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. Me: Who said that? I read it. But I've also read lots of _other_ stuff about James Buchanan, from sources considerably more rigorous than the Grolier encyclopedia. McPherson's _Battle Cry of Freedom_ is a great general history of the Civil War. _Lincoln and the First Shot_ does a very good job of encapsulating the difficult situation the Buchanan left to Lincoln to resolve. Harry V. Jaffa's _A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War_ might be my favorite for its analysis of the intellectual currents of the time, and it has been highly recommended by Prof. Gienapp as well. I'm aware of Philip Klein's re-evaluation of Buchanan and his argument that he didn't do that bad a job (published in _President James Buchanan: A Biography_) but it strikes me as rather unconvincing, although I will admit that I've only read a precis of his argument, not the book itself. I'm curious as to on what factual grounds you think I'm incorrect. His support for the Lecompton Constitution was a matter of public record, as were his repeated declarations that the Federal Government lacked the power under the Constitution to fight secession. In essence I'm saying that the latter of those, _all by itself_, would be enough to make him a disaster as the President. If you disagree with me, I'd like to know exactly why. I'm serious - other than Klein's I've never really a defense of Buchanan - even Gienapp mainly used to make fun of him in class - so I'd honestly like to know why you feel that his status should be re-evaluated. Gautam
