Cathcon's History Paper Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:26:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Cathcon's History Paper Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: Cathcon's History Paper Thread  (Read 24293 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2011, 07:31:01 PM »

At the very least spell the man's name right. L-E-I-P not L-I-E-P.

Weird citation system there though.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2011, 07:33:35 PM »

At the very least spell the man's name right. L-E-I-P not L-I-E-P.

Weird citation system there though.

D'Oh! Stupid "I before E" rule that doesn't actually apply to anything. I guess I should blame myself as well for not taking time to look straight at the name. Oh well, too late now. I handed in the final (?) copy today. I got an 86% on the previous copy, which, for a teacher that almost never hands out above a ninety and gave one of my friends an 85, is good.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2011, 07:39:45 PM »

D'Oh! Stupid "I before E" rule that doesn't actually apply to anything.

I understand that this is especially true of German names.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2011, 07:51:27 PM »

D'Oh! Stupid "I before E" rule that doesn't actually apply to anything.

I understand that this is especially true of German names.

It's German? Out of curiosity, how does one pronounce it? I say it like "leap".
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2011, 07:57:36 PM »

For 2nd quarter, I'e decided to do James Buchanan. I'd like to argue that he's one of our greatest Presidents and held the Union together since I like arguing the unconventional and utterly false side of the argument for entertainment, but that'd be too hard. Any ideas on websites for research or for thesis ideas?
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2011, 08:18:44 PM »

For 2nd quarter, I'e decided to do James Buchanan. I'd like to argue that he's one of our greatest Presidents and held the Union together since I like arguing the unconventional and utterly false side of the argument for entertainment, but that'd be too hard. Any ideas on websites for research or for thesis ideas?

.............yeah....about that.

Good luck.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2011, 11:32:59 AM »

If you want to place Buchanan in a positive light, some ridiculous nonsense about how he let the South secede in peace and that if Lincoln had followed his legacy a peaceable divorce between USA and CSA could've been accomplished?

EDIT:  Again, this is a pretty ridiculous position, but it's more defensible than the one you gave earlier.
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2011, 04:15:44 PM »

D'Oh! Stupid "I before E" rule that doesn't actually apply to anything.

I understand that this is especially true of German names.

It's German? Out of curiosity, how does one pronounce it? I say it like "leap".

'Leip' in German would be pronounced 'Lipe'/'Laip'.  'Liep' would be 'leap', but it's not a real name.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2011, 10:54:25 AM »

If you want to place Buchanan in a positive light, some ridiculous nonsense about how he let the South secede in peace and that if Lincoln had followed his legacy a peaceable divorce between USA and CSA could've been accomplished?

EDIT:  Again, this is a pretty ridiculous position, but it's more defensible than the one you gave earlier.

I'm not really interested in ideology, just what would be most fun to prove. That's an idea.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2011, 11:10:35 AM »

If you want to place Buchanan in a positive light, some ridiculous nonsense about how he let the South secede in peace and that if Lincoln had followed his legacy a peaceable divorce between USA and CSA could've been accomplished?

EDIT:  Again, this is a pretty ridiculous position, but it's more defensible than the one you gave earlier.

I'm not really interested in ideology, just what would be most fun to prove. That's an idea.

If you were able to accomplish that you would be the greatest person ever.

Because seriously, I have no idea how one can argue that Buchanan is the greatest ever.  Yes, I know you don't really think so but I'm perplexed as to how an argument in his favor could be made.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2011, 11:13:26 AM »

If you want to place Buchanan in a positive light, some ridiculous nonsense about how he let the South secede in peace and that if Lincoln had followed his legacy a peaceable divorce between USA and CSA could've been accomplished?

EDIT:  Again, this is a pretty ridiculous position, but it's more defensible than the one you gave earlier.

I'm not really interested in ideology, just what would be most fun to prove. That's an idea.

If you were able to accomplish that you would be the greatest person ever.

Because seriously, I have no idea how one can argue that Buchanan is the greatest ever.  Yes, I know you don't really think so but I'm perplexed as to how an argument in his favor could be made.

I've just always had this like for those "history will vindicate me" types. Only comparison I can see is Nixon, and he's doing a lot better than Buchanan. I suppose when I star researching I might be able to find one thing positive and blow it out of proportion, as well as blame exterior forces. Remember, Lincoln was a wartime President. Buchanan wasn't.

