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