Non-fiction: Third Annual Message to Congress, 1867

Overview
Andrew Johnson's Third Annual Message to Congress, delivered late in 1867, confronts the central constitutional and political dispute of the era: how to complete Reconstruction after the Civil War. Johnson frames the conflict as one of constitutional authority and the proper balance between national power and state self-government, attacking congressional measures that imposed military oversight and sweeping conditions on Southern states. He presents himself as defending the prerogatives of the presidency and a more lenient, rapid restoration of the Union.
The message summarizes Johnson's view that the nation must restore civil government in the Southern states without punitive measures or prolonged military rule. It reiterates his objections to the Reconstruction Acts passed by Congress, characterizing them as violations of the Constitution and of the principles that should guide reunification and reconciliation.

Main Arguments
Johnson argues that the Constitution confers primary authority for reconstructing and restoring the Union to the executive branch, and that Congress has exceeded its powers by establishing military districts and dictating the terms of state readmission. He contends that these congressional acts substitute military power for civil authority, undermine state sovereignty, and set dangerous precedents for the use of force in domestic affairs. For Johnson, civil law must prevail, and provisional military governance cannot be a permanent instrument of control.
He also insists that harsh, centralized conditions for readmitting Southern states, especially those that reshape local political arrangements, will exacerbate sectional animosities and hinder economic recovery. While professing a commitment to the protection of life and property, Johnson opposes measures he views as coercive or punitive toward white Southerners and expresses skepticism about federally mandated social engineering. He calls instead for amnesty and the prompt recognition of state governments that meet basic loyalty requirements, arguing that reconciliation fostered by leniency will more effectively restore the Union.

Rhetoric and Tone
The tone of the message is combative and constitutionalist, mixing legal argument with political denunciation of "Radical" members of Congress. Johnson emphasizes the dangers of concentrating power in a legislative majority and warns that the present course threatens civil liberties and the republican form of government. He frames his opposition in terms of preserving the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law against what he portrays as partisan overreach.
At the same time, the rhetoric contains paternalistic and racially tinged language characteristic of Johnson's public stance on race and Reconstruction. His appeals to magnanimity toward former Confederates and to rapid restoration often carry the implication that social and political changes demanded by Congress should be tempered or delayed, a position that critics argued betrayed the rights of newly freed African Americans.

Historical Significance
The Third Annual Message crystallizes the deep constitutional and political rift between the presidency and the Republican-controlled Congress that defined the Reconstruction era. Johnson's insistence on executive primacy and his vetoes of congressional Reconstruction legislation led directly to confrontations that culminated in his impeachment in 1868. The message therefore stands as a clear expression of the presidential position that Reconstruction should be guided by forgiveness, limited federal intervention, and respect for state authority.
Historically, the message illustrates why Congress moved to assert broader federal authority to protect civil and political rights in the South, demonstrating competing visions of national unity and citizenship. Johnson's arguments resonated with some contemporaries but ultimately lost out to a more assertive congressional program that reshaped American constitutionalism and federal-state relations during Reconstruction.