Plus, I wouldn't be aiming for "best ever", I'd hypothetically be aiming for "he held the union together and he's very under-rated and mis-characterized.

I've also come up with a nifty title...
Aunt Nancy:
The James Buchanan Story
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2011, 11:25:30 AM »
« Edited: November 12, 2011, 05:42:16 AM by A Piece of Ass »

If you want to place Buchanan in a positive light, some ridiculous nonsense about how he let the South secede in peace and that if Lincoln had followed his legacy a peaceable divorce between USA and CSA could've been accomplished?

EDIT:  Again, this is a pretty ridiculous position, but it's more defensible than the one you gave earlier.

I'm not really interested in ideology, just what would be most fun to prove. That's an idea.

If you were able to accomplish that you would be the greatest person ever.

Because seriously, I have no idea how one can argue that Buchanan is the greatest ever.  Yes, I know you don't really think so but I'm perplexed as to how an argument in his favor could be made.

I've just always had this like for those "history will vindicate me" types. Only comparison I can see is Nixon, and he's doing a lot better than Buchanan. I suppose when I star researching I might be able to find one thing positive and blow it out of proportion, as well as blame exterior forces. Remember, Lincoln was a wartime President. Buchanan wasn't.

Plus, I wouldn't be aiming for "best ever", I'd hypothetically be aiming for "he held the union together and he's very under-rated and mis-characterized.

I've also come up with a nifty title...
Aunt Nancy:
The James Buchanan Story

You could possibly argue that Buchanan was ahead of his time because the Democratic National Convention of 1856 platform defended Catholics and immigrants in a time when nativism was at a fever pitch.  Unlike that warmonger Lincoln who forced thousands of immigrants to die in a war forced onto the nation by northern WASP industrialists who viewed the low tariff trade views of many Southerners as a threat to their industrial base.

Pretty much you argue that even if the Civil War had happened under Buchanan he wouldn't resort to using the immigrant poors to die in a rich man's war unlike the unethical Lincoln who let rich boys off as long as they had $300 on them.  Also bring up Lincoln's quote about how he could give a toss about slavery to emphasize the whole point about the northern industrial base.  However, don't defend slavery.  That's probably a stupid idea.

Further, it would be a good idea to emphasize the troubles that happened after the Civil War.  Say that if Buchanan's vision had been followed that the US would've be saved an extremely bloody civil war and decades of bitter political strife and extreme racism.  It would also be a great idea to research Buchanan's personal views to see where he stood on political reform to see how that would affect machine voters.  I imagine that without Lincoln immigrant groups (especially the Irish) might be less staunchly Democratic than they were IRL especially if there is no Civil War and no draft.  Perhaps the Republicans might even be more pro-immigrant if the Carl Schulz and John Conness types take over the party to counter the strength the Democrats would have in the South.

In other words, the only way (that I see) Buchanan would look good is if you demonize Lincoln.  Considering how ingrained his FF image is this will not only be difficult, but could make you the most unpopular student in the school.

Possible argument?
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2011, 05:03:30 PM »

If you want to place Buchanan in a positive light, some ridiculous nonsense about how he let the South secede in peace and that if Lincoln had followed his legacy a peaceable divorce between USA and CSA could've been accomplished?

EDIT:  Again, this is a pretty ridiculous position, but it's more defensible than the one you gave earlier.

I'm not really interested in ideology, just what would be most fun to prove. That's an idea.

If you were able to accomplish that you would be the greatest person ever.

Because seriously, I have no idea how one can argue that Buchanan is the greatest ever.  Yes, I know you don't really think so but I'm perplexed as to how an argument in his favor could be made.

I've just always had this like for those "history will vindicate me" types. Only comparison I can see is Nixon, and he's doing a lot better than Buchanan. I suppose when I star researching I might be able to find one thing positive and blow it out of proportion, as well as blame exterior forces. Remember, Lincoln was a wartime President. Buchanan wasn't.

Plus, I wouldn't be aiming for "best ever", I'd hypothetically be aiming for "he held the union together and he's very under-rated and mis-characterized.

I've also come up with a nifty title...
Aunt Nancy:
The James Buchanan Story

You could possibly argue that Buchanan was ahead of his time because the Democratic National Convention of 1856 platform defended Catholics and immigrants in a time when nativism was at a fever pitch.  Unlike that warmonger Lincoln who forced thousands of immigrants to die in a war forced onto the nation by northern WASP industrialists who viewed the low tariff trade views of many Southerners as a threat to their industrial base.

