Dez Prez Rankings: #'s 39-38

#39 out of 39:
James Buchanan
Term: 1857-61
Party: Democrat

Times of crisis demand great leaders. James Buchanan was not a great leader. Perhaps in more normal times, he could have skated through as a mediocre president that everyone forgets about. But his were not normal times. He presided over the disintegration of the Union with remarkable incompetence and impotence. Could Buchanan (or anyone?) have prevented the Civil War at this point? Probably not. The Civil War was not his fault. Go as far back as the Founding Fathers, and men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were privately predicting that the slavery issue (an issue which most of Buchanan’s predecessors, including Jefferson and Madison, tried to avoid and kick down the road for successors to deal with) would eventually lead to a violent resolution one way or the other. But Buchanan could have tried something. Anything. Even if it was the wrong course of action. Things were falling apart anyway, so what would he have to lose to try and exercise some decisive leadership?

Instead James Buchanan took the remarkable position that it was unconstitutional for the states to secede from the Union, but that he did not have authority under the Constitution to prevent them from leaving. Wait a minute. See if you can follow me on this, James: if something is unconstitutional, and you are the Chief Executive whose primary function is to execute the laws of the land (The Constitution being the highest law of the land), why don’t you have the authority to act again? Anyway, that was his position. So…uh…oh well. It was fun while it lasted, my Southern belle.


ABOVE: Not that this would effect his rating, but Buchanan was the only president to remain a bachelor throughout his term. It is rumoured, but not confirmed, that he was a homosexual.

Pros:
• Being the Imperialist that I am, I appreciate that Buchanan pushed for annexing Cuba by force from Spain (where is the Constitutional authority for that one?) It would be kind of cool to have Cuba as a state, and I think we could have done it had we acted early enough.

Cons:
• At a time when the sectional factions in this country were never more divided (North/South, North/South/West free soilers, abolitionist/slaveholder), Buchanan seeks no sectional balance in his own administration. He adheres to a pro-Southern viewpoint.
• Buchanan publicly blames the entire secession crisis on the abolition movement (a position he maintained until his death).
• Buchanan improperly intervened (remember Separation of Powers?) in the notorious Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, actively pushing justices from the North to provide votes in favor of the pro-slavery position, thereby in a sense, pushing to re-nationalize slavery as a legal institution.
• Buchanan split his party into two factions primarily due to his personal animosity towards Stephen Douglas (a benefit from this split was the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, though).
• Buchanan was wishy-washy when he should have been firm. He clearly had a pro-Southern outlook. OK, Fine. He emboldens the South because they think they have a friend in the White House, but then he pisses them off when he refuses to give up Fort Sumter. He therefore drops the powder keg that ignites the Civil War in Lincoln’s lap.
• Buchanan stands by impotently as seven states secede from the United States.

“If you are as happy, my dear sir, on entering this house as I am in leaving it…you are the happiest man in this country.” – James Buchanan to Abraham Lincoln on Lincoln’s inauguration day

#38 out of 39:
Franklin Pierce
Term: 1853-57
Party: Democrat

Times of crisis demand great leaders. Franklin Pierce was not a great leader. Perhaps in more normal times, he could have skated through as a mediocre president that everyone forgets about. But his were not normal times. He presided over the near-disintegration of the Union with remarkable incompetence and impotence. Could Pierce (or anyone?) have prevented the Civil War at this point? Probably not. The Civil War was not his fault…sound familiar? Unfortunately for our nation, we had a series of the weakest presidents in our history when we needed strong, bold leadership. Again, the Civil War was probably inevitable, but each of these presidents played their part in slamming the door on possible peaceful solutions during their bumbling administrations.

Pierce preferred a lasses-faire approach to governing, and that is fine in times of relative tranquility. But at a time when the country was experiencing growing pains and the ominous sectional crisis that eventually erupted into Civil War, we needed more from our Chief Executive. Pierce’s administration will be most remembered for Bleeding Kansas. Pierce supported Sen. Stephen Douglas’s fateful bill that replaced the former Missouri Compromise with allowing popular sovereignty rule in the new territories as regards to slavery. Before, a line had been drawn coast to coast outlawing slavery above the southern border of Missouri (it was allowed in Missouri itself), while allowing it south of that line. Douglas’s bill proposed allowing the people of the new territories themselves to decide the slavery issue, starting with Kansas and Nebraska. All hell broke loose. Competing slave and free governments claimed legitimacy in Kansas, and violence erupted. People flooded across the border to swell the ranks of the pro-slavery forces, who sacked the territorial government in Lawrence. Pierce sat on the sidelines and said that the violence in Kansas was not serious enough to demand Federal intervention. Bleeding Kansas was the transition from heated words to actions on the road to Civil War, and Pierce offered no leadership during this crucial time.

The rudderless administrations of Pierce and Buchanan leading up to the Civil War did not cause the war, but they definitely allowed it to happen as quickly as it did and spiral out of control.

Pros:
• Trade is opened with Japan
• Gadsden Purchase (S. New Mexico and S. Arizona bought from Mexico)

Cons:
• Ostend Manifesto is leaked and made ineffective due to Northern protest (it claimed that if Spain would not sell Cuba, we could take it. Northerners protested not because they objected to more American territory, but because Cuba would be a new slave state and add to Southern power in the Senate)
• Pierce recognizes William Walker’s illegitimate regime in Nicaragua, thereby soiling our relations with Britain even further
• Pierce was completely inept in dealing with the Kansas crisis, which set us up for the Civil War


ABOVE: The melancholy Franklin Pierce. He had reason to be depressed, aside form his inept performance as president. Not only was the country falling apart under his administration, he and his wife watched their 11 year old son get decapitated by a runaway train car at the beginning of his term in office.

OK all of you James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce fans out there. Tell me why I'm wrong.