For long term damage I think Wilson is worst but Buchanan is close. Had he reacted like Andrew Jackson did in the Nullification Crisis I do not think we would have ever reached a Civil War.
Agreed, but you have to understand that Buchanan was our first Nancy Boy president and probably had other, more important (in his demented mind) distractions. Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . which modern president does that sound like?
“Buchanan was not the worst president, but he probably is in the top 20. I think that distinctive title should go to Wilson. But Obama, before his term is over, is going to wrest the title away, I think.
For long term damage I think Wilson is worst but Buchanan is close. Had he reacted like Andrew Jackson did in the Nullification Crisis I do not think we would have ever reached a Civil War.”
I don’t agree at all. Buchanan was not a stellar President but he was not close to the worst. He has frequently been pilloried by leftists who say that, if only he had taken some unspecified action, the Civil War could have been averted.
You mention Jackson and the Nullification Crisis. Different time. Jackson was responding to a tariff and although he blustered and threatened force, a tariff (tax) is quintessentially easy to compromise. It was reduced, with an assist from Henry Clay, and SC rescinded its nullification ordinance. The Crisis was resolved, for the time being.
Buchanan, a lame duck President, was responding to a new nullification crisis, which involved a matter not capable of compromise—the Election of a new President, Abraham Lincoln. Also, the times were different. The United States Army in 1860 numbered only 16,000 troops and it was spread from Maine to California. On the other hand, the Southern militia had grown much better organized, spurred by the talk of secession, Bleeding Kansas, and John Brown at Harper’s Ferry. These militia units became the foundation of the Confederate Armies of Tennessee and Northern Virginia, which were very formidable forces.
So Buchanan confronted a much different crisis and a much different South. Moreover, had he engaged in sabre rattling in 1859-60 like Jackson, he risked a huge portion of his regular army, especially the officer corps which was top heavy with Southerners, who would have (and in fact later did) resigned rather than obey an order to invade the south.
Buchanan may not have been a great President, but he faced many crises including Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, Harper’s Ferry and the 1860 election. In my estimation, he was better than Grant, Wilson, Clinton, Carter, Obama, LBJ or FDR, to name a few. It is true that he was unable to avert the Civil War, but neither could Lincoln. Buchanan was a Constitutionalist, who believed the essence of governance was restraint. This is probably why liberals revile him.
I refuse to take the liberal bait on Buchanan, becasue it is highly simplistic to say any politician could have averted the Civil War. You have to look at the entire historical context. The seed of secession was planted at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when the Convention deferred the issue of slavery in order to form a Union. It had been germinating for 80 years. The fact that it sprouted on James Buchanan’s watch is not even mostly his fault.