added? Kayfr (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2024

Change this: Andrew Johnson was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, on December 29, 1808, to Jacob Johnson (1778–1812) and Mary ("Polly") McDonough (1783–1856), a laundress. He was of English, Scots-Irish, and Scottish ancestry.

To this: Andrew Johnson was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, on December 29, 1808, to Jacob Johnson (1778–1812) and Mary ("Polly") McDonough (1783–1856), a laundress. He was of English, Scots-Irish, and Irish ancestry.

Why: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForesterWoodchopper2000 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) My request edit concerns the ancestral background of Andrew Johnson's mother - Mary "Polly" McDonough - whose surname is Irish, and not Scots-Irish. While she may have been of Scots-Irish as well as Irish descent, her surname is undoubtedly one of Irish origin and almost exclusively borne by Catholics, thus indicating very likely Irish descent (while she may have been a descendant of a convert to Protestantism). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonough https://www.barrygriffin.com/surname-maps/irish/mcdonough/

The 1901 Census is the closest thing I can find regarding the ethnoreligious background of those bearing the surname. However, little would have changed these demographics over the centuries since the birth of Mary McDonough.

Therefore it would be more fitting to keep the Scots-Irish descent (which implies Scottish descent anyways), while restoring the Irish descent. ForesterWoodchopper2000 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We can't infer someone's ancestry based on their last name. If you have a reliable source directly confirming she was Irish feel free to open another request. Jamedeus (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

1901 Census? Aren't American censuses done in years ending in zero? Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

The repeated recent edits by Gen. Rhett, such as this, seem to repeat information already in the article. I've tried to tweak the language in the article and I don't like to keep reverting. Does Gen. Rhett or anyone else have any thoughts on how best to deal with this?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)