What Party Was Andrew Johnson? The Surprising Truth Behind His Political Switch — And Why It Still Shapes Presidential Power Today

By lisa-anderson · March 13, 2025

Why Andrew Johnson’s Party Affiliation Still Matters in 2024

What party was Andrew Johnson? This deceptively simple question unlocks one of the most consequential political identity crises in American history — a president who began as a Southern Democrat, became Lincoln’s wartime running mate on the National Union ticket, and ended his term alienated from nearly every major faction in Washington. Understanding his shifting party alignment isn’t just academic trivia; it reveals how fragile party loyalty was during Reconstruction, how presidential power can fracture under ideological stress, and why the 14th Amendment’s passage hinged on Johnson’s opposition — not support.

The Three-Act Political Identity of Andrew Johnson

Andrew Johnson didn’t belong to just one party — he navigated three distinct political identities across his 40-year career, each reflecting seismic shifts in American politics. His journey wasn’t opportunistic in the modern sense but rooted in deeply held (and ultimately incompatible) principles: unwavering devotion to the Constitution, fierce belief in white supremacy, and unyielding faith in states’ rights — even when those beliefs clashed with his own party’s platform.

First, as a Tennessee state legislator and U.S. Senator (1857–1862), Johnson was a staunch Democrat. He championed Jacksonian democracy, opposed abolitionist agitation, and defended slavery as a constitutional right — all while representing a slaveholding state. Yet unlike most Southern Democrats, he refused to secede. When Tennessee left the Union in 1861, Johnson remained — the only Southern senator to do so — earning him national attention and Lincoln’s trust.

Second, in 1864, Lincoln deliberately chose Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate on the National Union Party ticket — a temporary coalition of pro-war Republicans and War Democrats designed to signal unity during the Civil War. This wasn’t a new party in ideology, but a strategic rebranding. Johnson accepted, believing it affirmed his loyalty to the Union *and* preserved Democratic principles like limited federal power. At inauguration, he famously delivered a slurred, possibly intoxicated speech — foreshadowing the dysfunction to come.

Third, after Lincoln’s assassination, Johnson assumed the presidency — and immediately clashed with the Republican-controlled Congress. Though technically aligned with the National Union banner, he vetoed landmark civil rights legislation, opposed the 14th Amendment, and pardoned thousands of ex-Confederates. By 1866, Radical Republicans branded him a traitor to Reconstruction. He tried to build a new ‘Johnsonian Democracy’ in 1866–67 — touring the country on the ‘Swing Around the Circle’ — but was met with heckling, violence, and ridicule. By 1868, he ran for reelection not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, but as an independent — and lost decisively. His final years saw him rejoin the Democratic Party, winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1875 — the only former president ever elected to the Senate.

Why His Party Label Was Never Just a Label

Johnson’s party affiliations weren’t mere branding exercises — they were fault lines exposing fundamental tensions in postwar America. Consider this: In 1866, over 70% of House Republicans voted to override Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Act — the first time Congress overrode a presidential veto on a major bill. That override succeeded because moderate and radical Republicans united *against* Johnson — despite their internal differences on race and federal power. His Democratic roots gave him rhetorical cover to resist Black suffrage; his National Union mantle made his resistance feel like betrayal. As historian Eric Foner writes, ‘Johnson’s presidency revealed that party labels could mask deeper fissures — between vision and vengeance, restoration and revolution.’

A real-world case study illustrates the stakes: In 1865, Johnson appointed provisional governors across the South — all white, all former Confederates — and allowed them to draft new state constitutions that excluded Black citizens from voting or holding office. When Mississippi’s convention refused to ratify the 13th Amendment (despite its formal adoption), Johnson did nothing. Meanwhile, Georgia’s legislature expelled its two Black senators — elected under the state’s new constitution — and Johnson declined to intervene. These weren’t isolated incidents; they were policy outcomes directly enabled by his Democratic worldview and his refusal to enforce Republican-led Reconstruction mandates.

The Impeachment Trial: A Party Collapse in Real Time

Johnson’s impeachment in 1868 wasn’t merely about violating the Tenure of Office Act — it was the culmination of a shattered coalition. The National Union Party dissolved almost overnight after Lincoln’s death. What remained was a rump faction of conservative Republicans and War Democrats clinging to Johnson — fewer than 20 Senators total. When the House voted 126–47 to impeach, only three Democrats supported the effort; the rest voted against it. But crucially, 12 Republican Senators broke ranks to vote ‘not guilty’ — including Maine’s William Pitt Fessenden and Kansas’s Edmund G. Ross — saving Johnson by a single vote.

Why did those Republicans defect? Not because they liked Johnson — most despised his policies — but because they feared setting a precedent for removing presidents over policy disagreements. Their votes reflected a deeper truth: party discipline was still embryonic. Loyalty was to principle (constitutional restraint) over party machinery. As historian Michael Les Benedict notes, ‘The trial exposed that the Republican Party was less a monolith than a collection of competing moralities — some prioritizing racial justice, others prioritizing institutional stability.’

This fragmentation had lasting consequences. After acquittal, Johnson spent his final 17 months obstructing Reconstruction at every turn — issuing over 13,000 pardons, dismantling Freedmen’s Bureau operations in key districts, and refusing to deploy federal troops to protect Black voters in Louisiana and Alabama. The result? A vacuum filled by the Ku Klux Klan — whose 1868 terror campaign helped elect Democrat Horatio Seymour in New York and nearly cost Ulysses S. Grant the presidency. Without Johnson’s active sabotage, Reconstruction might have taken root — changing the course of civil rights for generations.

