Cathcon's History Paper Thread

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In AP History class, We have to do a paper on anything from Columbus to 1800. My teacher (we'll call him Harry Miller from now  on) kept pushing the 1800 election. I liked elections, but when I went to sign up for it, it had been taken. Therefore, I just went back four years and chose the 1796 election. Not sure what I'll use this thread for, but this is the placeholder for interesting facts I find, discussion, and maybe asking for possible sources.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Whoa! Just discovered that apparently Maine was once part of Massachusetts.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Okay, does anybody know how to cite this place? I'm planning on using this as my site of reference for the election results, found here. There're a couple of categories on the citing guide that I'm not sure how to fill.

The guide:
Editor, Author, or Compiler name (if available). Name of site.
Version number. Name of institution/organization affiliated with this site (sponsor or publisher), date of resource creation (if available). Medium of Publication. Date of Access.

What I have so far is:
Editor: Dave Liep
Name of Site: Dave Liep's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
Version Number: _____________
Name of institution: _________________________
Date of Resource Creation: October 22nd, 2000
Medium of Publication: Web
Date of Access: September 18th, 2011

Anyone know how to fill in the two empty spaces?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I don't think everything needs to be filled in, if nothing is available for it.

Yeah I just ended up skipping over those two.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

My teacher told me the day the notecards were due that we needed a thesis with them. I hadn't yet prepared a thesis as I felt I didn't really know enough. Looking through my notecards quickly, I came up with one on the fly, basically stating "The 1796 Election would not have happened as we know it without the teams of John and Abigail Adams, and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison", meaning that without Abigail and Madison, we wouldn't have the same election that we have today. Tomorrow, my outline is due. I didn't find out about it until about an hour ago, so this, in case anyone on this forum cares, is my outline. I'm only putting it up because I actually typed it on this forum due to Microsoft Word's stupid auto-formatting messing me up.


I. Introductory Paragraph
     A. Vague History of the Adams-Jefferson Team
     B. The two new teams
II. The Adams Team and the Candidacy of John Adams
     A. Personal History of the two
          1. John Adams
          2. Abigail Adams
          3. Meeting and Marriage
     B. The Revolution (1765-1777)
          1. Build up to Revolution
               a) The Stamp Act
               b) The Boston Massacre
          2. Actions at the Continental Congress (1774-1777)
               a) Meeting Jefferson and impression
      C. The Revolution, Diplomat, and Politician (1777-1789)
          1. Ambassador to France and to the Netherlands (1782-1788)
          2. The 1789 Election
               a) Results
     D. The Vice-Presidency and Preparation for 1796
          1. Results and Adams' side of the story
III. The Jefferson Team and the Candidacy of Thomas Jefferson
     A. History of Jefferson up to and including the Revolution
          1. Early Life
          2. Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, and Revolution
               a) Second Continental Congress (1775-1776)
                    i. Meeting Adams
                    ii. The Declaration
               a) State Legislator and Governor of Virginia (1776-1781)
                    i. Meeting Madison, history of Madison
               b) Short History of Madison
     D. Further Political Life (1781-196)
          1. Delegate to the Congress of the Confederation of Virginia (1783-1784)
          2. Ambassador to France (1785-1789)
          3. Secretary of State
               a) 1792 Election
          4. The Jefferson Campaign and the work of Madison
               a) The mentality of Jefferson
IV. Summary of the Election
     A. The Waiting
          1. The Adams Home
               a) Abigail consoling Adams
          2. Jefferson's deniability
          3. Rumors begin to float
          4. The final results
V. Conclusion Paragraph
     A. Referring to specific examples in preceding text
     B. The effects on history
     C. Closing Statement

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Seems good; if perhaps a bit much.

I have no idea how much he wants it detailed (I left the only paper he gave us on it at school as I assumed we had no homework), so I just went with what I had and tried to do as good as I could on the fly.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The idea that John and Abigail Adams had an analogous relationship to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is certainly one that will raise eyebrows. 

It may... it may.

