Andrew Johnson’s Veto of Freedmen’s Bureau Bill

In 1866 Republicans had allied upon Lyman Trumbull's Freedmen's Bureau and the Civil Rights bills as necessary amendments to the success of the Unions Reconstruction.  Republican radicals viewed them as necessary measures to move toward a rudimentary change needed, and a prelude to readmitting the South back into Congressional representation.  Although Johnson’s hostility to the Freedmen’s Bureau was known among his fellow republicans and union party, his Veto of the bill was a shock for him to break away from his party’s majority vote.  In the meantime, a never-ending stream of complaints, were being sent to Washington.  The accusation of mistreatment from Southern blacks and white loyalists were corrupting the mood in Congress by breaking down the integrity of Johnson’s central assumption-that the Southern states could be trusted to manage their own affairs without federal supervision.

On February 19, 1866, President Andrew Johnson addressed the United States Senate, with his Veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill.  In Johnson’s Veto, he addressed congress and said, “ I share with Congress the strongest desire to secure to the freedmen the full employment of their freedom and property and their independence and equality in making contracts for their labor, but the bill before me contains provisions which in my opinion are not warranted by the constitution and are not well suited to accomplish the end in view.”[1]  Fair labor had been a part of the plans for Reconstruction since Abraham Lincoln first proposed his plan.  Johnson just felt that the Bill gave the freedmen and refugees more than the constitution garnered them to be provided by the government.

Other reservations Johnson stressed about the Freedmen’s Bill, was a question of it’s timing and the opposition of the Bills plans to set up military jurisdiction in the areas in the White South and other regions containing refugees and freedmen.  In Johnson’s speech to congress he said, “This bill proposes to establish by authority of Congress military jurisdiction over all parts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen.  It would by its very nature apply with most force to those parts of the United States in which the freedmen most abound, and its expressly extends the existing temporary jurisdiction of the freedmen’s bureau, with greatly enlarges powers over those states.”[2]  Because of these questions Johnson leans amendments for how he would see the bill succeed, “The subjects over which this military jurisdiction is to extend in ever part of the United States include protection to ‘all employees, agents, and officers of this bureau in the exercise of the duties imposed’ upon them by the bill.”[3]

Also other questions arose, for example the duration of the legislation, concerns about ill-treatment from Ex-masters, concerns of due process of law, and in which ways the bill would injure the freedmen themselves.   In his speech Johnson speaks about the constitution and due process for all men, “While the territory and the classes of the actions and offenses that are made subject to this measure are so extensive, the bill itself, should it become a law, will have no limitation in point of time, but will form a part of the permanent legislation of the country.  I can not reconcile a system of military jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the Constitution which declare that ‘no person shall be held to answer for a capitol or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”[4]   About the mistreatment of Freedmen and refugees by ex-masters Johnson says, “Undoubtedly the freedmen should be protected, but he should be protected by civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the tile constitutional power on the courts of the United States and of the States.”[5]  Johnson felt that the states and local authorities could handle the mistreatment without it becoming a federal problem.

Andrew Johnson concludes his Veto petitioning the Senate to not pass the Bill into a law without consideration of the people and a sanctioned judgment by the people.  And in the end the Bill came within two votes of having the two-thirds majority for it to be passed.  Johnson may have won the Veto but ultimately it ended his Presidency.

---

[1] Andrew Johnson, Veto of Freedmen’s Bureau Bill,  (1866; Washington: n.p. reprint 2009.), 1.

[2] Andrew Johnson, Veto of Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, 2.

[3] ibid.

[4] Andrew Johnson, Veto of Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, 3.

[5] Andrew Johnson, Veto of Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, 7.