The subject of this biopic is Andrew Johnson, the President who succeeded Abraham Lincoln, the only American President who had no formal education whatsoever (and yet was a voracious reader), the only southern member of Congress who did not walk out when Secession arrived, the man who attempted to implement "presidential reconstruction" as outlined by Lincoln at the cabinet meeting on the last day of his life, and the first President to be impeached (the pretext being the ability of the President to dismiss a Cabinet appointee, a question later resolved by the Supreme Court in Johnson's favor). What dramatic material! But try to find a DVD of this movie! Johnson is condemned for his bluntness and, above all, for his racial views, which happened to be fairly similar to those of Lincoln. His great sin, however, was in considering the Constitution to be indeed the governing law of the land. In our current time he is condemned. The censors are determining what we can see.

"Tennessee Johnson" is a perfect example of how a largely fictional account of history can still succeed as an excellent dramatic motion picture (much in the way "J.F.K." would, decades later). Please don't watch this piece of WWII flag-waving drama with the idea that it's going to give you the "real story" on our 17th President. Still, as a piece of cinema, "Tennessee Johnson" is quite satisfying.Many reviewers seem very willing to toss off the historical inaccuracies of this film with comments about "the Hollywood treatment" and "dramatic license", and up to a point, this might be true. I won't go thru the list of historic inaccuracies of this movie -- others have done that thoroughly. No, what really sinks "Tennessee Johnson" as history is the completely distorted view it gives us of President Johnson, trying to make him a hero, instead of the real man who deservedly stands as one of the worst (and most out-of-step) Chief Executives in history. This is not to say that the real Andrew Johnson didn't have some good qualities (or that the real Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans were lily-pure, themselves). But unfortunately Andrew Johnson was a Southerner and a Democrat, who happened to remain loyal to the Union during the Civil War, and was definitely the wrong person to be in the White House during the critical years of Reconstruction. It is well documented that Johnson was quite racist towards blacks, and showed himself to be completely indifferent to their plight as "Freedmen" who were still virtual slaves in the post-War South. He had no aversion to setting up Southern state governments dominated by former Confederates, leading most Northerners to wonder just who DID win the Civil War. Johnson particularly turned a blind eye to the incredible violence, brutality, and murder of blacks in the southern states. In this he earned the scorn of such Union war heroes as U.S. Grant, William Sherman, and Phil Sheridan, who saw that it was a simple necessity for the national government & army to protect them. The real Johnson could also be very petty and vindictive, obstinate and unreasonable... and by all accounts (and quite contrary to this film's depiction) was considered a heavy drinker, and that in an era when many men imbibed to excess!While this forum isn't the place for political discussions, I would challenge readers to get a good book on the subject and judge for themselves who the real heroes & villains were in that time period (I might suggest David O. Stewart's 2009 volume "Impeached"). Some of the comments in this forum seem to indicate that only recently has it become fashionable to find fault in Andrew Johnson; like the anti-Johnson view is now "trendy". Actually, Johnson and his presidency have been almost universally held in low regard from the late 1860's onward, and it is really THIS film that attempted to buck the tide and show Johnson as a hero. Very odd, especially for a WWII patriotic biopic, at a time when studios were lionizing those who fought to free people, not keep them in bondage. I certainly question MGM's decision in 1942 to make this film, attempting to reverse what was, by then, 75 years of deservedly "bad press" for our 17th President. Still, warts and all, MGM did succeed in making a compelling drama, especially the (highly fictionalized) Impeachment Trial itself. It's undeniable that Van Heflin and Lionel Barrymore both give particularly excellent performances. "Tennessee Johnson" is definitely worth seeing -- just take it with a large "grain of salt"!

The post-Civil War period of Reconstruction (1865-1877) has always been one of the most controversial periods of American history; to some extent, it remains so today. At its core was the question of whether federal or state authority was to be paramount; variations on this basic argument continue to ring out in modern-day America. Yet this question has come to be overshadowed by an even more vexing problem: the lack of consensus on Reconstruction's basic morality as well as its constitutionality. Whenever Reconstruction is discussed today, a very prickly quandary must be raised: were the Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives really sympathetic to the civil rights of the freed slaves, or did they only desire to wreak vengeance upon the ex-Confederates in the South? Up until about the mid-1950s, most historians proposed the latter view. It is therefore something of a credit to William Dieterle, the director of this 1942 movie, that he broke somewhat with what was then conventional wisdom. Whereas the contemporary custom would have been to paint the Radical Republicans (and Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in particular) as deranged and villainous, this film shows some restraint in condemning their actions and acknowledges the noble motives behind them. At the same time, Dieterle clearly rejects the late-20th/early-21st century portrait of President Andrew Johnson as bitter, raging white supremacist.True, both Johnson's and Stevens's less positive traits are played up: Johnson's alcoholism and violent temper, Stevens's smug pomposity. Yet both men come across ultimately as admirable, if only for the iron force of their wills in trying to achieve what each of them believed to be just - goals that happened to be mutually exclusive. They both allow their stubbornness and self-righteousness to drive them at each other's throats.Van Heflin is commanding as the President, while Lionel Barrymore manages to mine some humanity from the crusty Stevens. Best of all, perhaps, is the utterly convincing makeup used to "age" Andrew Johnson and his wife Eliza.

When I showed this movie to a Civil War specialist, he said it was almost comedic because of the many historical errors. For example, Johnson actually stayed away from the Senate Trial. In the movie, however, he gave a wonderful speech in his own defense. Also, the Senate President Pro Tempore, next in line to be President, was Benjamin Wade. In the film, however, he was James Waters. In reality, Senator Edmond Ross, who was healthy, cast the acquitting vote. In the movie, however, a dying senator named Huyler did this."Tennessee Johnson" canonizes Andrew Johnson and demonizes Thaddeus Stevens. I prefer a more nuanced interpretation of history, for I find good and bad in both men. Ambiguity was not the order of the day (1943), however. Instead, the film reflects the dominant historical interpretation of the day--the Dunning Thesis.FYI, I hold a M.A. in American History.