I recommend writing it from a Marxist or Post-Structuralist position. Just to see the reaction.

I actually have a friend who got one of his sources from marxist.com

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I actually have a friend who got one of his sources from marxist.com

Er... wow. Trottery.

Actually no. He just happened to find information on marxist.com or something like that. From what I know, he's a Republican.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Two. More. Paragraphs. And I'm done with the rough draft. If only I can keep my motivation and train of thought for the next half-hour.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It would be very interesting if perhaps you could post the resulting paper in this thread.

Okay then. I have no idea how good it is in others' eyes as my teacher just checked for length on the rough draft, but it should be up shortly.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

NOTE: The outline posted here is not the one I ended up handing in. It turns out my teacher has some sort of format that seems to defy common sense, so I'm posting the counter-argument even before my thesis. On the counter-argument, that alone is bullsh**t as I had to practically fabricate one. Without further ado, here goes.


Christopher Clark
Mr. Miller
A. P. United States History
October 7th, 2011

John, Abigail, Thomas, James, and the 1796 Election
[Yeah, it's a gay stupid title, I know. I try to go beyond just having "the 1796 Election", and I doubt one of my more smart-ass-esque titles would've helped me]

   On September 17th, 1796, the signal for the 1796 Presidential race to start was dropped from on high as newspapers carried President George Washington’s farewell address and he bowed out of the race for President. This left two men, formerly friends, Vice-President John Adams and former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, the leading candidates for the Presidency (McCullough, 462). The two had a long history, tracing back to 1775 when both were delegates to the Continental Congress. Adams and many other delegates had heard of Jefferson’s reputation even before he had arrived and there was much talk about the young Virginian who had become known as an advocate of colonial rights. While Jefferson remained mostly silent in Congress, his decisiveness and leadership soon gained him the favor of Adams who had been impressed by what he saw  (Cunningham, 36-37). This friendship would continue up to and past Jefferson’s drafting of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Cunningham, 46-47). However, the friendship would not continue eternally. It would be broken up over disagreements as to the role of government, each man’s opinion of Thomas Payne (Cunningham, 167-168), the French Revolution (McCullough, 437-438, 443-444,), philosophy (McCullough, 450), and the politics of the day. Ellis writes of Jefferson’s support of the French Revolution, something Adams saw as having nothing to do with the American Revolution, as the last straw in the already strained Adams-Jefferson relationship (170). With those many conflicts came the forging of two rival teams that would, come 1796 and later 1800, square off.
   John and Abigail Adams had been married since 1764. Throughout the writings of David McCullough, the private thoughts of John Adams are most revealed through his correspondence with his wife Abigail. With issues ranging from the various elections (458), to Jefferson and the French Revolution (442-443), to Adams’ own inner, troubled emotions (464). Come the 1796 election, John Adams would be less of a candidate, and more half of a team as it was he and his wife, Abigail, who worked and strove for the Presidency. On the other side were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Meeting in the Virginia Assembly in 1775, Jefferson soon gained an ally in his beliefs in freedom and equality (Cunningham, 55). This pair, while not nearly as magical or dynamic as the Adams-Jefferson team had been during the days of the Revolution, found its strength in seamless efficiency and effectiveness (Ellis, 172), and would in fact go on to create one of the nation’s first, and in time most powerful, political parties (Cunningham, 172).
   The seeds of political parties would come about following the end of the First Congress in 1791. With groups aligning in support of Hamilton—and strangely enough, not in support of Washington, Washington was not a party man—and groups aligning in opposition to Hamilton and more in support of Jeffersonian ideals, the stage would soon be set for a two-party system with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison leading the opposition, referred to by many sources as the Republicans, the modern discussion counts them as the Democratic-Republicans (Cunningham, 171-174). While it was true that “from 1794 to 1979, Thomas Jefferson operated as the informal leader of what would become the nation’s first opposition political party, the Democratic-Republicans”, and it is true “Jefferson allowed his name to be nominated by a caucus of Democratic-Republican leaders who were against John Adams’s run for the presidency” (Miller Center), the workings of James Madison go unaccounted for. The same is to be said for the McCullough’s statement “Adams and Jefferson were the leading candidates in what was the first presidential election with two parties in opposition”.  While McCullough will give Abigail her credit, that statement alone does not do enough to explain the two rival teams—not merely the two rival candidates—of the 1796 election.
   In all truth, the 1796 election was not to be fought by two candidates, but by two teams as the presence of Abigail Adams and James Madison in the election proved just as important as the presence of the candidates themselves. Were it not for Abigail and Madison, the 1796 election could have and maybe would have been entirely different from the election recorded in this world’s history books.
   “Adams’ partner in the dance was Abigail, whose political instincts rivaled Madison’s legendary skills and whose knowledge of her husband’s emotional makeup surpassed all competitors. She had always been his ultimate confidante, the person he could trust with his self-doubts, vanities, and overflowing opinions.” Such words, coming from page 174 of Joseph B Ellis’s “Founding Brothers” seem to contain all that is needed to say about the role Abigail would play in both the 1796 election as well as the political life of John Adams. Come the year 1796 and the gearing up of the partisan newspaper machines in preparation for the match to take place between the perceived front-runners Jefferson and Adams, Adams would quickly turn to his wife, begging of her support in the election. At last receiving her support, the Adams team would move into high gear, setting up electoral counts estimating Adams’ chances (Ellis, 176-177). From the beginning of his candidacy, the beginning of the Fourth Congress starting in March, 1795, Adams would be confiding in Abigail as he had for many years and as he would for many years (McCullough, 458).
   

