mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
- Thread starter
- #401
Let us look at more of Andrew Johnson’s statements that prove he did not hate blacks and that prove he was concerned about the welfare and rights of ex-slaves. These statements come from his First Annual Message to Congress, December 4, 1865.
Johnson warned against assuming that blacks and whites could not live together in a mutually beneficial way:
We must equally avoid hasty assumptions of any natural impossibility for the two races to live side by side in a state of mutual benefit and good will. The experiment involves us in no inconsistency; let us, then, go on and make that experiment in good faith, and not be too easily disheartened.
Johnson said the freedmen not only needed jobs and culture but also protection, and he said he opposed “forced removal and colonization”:
The country is in need of labor, and the freedmen are in need of employment, culture, and protection. While their right of voluntary migration and expatriation is not to be questioned, I would not advise their forced removal and colonization.
Johnson urged that ex-slaves be encouraged to engage in honorable and useful labor, and that no one should believe this effort was certain to fail:
Let us rather encourage them to honorable and useful industry, where it may be beneficial to themselves and to the country; and, instead of hasty anticipations of the certainty of failure, let there be nothing wanting to the fair trial of the experiment. The change in their condition is the substitution of labor by contract for the status of slavery.
Johnson said it was unfair to accuse freedmen of being unwilling to work when there was still doubt about their freedom of choice and about their receiving their promised wages, and he added that ex-slaves, like employers, should be able to enforce labor contracts:
The freedman cannot fairly be accused of unwillingness to work so long as a doubt remains about his freedom of choice in his pursuits and the certainty of his recovering his stipulated wages. In this the interests of the employer and the employed coincide. The employer desires in his workmen spirit and alacrity, and these can be permanently secured in no other way. And if the one ought to be able to enforce the contract, so ought the other.
Johnson argued that the Southern states should provide “adequate protection and remedies” for the freedmen, that there was no way to effectively use their labor until this was done, and that if this was not done the freedmen would not be to blame for the failure:
The public interest will be best promoted if the several states will provide adequate protection and remedies for the freedmen. Until this is in some way accomplished there is no chance for the advantageous use of their labor, and the blame of ill success will not rest on them.
If I had attributed these statements to a fanatical Radical Republican such as Charles Sumner, no one would have doubted that he made them, because they exhibit a belief that whites and blacks could live together harmoniously, because they reject forced removal and colonization, and because they show a concern for the rights and welfare of the ex-slaves.
I think it is revealing that very few, if any, of the history books that are authored by orthodox scholars and that claim Johnson hated blacks mention these statements, much less quote them. In fact, of all the books I have read on the Civil War and Reconstruction that claim Johnson was an ardent racist, not one of them mentions or quotes these statements.
Johnson warned against assuming that blacks and whites could not live together in a mutually beneficial way:
We must equally avoid hasty assumptions of any natural impossibility for the two races to live side by side in a state of mutual benefit and good will. The experiment involves us in no inconsistency; let us, then, go on and make that experiment in good faith, and not be too easily disheartened.
Johnson said the freedmen not only needed jobs and culture but also protection, and he said he opposed “forced removal and colonization”:
The country is in need of labor, and the freedmen are in need of employment, culture, and protection. While their right of voluntary migration and expatriation is not to be questioned, I would not advise their forced removal and colonization.
Johnson urged that ex-slaves be encouraged to engage in honorable and useful labor, and that no one should believe this effort was certain to fail:
Let us rather encourage them to honorable and useful industry, where it may be beneficial to themselves and to the country; and, instead of hasty anticipations of the certainty of failure, let there be nothing wanting to the fair trial of the experiment. The change in their condition is the substitution of labor by contract for the status of slavery.
Johnson said it was unfair to accuse freedmen of being unwilling to work when there was still doubt about their freedom of choice and about their receiving their promised wages, and he added that ex-slaves, like employers, should be able to enforce labor contracts:
The freedman cannot fairly be accused of unwillingness to work so long as a doubt remains about his freedom of choice in his pursuits and the certainty of his recovering his stipulated wages. In this the interests of the employer and the employed coincide. The employer desires in his workmen spirit and alacrity, and these can be permanently secured in no other way. And if the one ought to be able to enforce the contract, so ought the other.
Johnson argued that the Southern states should provide “adequate protection and remedies” for the freedmen, that there was no way to effectively use their labor until this was done, and that if this was not done the freedmen would not be to blame for the failure:
The public interest will be best promoted if the several states will provide adequate protection and remedies for the freedmen. Until this is in some way accomplished there is no chance for the advantageous use of their labor, and the blame of ill success will not rest on them.
If I had attributed these statements to a fanatical Radical Republican such as Charles Sumner, no one would have doubted that he made them, because they exhibit a belief that whites and blacks could live together harmoniously, because they reject forced removal and colonization, and because they show a concern for the rights and welfare of the ex-slaves.
I think it is revealing that very few, if any, of the history books that are authored by orthodox scholars and that claim Johnson hated blacks mention these statements, much less quote them. In fact, of all the books I have read on the Civil War and Reconstruction that claim Johnson was an ardent racist, not one of them mentions or quotes these statements.
