Interesting article- Buchanan seems to mostly go down in history as an ineffective president who failed to stop civil war, so this article adds some layers to his legacy.
Curiously, Lincoln then seems to have pre-saged FDR with his non-positions regarding potential secession. Per your book "Traitor to his Class" Hoover was upset that FDR wouldn't come on board and work with him on the depression- but FDR didn't want to commit to Hoover's actions which may tie his hands. Lincoln then seems to have done the same with regards to impending secession.
Given that Lincoln and FDR are considered the greatest presidents not named Washington, the strategy of letting a crisis get worse until your inauguration seems to pay off historically. But not so good for the country.
There isn't much attention given to James Buchanan these days. I am sure there is a memorial to him somewhere in Lancaster, PA, his hometown. I did not know of the one Prof. Brands referenced.
But surprising was the commentary on Lincoln's presidency. Recent analysis of Lincoln's interpretation of the U.S. constitution in the war years by Noah Feldman of Harvard's law school is a good example of needed study. This brings a fresh look at Lincoln's approach to the war and the justifications for his actions. Presidents see their considerable powers within the constitution as how it may suit their purposes. There are limits of course as the division of powers within the three branches of government can restrict these powers. But this continues to change as presidencies change.
Historians certainly judge the performance of any president largely on the strength they exerted in using these powers. No wonder Lincoln ranks close to the top as he used these powers to crush the south.
Buchanan may have been right in seeing the limits to his power to hold the union together. But Lincoln brought a lifetime of personal hatred for slavery. It was part of his emotion character upon entering the White House. Buchanan as a northern Democrat was far more sympathetic to the south and believed these slave states would abandon slavery with time and the building anti-slave pressure in the north and the south. Lincoln was not so sure. A confrontation seemed inevitable even as he tried to convince the south in his inaugural that he was not going to interfere with slavery where it existed. The heated rhetoric in early 1861 had reached a violent level and there seemed no turning back. Their leadership was ready to go to war to preserve slavery. They were also convinced by now that Lincoln would not tolerate their dependence on slavery even with his conciliatory words. The slave states were one by one separating from the union and with the firing on Ft. Sumpter the war started.
The Civil War was a major period in the country's history and we should continue to examine the circumstances that led to the conflict and why it led such divisions in the country. We are still living with the consequences of that division and war Any thought that the strong hand of Lincoln in carrying the nation through this period was a precursor to the 20th century presidencies of the Roosevelts and other strong leaders bears more careful thought.
interesting but I am not changing my view of Buchanan. He was not just incompetent but incompetent at one of the most critical junctures in USA history.
Very interesting article about a little-known president! Most non-academic people, if they know anything about Buchanan, remember him as our only bachelor president. I didn't even know that there was a statue of him in D.C. (or a statue of Joan of Arc). I wonder when the statue-removers will demand the removal of Buchanan's statue. Or Joan of Arc's. Re the latter, I remember decades ago when the Northern Irish civil rights leader Bernadette Devlin took umbrage at someone calling her the "Irish Joan of Arc." Devlin said that Joan of Arc was a religious fanatic and she wanted to be remembered as the "Irish Rosa Luxembourg."
More reasons to hate both Roosevelts. Well, I don’t HATE Teddy as a person, just his political philosophy. FDR on the other hand, I regard as an utter villain.
And Lincoln is overrated, too. Not that his opposition to slavery wasn’t genuine, but his centralizing attitude to the federal government was the CORE of his philosophy, and would have been even if slavery had been abolished
I meant to say, even if the Founding Fathers had abolished slavery at the Constitutional Convention. Since Lincoln was an admirer of Henry Clay and all. The “Confederacy” deserved what it got (actually more than it got---sadly Sherman’s March to the Sea was localized), but the growth of federal power as a result of the civil war kind of ruined the country and paved the way for the horrors of the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the “Great Society”.
It might have been better to have waged a cold war against the south, no direct military action, but refuse to recognize it and work to isolate it diplomatically. As Buchanan noticed, what are the odds the confederacy would hold together for long, left to its own devices?
