Talk:Andrew Johnson

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Informal peer review

(transferred from User:Brianboulton/Sandbox2)

Lead

• "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)

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)

"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)

John Aiken hometown

I changed his hometown from "Jonesville" to Jonesborough. Here is a source, if needed: [1]. 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)

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)

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)