Pretty much you argue that even if the Civil War had happened under Buchanan he wouldn't resort to using the immigrant poors to die in a rich man's war unlike the unethical Lincoln who let rich boys off as long as they had $300 on them.

In other words, the only way (that I see) Buchanan would look good is if you demonize Lincoln.  Considering how ingrained his FF image is this will not only be difficult, but could make you the most unpopular student in the school.

Possible argument?
Very good. Thank you. The people I'd show my paper too, besides of course Miller, know me enough to know I hardly think that way and would crack up reading about the warmonger, racist, corporatist Lincoln.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2011, 07:54:23 PM »

You probably have already heard this, but Buchanan wrote a book defending himself. It's called Mr Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion.

Here's the entire book.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,148
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 11, 2011, 11:02:32 PM »

I wouldn't do that if I were you.  In my experience, High School tend to fail papers that don't agree with the majority viewpoint, whatever the content may be.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 12, 2011, 07:25:11 PM »

I wouldn't do that if I were you.  In my experience, High School tend to fail papers that don't agree with the majority viewpoint, whatever the content may be.

This; when you get to college, it's more the professor's viewpoint than the received social wisdom, and you're likelier to be able to find professors with views that are close to your own, at least once you start specializing, but that done it's just as advisable to toe that line.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2011, 07:32:04 PM »

You probably have already heard this, but Buchanan wrote a book defending himself. It's called Mr Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion.

Here's the entire book.

Thanks. Since my library doesn't have a single book on Jimmy, this will be useful. FYI, note cards are due Tuseday for me so I've been working on going through the books I did get industriously since Saturday morning. Still not sure what my thesis is, but it'll have to be two-sided so I have a counter-argument (we have to mention our counter-argument including citations).
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2011, 08:06:54 PM »

Outline due tonight. I very well may be in the act of unintentionally constructing a defense of slavery.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2011, 09:49:45 PM »

Hope this is readable for y'all. It's basically a copy-and-paste from the Microsoft saved version. Comments are appreciated.



I.   Introduction: Lincoln’s Inauguration as Buchanan steps down following four stormy years as President.
II.   Background: Buchanan’s rise to political prominence and eventual election to the Presidency.
III.   Counterargument
A.   Buchanan created or promoted many of the circumstances leading to secession.
B.   “…and Buchanan, secretly alerted by pro-slavery Justice James Catron, pressed [Justice] Grier to side with the pro-slavery majority. Well before inauguration day, Buchanan was fully apprised of how the Court would rule, and in his address he disingenuously undertook a campaign to get the nation to accept it.” (Wilentz, 708)
IV.   Thesis: President James Buchanan was largely a victim of circumstance when it came to handling the issues of slavery and sectionalism throughout his term as President.
V.   Support I: Buchanan was a Constitutionalist, as opposed to the anti-slavery movement which was positioned against the Constitution and against the Supreme Court.
A.   The Constitution recognized slavery as legal. Every successful act of Congress up to that point had, on the issue of slavery, favored its preservation. Buchanan, in using the Law and the Constitution as his aide, was pitted against the abolitionists.
B.   “That the Constitution does not confer upon Congress power to interfere with slavery in the states, has been admitted by all parties and confirmed by all judicial decisions ever since the origin of the Federal Government. This doctrine was emphatically recognized in the House of Representatives in the days of Washington, during the first session of Congress, and has never since been seriously called into question.” (Buchanan, 9)
VI.   Support II: Circumstances concerning the expansion of slavery had already existed when Buchanan took office.
A.   The situation in Kansas, known as “Bleeding Kansas”, had existed since 1854. The problem had originated under Pierce. As well, the Dred Scott decision which was one of the biggest agitators between the North and the South was made by the Supreme Court, a body the President had no control over, days into Buchanan’s first term. While Buchanan had an unofficial hand in it, he likely did not decide the ruling, nor did he wish it to have the divisive effect on the nation that it did.
B.   “Buchanan’s prediction that [Dred Scott] would at last settle the sectional battle proved just as hapless as Millard Fillmore’s similar prediction about the truce of 1850…. But instead of commanding respect, the Dred Scott decision thoroughly discredited the Taney Court among Republicans and persuaded them more than ever that the dictatorial Slave Power needed to be eradicated.” (Wilentz, 708)
VII.   Support III: Secession by the South was in response to Lincoln, not to Buchanan.
A.   Secession had only gone into action following Lincoln’s election. It was Lincoln’s reputation as an abolitionist that prompted leaving the union.
B.   ““Resistance to Lincoln is Obedience to God” flared a banner at an Alabama mass meeting… Against Southern advice that South Carolina wait till President Buchanan’s term ended, Robert Barnwell Rhett and his forces had manipulated the precise dramatic act of secession.” (Sandburg, 187)
VIII.   Conclusion
A.   Despite his faults, Buchanan’s failures as President were largely the result of bad circumstances.
B.   “In conclusion, it may be permitted to me to remark that I have often warned my countrymen of the dangers which now surround us. This may be the last time I shall refer to the subject officially. I feel has been faithfully, though it may be imperfectly; and whatever the result may be, I shall carry to my grave the consciousness that I at least meant well for my country.” (Buchanan, 295-296)
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2011, 02:05:06 PM »

