Why is Andrew Johnson not more maligned in American History?

I’m currently reading Grant by Ron Chernow and one of the takeaways I have is that Andrew Johnson was an incredibly maladroit President who, in the same vein as his predecessor, was woefully unfit to be the President of the United States. <br><br>Instead of seeing the Civil War as a revolutionary event that was a clear break with the antebellum United States, Johnson effectively saw it as a minor interruption to the way it had always been. The same states were there, the same wealthy landowners were in control and the same power dynamics were there. He seemed to act under the belief that the nation should be put back together in the same way that a broken vase would be, not accepting that the fundamental societal compact had been altered.<br><br>Additionally, he seemed entirely out of his depth as President. Apparently he had a drinking problem, which is something that I was not aware of. He was not in control of himself or his administration. And above all else, he was a racist. He was quoted as thinking Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was a ‘prank’ and that he felt more at home with the Southern planters than the Radicals. This is the same man who only a few years later would be the one responsible for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the one who would oversee passage of the 14th Amendment. It feels like the Civil War did not happen at all with Johnson President. <br><br>Why is he not maligned the same way that Nixon or Trump or even Wilson are? Why does his face sit on the same mountain as the other four Presidents? It’s mind boggling to me.