Time is of the Essence

Abraham Lincoln is, in my opinion, the greatest president we've ever had. However, I've never been shy to say that John Wilkes Booth is responsible for him being so great. Lincoln's handling of the Civil War was well done and he managed to save the Union.

However, Andrew Johnson is generally considered an extremely poor president. He generally attempted to follow Abraham Lincoln's general Reconstruction plan.

Had Lincoln not been killed, his Reconstruction would have made him seem less of a great president. Yes, unlike Johnson, he would have likely had more influence over Congress to get things passed, but his plan would still be generally disliked and often fought by the men of Congress.

On the other end of the spectrum, James Buchanan is the worst president of all time. However, had he been president in place of Theodore Roosevelt, he would have been great. Had he been president in place of James Polk, he would have done fine. Had he been president in place of Woodrow Wilson, things would turn out okay.

James Buchanan's great work in international affairs is often forgotten while considering his horrid handling of the sectional conflict arising between North and South with imminent consequence clear. But if we take the Civil War out of the picture and place Buchanan in a time of more expansionism or need for allies, Buchanan would prove adept at international relations and perform admirably.

And so as a president is examined in terms of history, it is often interesting to see some of the what ifs. Maybe you place them at a different point in time. Maybe you change an event slightly, creating an alternate history, but not so vast that the Alien Space Bats have to create the timeline. The results are often not what you'd expect from examining them solely in our exact timeline.

Strong or Weak?

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt have what in common?

They are all strong presidents who followed generally weaker presidents.

Washington followed the Articles of Confederation, which had a president, but of Congress, not an executive. His term built the presidency. Lincoln followed James Buchanan who basically did nothing about seceding states, because he didn't think he had the right. At the same time, he didn't think they had the right to secede. Lincoln then saved the Union. Roosevelt followed Hoover, who is blamed for the Great Depression and failed to do much to make it better.

Roosevelt had great popularity because he wasn't Hoover. Washington was successful because the Constitution was fresh and he could interpret it however he wished. Lincoln was successful because most of his opposition seceded from the nation, and he forced himself into emergency powers.

When I consider these cases, I find it difficult not to draw a parallel to Barack Obama. George Bush isn't exactly a weak president, as he did get a lot done, but he was probably a poor one, like Buchanan and Hoover.

Unlike these cases however, Obama does not yet seem to be very successful. Perhaps he just needs his full term and maybe a second to prove his worth.

But what if Congress stays deadlocked?

Could Barack not follow these three examples and instead shift federal politics to be more like those of the Gilded Age?

The Gilded Age is notable for Congress' domination of politics. That, in turn, echoed of the presidents from Taylor to Buchanan. Is it perhaps time for the executive branch to become weaker again?

There's one major problem with weak presidents now that was not apparent last time. When the Gilded Age ended, expansionism began. The United States became firmly, and stays today, involved in the politics of the world. If the single man (or maybe woman) leading the executive branch is not strong, then the country will become weaker on the international field.

That singular leader is needed to be the representative of the United States. And he cannot be a pushover that the world takes advantage of, he needs to be strong but fair.

Thus, we must hope that Obama does follow the scheme of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Because a Congress overtaking the president again could be bad for America.

Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan

I'm sorry if anyone is disappointed by the lack of Presidential Super Tournament in this post, but I had the most interesting conversation with a friend today about pre-Civil War presidents.

I mentioned that I liked Millard Fillmore for his dedication to preserving the Union, even if he wasn't wholly successful. (Of course, Fillmore is another blog.) My friend then said he didn't understand why wanting to preserve the Union was necessarily a good thing in a president. This point really struck me.

Think about it. Preserving the Union at all costs is an infringement on states' rights. States' rights vs. federal rights has been the main issue of American government from the founding, and we decide in modern times that states' rights in this case is the wrong side, and thus preserving the Union is a positive point on American presidents. Thus we say James Buchanan is a poor president (worst, according to my... sadly unupdated... list), because he did nothing to preserve the Union, and we say Abraham Lincoln is a good president (best, according to my list, because he went to war to save the Union).

As these thoughts rushed through my mind, I replied, "So if the United States lost the Civil War, we'd remember Abraham Lincoln as our worst president and James Buchanan as the best!"


Chew on that one for a while.

What Would Presidents Do? Christmas attempted bomber

December 25, 2009 a man attempted to set off a bomb on a plane in the United States that had come from the Netherlands. How would past presidents react to this act of terrorism?

Andrew Jackson would go to this man and beat him senseless with his cane. Then he would challenge the man to a duel to take place a week later, which Jackson would win and kill the terrorist. He would then proceed to seek a complete war against Terrorism and subvert Congress' decision to not allow such a war by going ahead and sending troops and subsequently he would be impeached.

William McKinley would move with caution. He would not seek military action until he was forced to by public opinion. Currently the public isn't too big on the idea of sending more troops so McKinley would not go to any war. How things would progress after that would be out of US control, but McKinley would probably stay a popular president.

Theodore Roosevelt would pull out his big stick by moving toward a war. However, how he would go for a war against a somewhat intangible group is unclear. He would definitely take some action because negotiations and diplomacy would be worthless.

James Buchanan would seek allies in a war against terrorism. But he would only do this after an official declaration of war by Congress because he won't overstep Constitutional bounds. If he gets a declaration, all signs point to him being a wonderful diplomat. He should be able to find allies and make treaties well.

Barack Obama finds himself in a difficult position because he recently called for a surge in Afghanistan but the newer and possibly more relevant front is Yemen. If he calls for even more troops, the public will disapprove. If he chooses to reroute the Afghanistan surge to Yemen, he may be viewed as indecisive. Thus he's in quite the predicament for now. If he's lucky, he issue will blow over a bit and the decision to focus on Afghanistan will turn out well for both his popularity and the welfare of the country.

We'll see how he goes about the issue in time.

James Buchanan (1857-1861)

"I am now 'solitary and alone', having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection."

James Buchanan is the worst president the United States has ever seen. He's also likely gay (for his precessessor's Vice President, no less!). These two items, however, are uncorrelated.

I could go on a rant about Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy, but instead I think I'll stick to Buchanan's actual political moves that make him so horrible.

His term began with the Dred Scott decision. Days after his inaugural address, Chief Justice Taney made the decision, along with the Court, against Dred Scott and rendering null and void decades' worth of legislation keeping slavery in check. Buchanan has been theorized to have a hand in this case.

He was greatly in favor of slavery, and liked the idea of obtaining Cuba as a new slave state. He felt that both abolitionists and free-soil Republicans were the same.

But really, the most egrigious error of Buchanan's presidency is his admittance that states did not have the legal right to secede from the United States, but his unwillingness to do anything about their secession.

His term was all about putting wedges in between the Northerners and the Southerners, and he truly succeeded. If it were not for him, the Civil War may not have occurred. He was uncompromising on issues that favored slavery, he didn't do anything to help the fighting in "Bleeding Kansas," and he was too lazy to prevent a clearly approaching war.

In his memoirs, Buchanan said he thought history would view him more kindly than his contemporaries.

That sure worked out well.