Non-fiction: Second Annual Message to Congress, 1866

Context and Occasion
The Second Annual Message to Congress, delivered by President Andrew Johnson in 1866, addressed the fraught national question of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The country was struggling to define the legal and political status of the formerly Confederate states and the newly freed African Americans. Tensions between the executive branch and the Republican-controlled Congress had already produced heated clashes earlier that year over legislation such as the reauthorization of the Freedmen's Bureau and the Civil Rights Act, both of which Johnson vetoed and which Congress ultimately enacted over his objections.
Johnson used the message to restate his position on the proper path to restore the Union, to defend his vetoes, and to articulate a broad constitutional argument limiting federal authority. The address sought to sway public opinion and to marshal legal reasoning against what Johnson characterized as an overreach by Congress into powers reserved to the states.

Main Arguments
Johnson insisted that the end of armed conflict made military supervision and radical federal intervention in state governance both unnecessary and dangerous. He argued for rapid restoration of civil governments in the Southern states through presidential pardons and terms of reintegration rather than prolonged congressional control or martial authority. The president maintained that many measures proposed by Congress, including aspects of civil rights legislation and extended federal agencies, infringed upon states' rights and risked concentrating power in the national government.
At the heart of Johnson's case was a constitutional claim: that the federal government lacked general authority to regulate the internal affairs of the states or to create special classes of national citizens subject to different protections. He framed his vetoes of the Freedmen's Bureau reauthorization and the Civil Rights Act as defenses of constitutional limits, arguing that Congress was proposing tools that would outlast the emergency of war and alter the balance between national and state sovereignty.

Rhetoric and Constitutional Claims
The tone of the message is defiant and legalistic, mixing moral appeals to the preservation of the Union with technical constitutional arguments. Johnson stressed adherence to the Constitution as the safeguard against arbitrary national power, warning that expansive federal legislation could set precedents that would threaten liberty for all citizens. He portrayed himself as the guardian of constitutional boundaries, appealing to northern and southern moderates who distrusted centralized authority.
Simultaneously, Johnson's rhetoric minimized the role of federal enforcement in securing social and political equality for freedmen, asserting instead that protections should primarily come from state laws and local action. His interpretation of constitutional equality tended to emphasize formal legal status rather than active federal measures to guarantee political participation and civil rights for the formerly enslaved.

Impact and Legacy
The message deepened the rift between the presidency and Congress and energized congressional Republicans who favored a more assertive federal role in reshaping Southern society. It contributed to the political climate that produced the Reconstruction Acts and the further consolidation of congressional authority over the postwar settlement. Johnson's constitutional stance and resistance to congressional Reconstruction measures also intensified partisan mobilization in the 1866 midterm elections and helped set the stage for his later impeachment.
Historically, the address is often seen as emblematic of the limits of presidential Reconstruction and of a constitutional vision that favored state autonomy over federal protection of civil rights. Its arguments were influential in the immediate political struggle but were ultimately overtaken by congressional initiatives and later constitutional amendments that expanded federal power to protect individual rights.