An Objective and Factually Accurate Assesment of 45's Presidential Administration

[Madner Kami]

Buchanan is constantly judged with hindsight. People make it too easy for themselves when they flat out condemn him.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Buchanan is constantly judged with hindsight. People make it too easy for themselves when they flat out condemn him.

What specifically are you referring to that'd condemned on his part?

edit: Well I googled it.

https://www.history.com/news/why-is-jam ... presidents

From history.com, it says he was pretty pacifist in allowing states to get away with slavery. So that is pretty contemptible, but I'm not sure how that distinguishes him from other presidents before that did nothing about slave-ridden states.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It's widely understood that the guy who used Congress to elicit the trail of tears is the worst president in history.

Bold of you to think the majority of the USA, right here and right now, thinks Genocide is a Bad Thing.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Andrew Jackson. Or possibly George Bush. He turned a surplus into a recession.

...fair enough

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's widely understood that the guy who used Congress to elicit the trail of tears is the worst president in history.

Bold of you to think the majority of the USA, right here and right now, thinks Genocide is a Bad Thing.

Well it's neither a very easy bet nor a very improbable one.

[Yukaphile]

Yeah, even my Libertarian friend on Discord mocks turning a surplus into a recession. Until he somehow thinks Trump gave us an equal surplus. Seriously, you can't make this shit up.

[Madner Kami]

Buchanan is constantly judged with hindsight. People make it too easy for themselves when they flat out condemn him.

What specifically are you referring to that'd condemned on his part?

edit: Well I googled it.

https://www.history.com/news/why-is-jam ... presidents

From history.com, it says he was pretty pacifist in allowing states to get away with slavery. So that is pretty contemptible, but I'm not sure how that distinguishes him from other presidents before that did nothing about slave-ridden states.

I don't quite catch your drift there, getting the impression that you misread me. To my knowledge and as you googled yourself, Buchanan didn't oppose the South on the issue of slavery, because he wanted to maintain the Union as his primary goal. He was aware and correct in the assessment, that confronting the slavery-states over their slavery would lead to the dissolution of the Union and quite likely a civil war. He did not want that to happen and indeed, history would proof him right, though in the end, all he achieved was buying time.

Also, he highly regarded the freedom of the individual states of the Union to make their own laws and policies and the Dred Scott case gave him a clear direction and context in that regard, just days after him becoming the President. And I find it hard to argue that a President who puts the freedom of the member-states of the Union over the power of the Union, is a bad President because of this.

If you put both onto one side of a scale and put abolishment of slavery onto the other side of the scale, then Buchanan saw the scale weighting towards the former, while Lincoln pushed the later pan as far down as he could. People call out Buchanan for making these choices and argue that he was a bad President for that choice, but having the choice of preserving the status quo (and the right of the people to make their own choices) or pushing for a civil war (in order to give people a right to make their own choices), is not a choice that can be done right. It's always the wrong choice you'll make att he time being and only history will tell whether you gambled correctly. People praise Lincoln for marching 620,000 people into their death, because Lincoln ultimately won the gamble despite a very bad starting position. People condemn Buchanan for not wanting to risk that highly unpredictable gamble.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Buchanan is constantly judged with hindsight. People make it too easy for themselves when they flat out condemn him.

What specifically are you referring to that'd condemned on his part?

edit: Well I googled it.

https://www.history.com/news/why-is-jam ... presidents

From history.com, it says he was pretty pacifist in allowing states to get away with slavery. So that is pretty contemptible, but I'm not sure how that distinguishes him from other presidents before that did nothing about slave-ridden states.

I don't quite catch your drift there, getting the impression that you misread me. To my knowledge and as you googled yourself, Buchanan didn't oppose the South on the issue of slavery, because he wanted to maintain the Union as his primary goal. He was aware and correct in the assessment, that confronting the slavery-states over their slavery would lead to the dissolution of the Union and quite likely a civil war. He did not want that to happen and indeed, history would proof him right, though in the end, all he achieved was buying time.

Also, he highly regarded the freedom of the individual states of the Union to make their own laws and policies and the Dred Scott case gave him a clear direction and context in that regard, just days after him becoming the President. And I find it hard to argue that a President who puts the freedom of the member-states of the Union over the power of the Union, is a bad President because of this.

If you put both onto one side of a scale and put abolishment of slavery onto the other side of the scale, then Buchanan saw the scale weighting towards the former, while Lincoln pushed the later pan as far down as he could. People call out Buchanan for making these choices and argue that he was a bad President for that choice, but having the choice of preserving the status quo (and the right of the people to make their own choices) or pushing for a civil war (in order to give people a right to make their own choices), is not a choice that can be done right. It's always the wrong choice you'll make att he time being and only history will tell whether you gambled correctly. People praise Lincoln for marching 620,000 people into their death, because Lincoln ultimately won the gamble despite a very bad starting position. People condemn Buchanan for not wanting to risk that highly unpredictable gamble.

No drift. Was just curious about your take on it.