One of the many heated debates of historians today involves arguing who the greatest President of the United States was. Americans are attracted to good leaders; almost magnetized by their personality and sense of purpose. Leaders like Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson are all noted for a sense of vision and calculated course of action. Less discussed by historians, but of equal interest in today’s world, is debating who the worst president was. To learn from those leaders who were dismally unsuccessful is to learn to avoid making the same mistakes.
Today many scholars are questioning whether George W. Bush is the worst president the United States has seen, so it is important to consider this question. Scholars have written on the subject and several names appear on the list of the worst presidents, but there is one name that is consistently at the top of the list. James Buchanan left office in 1860 as one of the most disgraced presidents in American history. He failed to keep the Union together, was indecisive on critical issues such as slavery, divided the Democratic Party (there would not be another Democratic President, not counting Lincoln’s running mate Andrew Johnson, for twenty-four years), and did not take action. Buchanan’s southern sympathies and indecisiveness caused the United States to slip into the Civil War. Often regarded as more of a failure than other stagnant presidents of his era, Buchanan is often ranked with the worst of them: Nixon, Warren Harding, and Ulysses Grant.[1] In the eyes of many historians, including this one, Buchanan is the worst president the United States has seen in over two-hundred years. To understand why Buchanan has been deemed such a failure, one must understand the differences between what makes a “good president” and what makes a “weak president.”
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the editor of the American Presidents Series and author of numerous presidential volumes, writes of the qualities of a good president. “Great presidents possess — a vision of an ideal America. Their passion is to set the ship of state on the right course toward the port they seek.”[2] Great presidents are often faced with tremendous challenges and rise to the occasion. Two examples of this can be seen from our history. Franklin Roosevelt faced the Great Depression and rose to the occasion, creating hundreds of programs and enforcing ardent legislation. Ronald Reagan faced the threat of Communism and rose to the occasion by creating a special defense system and by deftly negotiating with the Russians. Even Richard Nixon, occasionally ranked with the worst of the worst of presidential performers, defined a generation of foreign policy by initiating relations with China. Great challenges do not necessarily make a good president, however, as is the case with Buchanan. He was faced with the issue of slavery and secession and was not moved to action. Presidential historian Marcus Cunliffe concludes that weak presidents, in general, embrace policies that evoke, “national disunity, economic selfishness, social conservatism, and irresponsibility in both domestic and international affairs.”[3] Buchanan certainly inadvertently promoted national disunity because of his southern ties and was conservative in his rigid view of the Constitution and the executive powers.
Buchanan actually entered office poised to become one of the best leaders the United States has ever seen. He certainly had the credentials to make a great president. He served in the Pennsylvania State House, was a U.S. Congressman for ten years, was appointed U.S. Minister to Russia, was elected to the Senate for eleven years, was appointed Secretary of State, and appointed Ambassador to Great Britain.[4] Today it would be rare to find a politician with such impressive credentials. People were expecting great things from the man from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. No one would have guessed that Buchanan’s presidency would be a failure, plagued by indecision and uncertainty, and he would leave the office a belittled and broken man.
What was it that made Buchanan such a failure in office? Several key examples of Buchanan’s failures reveal why he was the worst president of all time. The first issue is Buchanan’s role with the issue of slavery and the Dred Scott Case. Buchanan, by most accounts, was for the most part a moral, upstanding man. But he was not deeply concerned over the issue of slavery. When Dred Scott’s case came before the Supreme Court, Buchanan wrote to two justices, urging them to make a comprehensive decision that applied to all African Americans. What resulted was one of the most devastating and detrimental decisions by the Supreme Court in American history. The court ruled that African Americans could not sue in federal court because they were not citizens and that they had no rights. This decision, in which James Buchanan played an undeniable role, would hinder the advancement of African Americans for years to come.
Another Buchanan failure was his indifference to the mounting tensions over the issue of slavery and state’s rights. Since Buchanan was a southern sympathizer, he did not take action when things began to escalate between the north and south. During the final months of his presidency, Buchanan watched as several states of the Union seceded. Because of Buchanan’s hopelessly narrow interpretation of the Constitution, he felt that neither he nor Congress had the power to stop the seceding states. By the end of his presidency in March 1861, seven states had left the Union. There is no doubt that Buchanan was a southern sympathizer, a Democrat who wanted to please his constituents. He identified with the southern way of life and garnered much of his support from the south (His cabinet was made up primarily of southern slave holders and friends, a panel of cronies to serve as his “yes-men”). Roy Meredith, Civil War Historian, notes the effect of the selections of Buchanan’s cabinet on the war. Five in his cabinet were vigorous southern supporters, born and raised in the deep south. One of Buchanan’s most trusted allies and “friends”, the handpicked Secretary of War John B. Floyd, even sent arms and ammunition to the southern states during secession![5]
Buchanan’s reaction to Kansas’ admission to the Union was equally as troubling. Instead of supporting Kansas as a free state to the Union, he supported the group of Kansans who were pro-slavery. Buchanan knew that if Kansas were admitted as a free state, that it would likely be a politically Republican state. To ensure that the state was admitted as a Democratic state, the president outright supported slavery. Rather than seeing slavery as the moral injustice that it was, he saw it mainly as an obstacle preventing Kansas from becoming a Democratic State.
Historians have incorrectly theorized as to why Buchanan’s administration suffered so. His fianc©e committed suicide early on in his life and many believe that he was never the same mentally. Buchanan was also not one of the younger presidents; he was sixty-five years old at his inauguration. Many historians have attributed these two facts as to why Buchanan was a failure in office.