In case anyone's reading, I have begun work on the paper. After my teacher found out that he had made the rough draft due on a day we weren't even in school, we were told that the due date had been changed to Tuesday after getting out of school on Friday. Heck, I'll bet some people who got right out of there might not even find out. Christ, what an ass. Anyway, with two concerts to do on Sunday and Monday, I've gotta start working now.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: December 10, 2011, 04:22:19 PM »

Are you using the book I linked?
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 10, 2011, 05:08:20 PM »


Yup!
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 11, 2011, 01:49:39 PM »

Ten Cent Jimmy on the Eve of Rebellion
Also known as "Miss Nancy: the Jimmy Buchanan Story", given the official title is still up in the air

   “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Were the words coming from Abraham Lincoln as he went from former Congressman and failed Senate candidate to the sixteenth President of the United States of America on that gloomy and cloudy March 4th, 1861. Earlier that day, outgoing President Buchanan had ridden by open carriage with two Senators to Willard’s Hotel where Lincoln was staying and where the procession to the inauguration would begin for the President-elect. Buchanan, stepping out of his carriage, returned arm-in-arm with his soon-to-be successor. Proceeding down Pennsylvania Avenue and up to the outdoor platform, the nation waited to see its new President take the Oath of Office. With Chief Justice Taney, of all people, giving Lincoln the official Oath of Office, the deed was done and Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth President of the United States. (Sandburg, 211) His predecessor, James Buchanan, had presided over four stormy years that would climax in the secession of the South following Election Day, 1860.

   Buchanan’s rise in politics was a long one. Entering politics in the 1810’s and winning election to the U.S. House of Representatives (Our Campaigns), Buchanan’s career consisted of winning five campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, and winning three campaigns for U.S. Senate. As well, he had great experience as a diplomat, serving as Andrew Jackson’s Minister to Russia, Polk’s Secretary of State, and Pierce’s Ambassador to Great Britain. (Wilentz, 699) Buchanan’s tenure as Secretary of State, beginning in 1845, included the acquisition of Texas (Wilentz, 611), considered one of President Polk’s greatest accomplishments. By the time 1856, Buchanan’s year, had rolled around, his name had already been put forward for President three times and three time had proven unsuccessful in winning the nomination. In 1844, the soft-money Democrat from Pennsylvania, then but a Senator, had his name put forward. (Wilentz, 532, 569-570) One of the top contenders in 1848, and the candidate of the South in 1852, Buchanan, after battling incumbent President Pierce and Senator Stephen Douglas for the nomination, was nominated on the seventeenth ballot at the 1856 Democratic National Convention. (Wilentz, 616, 662, 699) Popular in his home state of Pennsylvania, acceptable to the South (Wilentz, 699), and having the good fortune of being in Europe while the debate over slavery raged, Buchanan made a good compromise candidate. Leaving the convention, it was hoped that his diplomatic experience could help heal the deepening divisions in America. (Bennet, 291) Facing the Republican nominee John C. Fremont of California and Know-Nothing (also known as the American Party: Graebner, 385) nominee former President Millard Fillmore (Sandburg, 130-131). Despite a three-way race, Buchanan won the election. While different sources list different amounts of the popular vote for each candidate, the electoral vote is un-debated. Buchanan, the victor, finished with 174 electoral votes, Fremont with 114 electoral votes, and Fillmore with 8 electoral votes. (Sandburg, 132) Despite hopes that Buchanan might heal the nation, things would turn out far differently than anyone expected.

