Certainly one can quibble about the quality of chief executives!
Buchanan was not a great president, and in early 1861, he was also a lame
duck, but he was President -- that his successor chose to handle the
crisis differently does not erase the facts.



On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:58:20 -0500 Anne Pemberton wrote:

> To the extent that the site
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html is a credible
> source, it seems that Buchanan is best described as sticking his head in
> the sand. Drawing a legal conclusion from his inaction seems like a poor
> defense for firing on the US Army. A check of
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html shows the page
> opening on the words in Lincoln's Inaugural Address where he tells
> southerners there's a new philosophy in the Washington. If nothing else,
> the fact that they had to fire upon Fort Sumpter to take it should have
> clued at least a few sensible heads that they were doing wrong.
>


David Kiracofe
College of Charleston
Department of History
66 George Street
Charleston, SC 29424

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html