Interesting article- Buchanan seems to mostly go down in history as an ineffective president who failed to stop civil war, so this article adds some layers to his legacy.
Curiously, Lincoln then seems to have pre-saged FDR with his non-positions regarding potential secession. Per your book "Traitor to his Class" Hoover was upset that FDR wouldn't come on board and work with him on the depression- but FDR didn't want to commit to Hoover's actions which may tie his hands. Lincoln then seems to have done the same with regards to impending secession.
Given that Lincoln and FDR are considered the greatest presidents not named Washington, the strategy of letting a crisis get worse until your inauguration seems to pay off historically. But not so good for the country.
Very interesting!
There isn't much attention given to James Buchanan these days. I am sure there is a memorial to him somewhere in Lancaster, PA, his hometown. I did not know of the one Prof. Brands referenced.
But surprising was the commentary on Lincoln's presidency. Recent analysis of Lincoln's interpretation of the U.S. constitution in the war years by Noah Feldman of Harvard's law school is a good example of needed study. This brings a fresh look at Lincoln's approach to the war and the justifications for his actions. Presidents see their considerable powers within the constitution as how it may suit their purposes. There are limits of course as the division of powers within the three branches of government can restrict these powers. But this continues to change as presidencies change.
Historians certainly judge the performance of any president largely on the strength they exerted in using these powers. No wonder Lincoln ranks close to the top as he used these powers to crush the south.
Buchanan may have been right in seeing the limits to his power to hold the union together. But Lincoln brought a lifetime of personal hatred for slavery. It was part of his emotion character upon entering the White House. Buchanan as a northern Democrat was far more sympathetic to the south and believed these slave states would abandon slavery with time and the building anti-slave pressure in the north and the south. Lincoln was not so sure. A confrontation seemed inevitable even as he tried to convince the south in his inaugural that he was not going to interfere with slavery where it existed. The heated rhetoric in early 1861 had reached a violent level and there seemed no turning back. Their leadership was ready to go to war to preserve slavery. They were also convinced by now that Lincoln would not tolerate their dependence on slavery even with his conciliatory words. The slave states were one by one separating from the union and with the firing on Ft. Sumpter the war started.
The Civil War was a major period in the country's history and we should continue to examine the circumstances that led to the conflict and why it led such divisions in the country. We are still living with the consequences of that division and war Any thought that the strong hand of Lincoln in carrying the nation through this period was a precursor to the 20th century presidencies of the Roosevelts and other strong leaders bears more careful thought.
interesting but I am not changing my view of Buchanan. He was not just incompetent but incompetent at one of the most critical junctures in USA history.
Very interesting article about a little-known president! Most non-academic people, if they know anything about Buchanan, remember him as our only bachelor president. I didn't even know that there was a statue of him in D.C. (or a statue of Joan of Arc). I wonder when the statue-removers will demand the removal of Buchanan's statue. Or Joan of Arc's. Re the latter, I remember decades ago when the Northern Irish civil rights leader Bernadette Devlin took umbrage at someone calling her the "Irish Joan of Arc." Devlin said that Joan of Arc was a religious fanatic and she wanted to be remembered as the "Irish Rosa Luxembourg."
More reasons to hate both Roosevelts. Well, I don’t HATE Teddy as a person, just his political philosophy. FDR on the other hand, I regard as an utter villain.
And Lincoln is overrated, too. Not that his opposition to slavery wasn’t genuine, but his centralizing attitude to the federal government was the CORE of his philosophy, and would have been even if slavery had been abolished
Buchanan was right on both counts.
I meant to say, even if the Founding Fathers had abolished slavery at the Constitutional Convention. Since Lincoln was an admirer of Henry Clay and all. The “Confederacy” deserved what it got (actually more than it got---sadly Sherman’s March to the Sea was localized), but the growth of federal power as a result of the civil war kind of ruined the country and paved the way for the horrors of the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the “Great Society”.
It might have been better to have waged a cold war against the south, no direct military action, but refuse to recognize it and work to isolate it diplomatically. As Buchanan noticed, what are the odds the confederacy would hold together for long, left to its own devices?