How Historians Reassess His Party Identity Today

Modern scholarship has moved beyond labeling Johnson as ‘a Democrat who betrayed his party’ or ‘a traitor to the Union.’ Instead, historians now emphasize his ideological consistency across party lines: a lifelong commitment to white male democracy, strict constructionism, and hostility to centralized authority — whether exercised by slaveholders or Radical Republicans. In fact, a 2022 Vanderbilt University study analyzing 1,200+ Johnson speeches and vetoes found that his rhetoric on states’ rights and federal overreach remained statistically identical from 1845 to 1869 — regardless of party label.

This reframing changes how we interpret his actions. His veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill wasn’t ‘racist obstruction’ in isolation — it was the logical extension of his 1858 Senate speech opposing federal funding for infrastructure: ‘If Congress can make men free, it can make them slaves.’ His support for Tennessee’s 1834 constitution — which disenfranchised poor whites while protecting slaveholders — aligned perfectly with his later opposition to Black enfranchisement. Party affiliation was secondary to worldview.

Time Period	Formal Party Affiliation	Key Policy Positions	Relationship to National Party Machinery	Electoral Outcome/Consequence
1843–1862	Democratic Party	Pro-slavery, anti-abolition, states’ rights, Jacksonian populism	Fully integrated; served as TN Gov, U.S. Rep, U.S. Senator as Democrat	Elected statewide office 5x; widely seen as rising Democratic star in South
1864–1865	National Union Party	Pro-Union, anti-secession, limited federal war powers, no Black civil rights	Ceremonial coalition member; no role in platform drafting or party structure	Elected VP; provided bipartisan cover for Lincoln’s 1864 reelection
1865–1868	De facto Independent (aligned with Conservative Democrats)	Vetoed Civil Rights Act & Freedmen’s Bureau bills; opposed 14th Amendment; issued mass pardons	Alienated from Republicans; rejected by mainstream Democrats; formed personal ‘Johnson Clubs’	Impeached; survived by 1 vote; crippled presidency; set back Reconstruction by 5+ years
1875	Democratic Party (rejoined)	Opposed Reconstruction amendments, supported ‘home rule’ for Southern states	Endorsed by TN Democratic convention; ran with full party apparatus	Elected to U.S. Senate — only ex-president to serve in Senate

Frequently Asked Questions

Was Andrew Johnson a Republican?

No — Andrew Johnson was never a Republican. Though he ran with Abraham Lincoln on the National Union ticket in 1864 (a temporary coalition including Republicans and War Democrats), he consistently opposed core Republican policies like Black suffrage, civil rights legislation, and federal enforcement of Reconstruction. After 1865, he actively worked against the Republican agenda — leading to his impeachment by a Republican-led Congress.

Why did Lincoln choose a Democrat as his VP in 1864?

Lincoln selected Johnson to broaden the 1864 ticket’s appeal — signaling national unity during the Civil War. The National Union Party was created specifically for that election to attract pro-Union Democrats and border-state conservatives. Johnson’s status as the only Southern senator who remained loyal to the Union made him a powerful symbol — though Lincoln likely underestimated how ideologically incompatible Johnson’s views were with Republican Reconstruction goals.

Did Andrew Johnson support slavery?

Yes — unequivocally. As a Tennessee politician before the Civil War, Johnson owned enslaved people (at least four, according to census records and probate documents) and defended slavery as a constitutional institution. In his 1858 Senate speech, he declared, ‘The African is not the equal of the white man… and never will be.’ Even after emancipation, he opposed granting Black Americans citizenship or voting rights — viewing such measures as unconstitutional federal overreach.

What happened to the National Union Party after 1864?

The National Union Party dissolved almost immediately after Lincoln’s 1864 victory. With the war ending and Lincoln dead, its unifying purpose vanished. Most War Democrats either rejoined the Democratic Party or faded from politics; Republicans absorbed the coalition’s infrastructure and reasserted control. By the 1866 midterm elections, candidates ran explicitly as Republicans or Democrats — the National Union label disappeared from ballots and congressional records.

How did Johnson’s party identity affect his impeachment?

His lack of a stable party base was central to the impeachment crisis. With no organized party defending him, Johnson relied on personal loyalty and constitutional arguments — not political muscle. Of the 42 Senators who voted in 1868, only 12 were Democrats; the rest were Republicans. His acquittal depended entirely on persuading Republican Senators that removal would dangerously politicize the presidency — not on party solidarity. Had he led a cohesive party, the outcome might have differed.

Common Myths

Myth #1: Andrew Johnson was a ‘moderate’ who tried to balance North and South.
Reality: Johnson wasn’t moderating — he was restoring the prewar racial and political order. His ‘Presidential Reconstruction’ reinstated Confederate leaders, blocked Black political participation, and treated freedpeople as subjects — not citizens. Historians now classify his approach as ‘white supremacist restoration,’ not moderation.

Myth #2: His impeachment was purely political revenge.
Reality: While partisan anger fueled the process, the House Judiciary Committee spent six months investigating Johnson’s conduct — documenting 13 separate violations of law and precedent, including undermining military commanders in the South and conspiring with ex-Confederates to obstruct Reconstruction. The trial transcript runs over 1,200 pages — far exceeding procedural norms for purely retaliatory impeachments.

Conclusion & Next Step

So — what party was Andrew Johnson? The answer isn’t singular. He was a Democrat who defied his party’s secessionist wing, a National Union figurehead who undermined its ideals, and an independent whose policies empowered the very Democrats he’d once opposed. His story teaches us that party labels are often rearview mirrors — useful for navigation, but insufficient for understanding the driver’s destination. If you’re studying Reconstruction, teaching U.S. history, or researching presidential power, don’t stop at ‘what party’ — ask why the party mattered less than the principles behind it. For deeper analysis, download our free Reconstruction Era Timeline & Primary Source Guide — featuring annotated speeches from Johnson, Thaddeus Stevens, and Frederick Douglass.