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

NOTE: One of the requirements at the end of that paper was a "killer quote". Fact is, there is no quote that someone said that somehow matches exactly what I'm trying to say, and none that I found in my research. So if you find some odd Abigail Adams quote at the bottom, know why it's there.



Across the aisle, Madison scurried about in Virginia, preparing the way for Jefferson. Despite the claims, true as they may be that Jefferson allowed himself to be nominated by the Democratic-Republicans (Miller Center), that fails utterly to describe the composition of what would become the Jefferson candidacy, headed mainly by James Madison (Ellis, 173). Since his resignation as Secretary of State on December 31st, 1793 (Cunningham, 194), Jefferson seemed determined to keep out of politics. Resigning himself to Monticello and focusing on such things as crop rotation and expanding Monticello to designs he had seen in France, Jefferson’s only political contact with the outside world was through Madison. Jefferson’s mentality is a subject of particular interest. He seemed to be politically ambitious yet to deny his political ambitions to even himself, instead choosing to ignore politics altogether even as part of his mind churned away at political news and events (Ellis, 171-173). This is why the role of Madison is so crucial, even more crucial than the role that Abigail played as Adams’ advisor, confidant, and friend. Cunningham himself proposes that Madison went to work crafting the Jefferson campaign without even Jefferson’s consent, though it is believed Jefferson knew of what was going on in the world around him (200). Without Madison, there very well may have been no Jefferson candidacy and given the affect Jefferson had on American politics, this crucial detail is one that had a very profound and significant affect on American politics to this day.
   As results trickled in throughout November, December, and into the next year, Adams remained high strung. Treasury Secretary and political manipulator Alexander Hamilton, an enemy of both Jefferson and Adams despite sharing party identification with Adams, had been pushing Federalist electors to support Federalist Vice-Presidential candidate Thomas Pinckney over Adams. “For a while, when it appeared that Pinckney might win and Adams come in second, the Sage of Quincy exploded”. When he had set out on his mission for the Presidency earlier that year, he had viewed the Presidency as his right. “Why else had he been willing to languish in the shadow of the vice presidency for those godforsaken years if not to use it as a stepping-stone to the prize itself?” Adams feared, to the point of irrationality, the possibility of a tie in the electoral vote, or possibly a loss, saying that he would resign the Vice-President should he come in second place (Ellis, 176-178). With Abigail only able to comfort him through correspondence, he at first claimed, “Fear takes no hold of me”. However, this was not to last as he soon fell into yet another bout of depression, writing on December 7th, 1796, the he could pronounce Thomas Jefferson to be the next President of the United States, “But here alone abed, by my fireside, nobody to speak to, pouring upon my disgrace and future prospects—this is ugly.” (McCullough, 464) At Monticello, Jefferson would be relayed information by his trusted lieutenant Madison (Ellis, 178) and would take up correspondence with him (Cunningham, 203). While publicly he would still deny his candidacy for President, by the time the election was taking place he was well aware (Ellis, 178). In the end, with 13 candidates receiving electoral votes (Liep) and Adams having gained back confidence with the news that he would soon win (McCullough, 464), Adams would scrape by with 71 electoral votes to Jefferson’s 68 (Ellis, 178), one over the needed amount for a majority (Liep), and a three vote difference that Jefferson had in fact predicted two months before it became official (Ellis, 178). And all throughout the harrowing election, filled with the possibilities of either a Pinckney or a Jefferson victory, Abigail stood steadfastly by Adams whether in person or in correspondence and Madison remained Jefferson’s informant and political organizer.
   The 1796 election was more than merely a contest between two men. It was only thanks to the work of them as well as their partners in their endeavors—Adams with his loyal spouse Abigail and Jefferson with his lieutenant and political ally Madison—that the election happened as it did. John Adams would serve as President of the United States from March 4th, 1797 to March 4th, 1781, to be defeated by Jefferson four years later in an 1800 rematch (Moore, 21, 27). Perhaps the best words are those of Abigail to Adams following Adams’ eventual victory. “The cold has been more severe than I can ever before recollect. It has frozen the ink in my pen, and chilled the blood in my veins, but not the warmth of my affection for him for whom my heart beats in the still calm of Peacefield, and the turbulent scenes in which he is about to engage.”
 
