> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/15pbuch.html
> Me: > There are many people in Pennsylvania history you can be proud of, but > Buchanan wasn't one of them. He basically spent his entire career currying > favor with the South and working in support of the pro-slavery power. He > wasn't a traitor - he was just a weak and inept man who had the bad luck to > be President at a time that called for strength. The times make the man - > in this case, the times made him a disaster. James Buchanan was one of the > three authors of the Ostend Manifesto, which called for the annexation of > Cuba and was explicitly an attempt by the slave states to increase their > power and protect slavery - and he didn't even have the excuse of being from > the South. He also did nothing to control Southern marauders in Kansas, and > then supported the ludicrous Lecompton Constitution that was purely a > product of Southern bandits who rigged the Kansas elections. He did get > stuck with Dred Scott, yes, but he was an active supporter of that > decision - he could have done as Lincoln did, declaring it a mistake by the > Supreme Court that he would do everything possible to reverse. Furthermore, > he actively supported the enforcement of the barbarous Fugitive Slave Act - > again, a major strike against him. His greatest mistakes, however, are > undoubtedly during the period at the end of his Administration when > secession began. He made only a token effort to resupply Ft. Sumter, and > when that failed he made no efforts to protect any Federal property in the > South. Even his effort to send the Star of the West to Sumter was purely > because most of his (pro-Southern) Cabinet resigned, which left Stanton as > the most powerful personality near the President, and Buchanan pretty much > did whatever his advisors told him to do. Let's be clear on what it meant > for Buchanan to choose not to act against secession - in the face of an open > rebellion against Federal authority, the President of the United States did > _nothing_ to protect the authority of the government. Nothing at all. He > publicly declared that it was his opinion that the Federal Government did > not have the power under the Constitution to protect itself. This cannot be > emphasized enough. Abraham Lincoln demonstrated, quite convincingly, that > it was within the capacity of the President to protect the government - > which means that Buchanan does not have the excuse that he was prevented > from acting by outside constraints. He chose to accede to the dismemberment > of the country which he had been elected to protect. There is no more > devastating accusation I could make, and it is not one that is subject to > interpretation - it's explicitly a part of the historical record. > > Quoting from Thinkquest: > "Although he opposed secession, Buchanan believed that there was no way for > him to prevent such action. He put much of the blame on the Republicans > because they had denounced the Dred Scott Decision and had refused to > enforce the Fugitive Slave Law." > > This isn't a small thing. The oath of the President of the United States is > to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. When > Buchanan was faced with those domestic enemies, he decided to do _nothing_. > It wasn't a case of he was forced to do nothing - he _chose_ to do nothing > when the option to act was available to him. As a consequence Lincoln began > the war with all of the extensive Federal property in the South (save Ft. > Sumter) in Southern hands. The Southern armies were armed with weapons > purchased by the Federal government - because those arms were given up to > the South without any effort to defend them. James Buchanan made that > choice. > > I didn't do any research on Buchanan because the Civil War in general and > Lincoln in particular are one of my hobbies, and what I typed was a summary > of William Gienapp's description of Buchanan. Since Gienapp is Harvard's > professor on the Civil War, and is one of the foremost scholars of the > period, I certainly think he qualifies as an authority :-) Now, if you > asked me about cosmology, I'd have to do research. But on the Civil War I'm > fairly confident in my memory :-) It is true that he "devoted all his > talent to averting the catastrophe" - the problem is that he didn't _have_ > talent. It is also true that "no other policy gave better promise of a > peaceful settlement." So what? His _obligation_ as President was to > preserve the Union. A peaceful settlement would have been great, but if > that wasn't an option, then his job was to find a settlement by whatever > means were necessary. He _chose_ not to do that, and in making that choice, > earned himself a spot as the worst President ever by a very large margin. > > Gautam I post a link and you don't bother to read it; curious. Well you keep your memories and I'll use facts. Kevin T.
