Few Americans would disagree that the 2016 presidential election was the least conventional, most difficult, sometimes offensive and trying of their lives. They emerged on November 9, 2016 stunned or relieved at the results, but uniformly grateful, it was over.
Usually, the transition period between the election and the inauguration proceeds along a familiar path, while citizens descend from an emotional, adrenaline-driven eighteen months to a more normal routine. However, this year’s transition to date is proving to be as surprising, unpredictable and raw as the election itself.
Many historians tell us that the Lincoln – Johnson transition was the most challenging in US political history. However, given the nature of the Obama to Trump hand-over as of mid-December 2016, it seemed appropriate briefly to compare the two and the contexts in which they took place. The purpose here is to reach a tentative, conditional finding of how 2016 compares to 1865.
1865
The Civil War was just drawing to a close when Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, his vice president, assumed the presidency. The country was socially and politically torn apart; 600,000 men had been killed; the slaves had been freed, but Reconstruction of the former Confederacy had not begun.
Johnson’s rise from a tailor’s apprentice to the White House was literally a rags-to-riches and power tale. He was an extremely hard worker and a successful businessman, real estate investor and slave owner when he began his steady climb up the political ladder: alderman to mayor, to state representative and state senator, then to the Federal House of Representatives and finally the U.S. Senate. Johnson was the only senator from a seceded Southern state who remained loyal to the Union.
President Lincoln appointed him a brigadier general in the Union Army and assigned him in 1862 as military governor of Tennessee. There is no question Johnson was very experienced at multiple levels and remained a very popular Tennessee politician to the end of his life. After he had left the presidency (1869), in fact, he was reelected to the US Senate only months before his death in 1875.
Lincoln was a Republican and Johnson a Democrat and they had run in 1864 on what they called a “National Union” ticket and easily won.
However, after being sworn in as the 17th president, he faced a Republican Congress and lacked Lincoln’s intelligence and keen political sensitivity and quickly became embroiled in substantial fights within his Administration and with Congress.
Johnson opposed the 14th Amendment (citizenship to former slaves), omitted any protections for the recently emancipated freedmen leading to Southern state legislation (Black Codes) depriving blacks of their civil liberties. Old Southern leaders were elected to office. Congress passed legislation overriding the states and refused to seat their senators and representatives.
The President vetoed the legislation, which was overridden by the Republicans. This pattern continued until the end of his administration when he was impeached (first), but not convicted by the Senate (one vote).
Johnson also embarked on a crusade to promote a more powerful presidency in an effort to bypass Congress. His primary target was Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War. Congress quickly passed the Tenure of Office Act to protect appointees from dismissal. When Johnson continued trying to fire Stanton, the House impeached him.
Many historians conclude Johnson was America’s worst president, while others admire his strict constitutionalism.
2016
The Lincoln-Johnson transition began under the most difficult and emotional circumstances. However, there was no question about the legitimacy of his and Lincoln’s election, or of his succession as provided for in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The fact that he and the President represented different parties and he inherited the staggering responsibility of reintegrating the Southern states into the Union and the former slaves into American society, guaranteed his faculties would be tested as never before.
Mr. Trump, the president-elect, has extensive business experience during decades as a successful real estate developer in the United States and abroad, but is new to government. However, his dazzling electoral success is testimony to his political savvy.
Moreover, there is, of course, no comparison between the destabilizing circumstances of the immediate post-assassination, post-Civil War and Reconstruction period and those existing after the November 8, 2016 presidential election. However, there are clear stresses today.
First, is the Central Intelligence Agency’s assertion that President-elect Trump benefited from the Russian Government’s direct support of his candidacy. Reinforcing this potential attack on the legitimacy of his victory, is the large popular vote advantage (3,000,000) enjoyed by his opponent. The Agency has not yet released its evidence to the public and there is no hint of any possible obstacle presenting itself to Mr. Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017.
Second, is Mr. Trump’s (and some of his nominees) potential conflict of interests arising from their wealth and the president-elect’s disinclination to separate himself from his business interests. This could run afoul of the Emoluments Provision of the Constitution and the laws regarding such conflicts. The involvement of Trump family members in the Government could raise questions of nepotism.
Third, are the remaining stark divisions of the electorate among Mr. Trump’s supporters, Mrs. Clinton’s and Senator Sander’s (her primary opponent). These differences will make consensus on policies extremely difficult to reach among Americans and their Congressional representatives.
Here, president-elect Trump enjoys an advantage over President Johnson because in 2016 and for the next two years, the Republican Party holds the majorities in both houses.
After he is sworn in, President Trump faces major challenges overseas (wars in Afghanistan, Syria/Iraq, Libya), possible crises with China re Taiwan, the NATO Alliance and the EU community regarding Moscow’s conquest of Crimea and continuing support to insurgents in Ukraine. Domestically, there is the maintenance of the US economy’s progress as well as his and his Congressional allies’ legislative agendas.
Conclusion
Mr. Trump’s transition will continue to be rough, but President Obama’s clear preference that it proceed as smoothly as possible, weighs heavily on the side of a successful change of administrations.
The major pending question is the Central Intelligence Agency’s report and whether or not it contains an acceptable and reasonable case showing the Russian Government did set out to influence voters in critical states to vote for Mr. Trump. My guess, whatever evidence is produced, will for reasons of national stability, be found not dispositive.
However, this challenge does raise an interesting legal and constitutional question? What could be done if a fraudulent electoral outcome was proven beyond all reasonable doubt?
At the moment that is unknown.
Tom Timberman is an expert on military policy and now lives on the Eastern Shore. Among his many assignments with the US Department of State, he has headed a provincial reconstruction team, embedded within a combat brigade in Iraq. He has also helped implement a new counterterrorism strategy in South East Asia as Senior Advisor for South Asia in the Office of Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
Gren Whitman says
Is this article written by Dave Wheelan (as it reports at the beginning) or by Tom Timberman (as it reports at the end)?
editor says
Editor error. Thanks Gren.
Bob Garson says
A great, informative article, Tom. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and insights!