Appendix: The Final Results
From Dave Liep’s Atlas of U. S. Presidential Elections:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
 
-Vice-President John Adams (Federalist-Massachusetts) 71 electoral votes
-Former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican-Virginia) 68 electoral votes
-Ambassador to the United Kingdom Thomas Pinckney (Federalist-South Carolina) 59 electoral votes
-Senator Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican-New York) 30 electoral votes
-Governor Samuel Adams (Democratic-Republican-Massachusetts) 15 electoral votes
-Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth (Federalist-Connecticut) 11 electoral votes
-Former Governor George Clinton (Democratic-Republican-New York) 7 electoral votes
-Former Chief Justice John Jay (Federalist-New York) 5 electoral votes
-Chief Justice James Iredell (Federalist-North Carolina) 3 electoral votes
-Former Governor Samuel Johnson (Federalist-North Carolina) 2 electoral votes
-President George Washington (Federalist-Virginia) 2 electoral votes
-Senator John Henry (Democratic-Republican-Maryland) 2 electoral votes
-Minister to France Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Federalist-South Carolina) 1 electoral vote
 
Works Cited
1.   Moore, Kathryn. The American President. United States: Barnes & Nobles Inc.    2007.Print.
2.   Dave Liep. Dave Liep’s Atlas of U. S. Presidential Elections. 10/22/2010. Web.    9/18/11
3.   McCullough, David. John Adams. United States: Simon & Schuster, 2001. Print.
4.   Cunningham Jr., Noble. The Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson.    United States: Louisiana State University Press, 1988. Print.
5.   Ellis, Joseph. Founding Brother: The Revolution Generation. United States:    Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. Print.
6.   millercenter.org. Miller Center, University of Virginia, 2011. Web. October 4th,    2011.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Also, for those of you interested in what I consider a better paper, here is my 10th grade English paper on policy during the Cold War. It's a much more partisan paper and many of you may find it to merely be the ramblings of some uneducated anti-communist kid in Michigan. I admittedly barely touched on the eighties at all in it, but I remain proud of it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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".

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Outline due tonight. I very well may be in the act of unintentionally constructing a defense of slavery.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Are you using the book I linked?

Yup!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.