Historians have cast Buchanan at the bottom tier of presidential achievement for hundreds of years. Robert S. McElvaine, Professor of History at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi, says Buchanan’s presidency was altogether the worst in all American history.[6] Historian and author Roy Meredith labeled Buchanan, “wavering, indecisive, and na¯ve — “[7] Richard Reeve[8]s, historian, author, and lecturer at the University of Southern California, writes that Buchanan set the standard for future presidential failures.[9]
Even Buchanan’s fellow chief executives viewed his policies and presidency in a critical light. President James Polk, under whom Buchanan served as Secretary of State, said, “Buchanan is an able man, but is in small matters without judgment and sometimes acts like an old maid.”[10] Buchanan practically adored Andrew Jackson and served as minister to Russia during his presidency. The feelings were not exactly mutual as Jackson had this to say about Buchanan’s assignment: “It was as far as I could send him out of my sight, and where he could do the least harm. I would have sent him to the North Pole if we had kept a minister there.”[11] Indeed, over one hundred years later, President Kennedy had similar words for Buchanan’s ineptitude: “How much better would it be — to have a Roosevelt or a Wilson than to have another James Buchanan, cringing in the White House, afraid to move.”[12]
When comparing Buchanan’s presidency to that of other low ranked presidents, it becomes clear that his administration sticks out as the worst. Even the perennial worst ranked president Warren G. Harding was not the worst. Former Nixon advisor and political analyst John Dean writes that Harding was not a failure as president by any means.[13] Harding was a beloved president who actually cut taxes, created effective government agencies, and spoke out against racism. James Buchanan was widely detested after four years in office and did little to help the economy or to settle the mounting racial tension. This evidence goes to show that Buchanan should be considered a worse president than even perpetual loser Warren Harding.
It is interesting and slightly ironic, however, how a man with the best credentials of any president and a man of reportedly “great private virtue, integrity, charity, kindness, and courtesy,”[14] could leave behind such a counteractive legacy. There are conflicting reports on Buchanan’s disposition however. William C. Davis, a biographer of Buchanan’s Vice President John Breckinridge, had this to say: “Buchanan was by nature suspicious, standoffish, even petty. He had a way of holding personal grudges against any who opposed him personally or politically.”[15] This is true because Buchanan held grudges against many of the officeholders left over from the previous administration. Buchanan’s doggedness and stubborn attitude also contributed to his reaction to the secession crisis.
The woeful tale of the most ineffective president is important for society to consider today. Four leading historians have written recent articles questioning whether or not George W. Bush is America’s worst president ever. Princeton Historian Sean Willentz, Richard Reeves, and Robert S. McElvaine, three of America’s leading historians, rank the forty-third president at the bottom of the list with Buchanan.[16] It is important for American citizens to not be too quick to judge. Looking at past examples of failure, such as Buchanan’s, helps them to better understand the situation today. It is too soon to tell whether or not George W. Bush will be ranked at the bottom of the list for presidential achievement, but the only way to judge him is by measuring him against the dismal legacy of presidents like Buchanan.
Bibliography
Jean H. Baker, “James Buchanan,” The American Presidents Series
Douglas Brinkley, “The American Heritage History of the Untied States”
Marcus Cunliffe, “The American Heritage History of the Presidency”
William C. Davis, “Breckinridge-Statesman, Soldier, Symbol”
John Dean, “Ranking Presidents-Utter Nonsense or Useful Analysis?,” Find Law
Robert Ferris, “The Presidents”
Darlene and William Hine, Stanley Harrold, “The African American Odyssey (3rd ed.)
Joseph Nathan Kane, “Presidential Fact Book”
Robert S. McElvaine, “Bush: Gaining on James Buchanan for Last Place,” People’s Weekly World
Roy Meredith, “Storm Over Sumter”
Richard Reeves, “Is George Bush the Worst President Ever,” Uexpress.com
David Rubel, “Mr. President: The Human Side of America’s Chief Exectuives”
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton,” Frontline
Elbert B. Smith, “The Presidency of James Buchanan”
Sean Willentz, “The Worst President in History,?” Rolling Stone Magazine
[1] Jean H. Baker, “James Buchanan,” The American Presidents Series: Times Books (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004) 146.
[2] Baker, xviii.
[3] Marcus Cunliffe and the Editors of American Heritage Magazine of History, “The American Heritage History of the Presidency,” (American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., 1968) 371.
[4] Joseph Nathan Kane, “Presidential Fact Book” (New York: Random House, 1999) 90.
[5] Roy Meredith, “Storm Over Sumter” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957) 21.
[6] Robert S. McElvaine, “Bush: Gaining on James Buchanan for Last Place” People’s Weekly World 24 November 2006, 21 October 2004 http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/5991/
[7] Meredith, 19.
8 Richard Reeves, “Is George Bush the Worst President-Ever?” Uexpress.com 24 November 2006, 2005 http://www.uexpress.com/richardreeves/?uc_full_date=20051202/
9 Baker, 43.
10 Douglas Brinkley, “The American Heritage History of the United States” (New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc., 1998) 193.
11 Cunliffe, 178.
[13] John Dean, “Ranking Presidnets-Utter Nonsense or Useful Analysis?” Find Law 24 November 2006, 11 May 2001 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/200110511.html/
[14] Elbert B. Smith, “The Presidency of James Buchanan” (Lawrence: The UP of Kansas, 1975) 196.
[15] William C. Davis, “Breckinridge-Statesman, Soldier, Symbol” (Baton Rogue: Louisiana State UP, 1974) 157.
[16] Sean Wilentz, “The Worst President in History?” Rolling Stone 24 November 2006. 4 May 2006 http://rollingstone.com/news/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history/