   There were many reasons for Buchanan, to not run for re-election. He had previously pledged to serve only one term and in September of 1859, he kept that promise, announcing so. (Wilentz, 755) Much of the blame for the events of his Presidency tends to fall on Buchanan’s shoulders. From the Supreme Court case Dred Scott vs. John F.A. Sandford to “Bleeding Kansas”, historians point at Buchanan’s failures at handling the situation. A quite large example would be, going back to Dred Scott, Buchanan’s role in the outcome. The case centered on a slave, Dred Scott, a slave who hoped to be freed because his owner, by then dead, had taken him and his family to the free state of Illinois. Winding its way up from the lower Courts, Buchanan along with many other Democrats, saw it as an opportunity to settle the slavery question once and for all. (Bennett, 203) Buchanan, given his pro-slavery leanings, leanings he believed were rooted in the Constitution (Buchanan, iii), sought to swing as many justices as possible towards what became the pro-slavery majority. Writing, and improperly so, to Justices, he attempted to manipulate the ruling. Knowing the ruling before it was to be passed, in his inaugural address on March 4th, he called for the nation to rally behind the impending decision for the sake of party unity. (Bennett, 293) “…and Buchanan, secretly alerted by pro-slavery Justice James Catron, pressed [Justice] Grier to side the the pro-slavery majority. Well before inauguration day, Buchanan was fully apprised of how the Court would rule, and in his address he disingenuously undertook a campaign to get the nation to accept it.” (Wilentz, 708) However, this view does not take into account the fact that Buchanan did not appoint a single one of those justices. The Decision was decided two days following his inauguration. The decision itself was fifty-five pages long, hardly something to be drawn up during Buchanan’s two-day tenure as President. Every single Justice on that Supreme Court had been appointed by his predecessors and would likely have made the same decision without Buchanan’s attempts at manipulation. The decision in question, read by Chief Justice Taney, stated that Dred Scott was not and could not become an American citizen because of his race, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it interfered with property such as slaves, and that, in the words of Taney, Dred Scott was “so inferior [that he] had no rights which the white man is bound to respect”. Despite Southerners, it was simply another, large, step in the continued division of the nation, galvanizing anti-slavery attitudes in the North. (Bennett, 193-294) Historians love to cast Buchanan as the villain of the pre-Civil War period despite the fact that Buchanan’s goals were national unity and he could have in no way predicted how the decision would be taken.

   While historians look upon him negatively, receiving bad marks from people such as Carl Sandburg, Sean Wilentz, and William J. Bennett, that is a distortion. James Buchanan was largely a victim of circumstance and of regionalism that had become ingrained in America long before Mr. Buchanan took office. With the state America was in by 1857, it would take a very skilled politician, probably too great to ask among the current lot of politicians, to heal the divisions in America. The fact that Buchanan was not one is now fault of his own. (Weinsten, 260)

   The circumstances of the differences between North and South, the issues of slavery, and the events that were to blow up in Buchanan’s face over the course of his Presidency, were not of his creation. The situation of “Bleeding Kansas” had existed since 1854, over two years before Buchanan was to take office. Proposed by Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, a man who would prove himself an opponent of both Lincoln and Buchanan as time went on, it allowed states to vote on whether slavery would be legal or illegal in their state. Signed by President Pierce, himself a “dough face”, or a Northern who shared Southern sympathies, it would cause one of the great controversies of the decade preceding the Civil War. “…it did not bring an end to the conflict over slavery. In fact, it inflamed it. “Border Ruffians” from Missouri swept across the border and brought violence to the prairie. Antislavery elements throughout the North urged their followers to strengthen the Free Soil factions in Kansas. Abolitionist preacher Henry Ward Beecher (Harriet Beecher Stowe’s brother) encouraged resistance b force. Packing crates of “Beecher’s Bibles”—rifles, actually—turned up in the territory that newspaperman Horace Greeley had labeled “Bleeding Kansas”.” (Bennett, 288-290) The crisis over Kansas did not start in Buchanan’s Presidency, it only continued. Perpetuated by abolitionists and fierce believers in slavery, there was little Buchanan could do.

   
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 11, 2011, 01:50:02 PM »

What is important in remembering when examining Buchanan’s Presidency is his belief in the Constitution and that it should provide significant backing for whatever the major public policy was at the time. Stating in his auto-biography “That the Constitution does not confer upon Congress power to interfere with slavery in the states, had been admitted by all parties and confirmed by all judicial decisions ever since the origin of the Federal Government. This doctrine was emphatically recognized in the House of Representatives in the days of Washington, during the first session of Congress, and has never seriously been called into question. Hence, it became necessary for the abolitionists, in order to furnish a pretext for their assault against Southern slavery, to appeal to a law higher than the Constitution.” Buchanan goes on to point out how slavery had in fact become a domestic institution, and one controlled by the States, and how the abolitionists sought to inter-mingle religion and politics in order to accomplish their goals which were in fact not backed by the Constitution. “It was sinful to live in a political confederacy which tolerated slavery in any of the states composing it; and if this could not be eradicated, it would become a sacred duty for the free states to separate themselves from their guilty associates… The anti-slavery part in its career never stopped to reflect that slavery was a domestic institution, exclusively under the control of the sovereign States where it existed; and therefore, if sinful in itself, it was certainly not the sin of the people of New England.” (Buchanan, 9, 10) Buchanan has laid out his entire argument for the Constitutionality of his beliefs and how his opponents and critics were themselves against the Law of the Land. In this buildup throughout the first chapter of Buchanan’s auto-biography, it is obvious where Buchanan will soon be taking his argument. One of the greatest criticisms of his Presidency is how, upon the outbreak of secession, he declared that the secession was illegal, and yet at the same time, the Federal Government had no right to enforce the law against such illegalities. Claiming specifically that he had “no authority to decide what shall be the relation between the Federal Government and South Carolina”. (Britannica Online) One issue that will not often come up is that despite claiming he had no right to intervene in secession, he did declare that the Federal Government could target individuals in response to the secession. As well, he defended Lincoln against the outcry of secession streaming from the South, announcing “The election of any one of our citizens to the office of President does not itself afford just cause for the dis-solving of the union.” (Sandburg, 189) This leads into another argument, the argument of why the South seceded.

   Over the Alabama mass meeting, the banner flared “Resistance to Lincoln is Obedience to God”. Such were the views down South following the 1860 election which had resulted in the victory of Abraham Lincoln of the abolitionist Republican Party. “Against Southern that South Carolina wait till President Buchanan’s term ended, Robert Barnwell Rhett and his forces had manipulated the precise dramatic event of secession.” Rhett, a Congressman and Senator, and a devout secessionist, had very clearly staked the secession against the perceived enemy of the South, Abraham Lincoln. (Sandburg, 187) Buchanan is often blamed for the circumstances to pit North against South. That is very simply not true. The Compromise of 1850 had occurred under Fillmore (Wilentz, 708), the Kansas-Nebraska Act had been passed under Pierce (Bennet, 288), and the Dred Scott decision had been decided only two days into Buchanan’s term (Bennett, 293). Buchanan had the backing of the South as a Presidential candidate (WIlentz, 662, 669) and in the controversy over Bleeding Kansas (Sandburg, 136). The South had no reason to secede under Buchanan. They did, however, have reason to secede under Lincoln.

   Despite his faults, President James Buchanan was largely a victim of circumstance. Ending his auto-biography Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of Rebellion, Buchanan would state, rather sincerely “In conclusion, it may be permitted to me to remark that I have often warned my countrymen of the dangers that now surround us. This may be the last time I shall refer to the subject officially. I feel that my duty has been faithfully, though it may be imperfectly, performed; and whatever the result may be, I shall carry to my grave the consciousness that I at least meant well for my country.” (Buchanan, 295-296)

Works Cited

1.   Bennet, William J. America: The Last, Best, Hope. United States of America:    Nelson Current, 2006. Print.
2.   Buchanan, James. Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of Rebellion. United    States of America: D. Appleton & Company, 1865. Print.
3.   “Buchanan, James”. ourcampagins.com. Our Campaigns. n.d. Webb. 11/18/09.
4.   Graebner, Norman A. A History of the American People, United States of    America: McGraw Hill, 1975. Print.
5.   “James Buchanan”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.    Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2011.
6.   Sandburg, Carl. Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years. United    States of America: Harcourt, Brace, & Co, 1993. Print.
7.   Weinstein, Allen, and David Rubel. The Story of America: Freedom and Crisis    from Settlement to Superpower. United States of America: DK Publishing    Inc., 2002. Print.
8.   Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. United    States of America: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2011, 03:08:26 PM »

Give the city, not the country, for publication.  And don't number your sources.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 12 queries.