Whose worse: James Buchanan or G. W. Bush?

Under James Buchanan the Supreme Court issued the "Dred Scott Decision" regarding slaves as the rightful property of slaveholders and must be returned. While this was a Supreme Court decision, it is widely interpeted that Buchanan somehow influenced the decision due to his close ties to Chief Justice Taney. Also Buchanan threw his administration behind the "Lecompton Constitution" which would have admitted Kansas to the union as a slave state. Also while Buchanan fiddled when seven slave states seceded in the last months of his administration and he didn't think there was anything the federal government could do about it.

Under Bush 9/11 did happen and as the nation learned of this tragedy a clearly shell shocked Bush led school children in the reading of "My Pet Goat." He then went into hiding for three days and only then emerged in NYC. We had the world community behind us as we hunted for Bin-Laden in Afghanistan, only to have that mission cut short so that Bush could settle a family feud with Iraq's Saddam Hussein. His administration doctored intelligence and told outright lies to convince congress to approve a resolution which he would ultimately claim gave him the authority to invade Iraq--a move which ultimately killed almost 3000 Americans and countless thousands of Iraqi citizens. Under Bush the federal government response to the worst natural disaster to hit a major American city--Hurricane Katrina was both inept and short sighted.

bush threatens the entire world. that takes a lot of doing. But, with the right team, Rice, Cheney, Rummy and other crazies, it is surprising just how much global damage can be done.

Some historians predicted that even absent Hitler, the WWI settlement created conditions so unfavorable to Germany, that there was bound to be someone like him that would arm and organize and angry, starving, tired and poor nation, and lead them into yet another battle. A good number have written that WWII was nothing more than a continuation of WWI, with a short rest period in between.

Buchanan managed to cause brother to pick up arms against his brother, but bush threatens not only this country, but the entire world.

Delete

It's a tie.
If you gave Buchanan the same access to mass communication that scrubbie has he'd have been just as bad.

One of the few positive things that James Buchanan did do in the 1850's was to back away from persecuting the Mormons in Utah at a time when many in the US wanted to send the US army after them. Also, I believe that Buchanan managed to cool tensions with Great Britain over some issue or other involving either shipping or Canada at the time when the British Empire was THE colossus striding the globe.

try to bankrupt the country, abolish the Bill of Rights and destroy its position in the world.

Stupid is the worst all the other bad presidents (from Polk on) rolled up into one illegally installed and stupidly supported drunk.

Roger B. Taney's Supreme Court deserves its blame for the Dredd Scott decision. Taney was always hard conservative, and one needs to examine the tenor he set in the several significant court cases before Dredd Scott and before the Buchanan presidency.

The vote was 7-2. So, even if Buchanan did influence Taney (and there's no proof that he did), it didn't really make a difference. Had Taney voted in Scott's favor, the decision would have still stood.

You had two dissents, neither of which agreed with the other. Taney is considered the "Opinion of the Court" but only two other Justices agreed with his opinion. Nelson wrote a separate opinion which one of the Justices that had agreed to Taney decision also agreed with (And had his own opinion that no Slave could use in any federal court at that time). You then had two justices that concur in the results but on ground separate from Taney's opinion.

Yes you had SEVEN different Opinions when it came to Dred Scott and NONE of them obtaining a majority of the Justices.

For the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=60&page=393

believe it or not, Taney was (naively) trying to save the Union.

No one. Absolutely and by far the worst President this country has ever seen.

While Buchanan was certainly no great leader, at least he didn't lie to get his country into war, murder over 3000 of his own countrymen in a terrorist attack, cause a worldwide increase in terror, preside over the worst economy in nearly a century and directly harm individual civil liberties (even if he did have any involvement, the Scott decision was decided by a 7-2 majority. Even if Taney voted against it, the decision still would have stood).

georgie is harming the whole fucking planet.

After all, is joining the U.S. a "one-way street"?? It has taken a referendum of the citizenry of a territory as well as an Act of Congress for a new state to join the Union ... why shouldn't there be a similar process for leaving it? If there's any meaning whatsoever to "statehood" then shouldn't it include a balanced basic right to such political self-determination?

It's taken me five decades to understand why some people quibble calling the "Civil War" the "War Between The States" but now I'm beginning to wonder whether secession is rightfully prohibited.

Please note: This is NOT a "South-bashing" post. (Indeed, some might see it as friendly to the "rebel" point of view.) I'm merely questioning how we balance 'secession' with 'federalism'.


On edit: I think about how 'we' supported the rights of the people of the Balkans to dissolve Yugoslavia into it's component republics/states. I think about how 'we' supported/recognized Czechoslovakia's right to split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Why don't we walk the talk??

IMO, there were far too many forces in play to lay blame for the entire Civil War at Buchanan's feet, as inept and negligent as he was.

But * ? He's racked up at least a six-figure body count in a very immoral and probably illegal preemptory war. The graft and corruption runs mighty deep. The country and its founding documents are about as shredded as the were just prior to the Civil War.

Lastly, and certainly not least, * has been able to cause more damage far more quickly, what with corporate ties and an enabling media. :grr:

Andrew Jackson when asked why he made James Buchanan the US ambassador to Russia said "Because we do not have an Embassy at the South Pole) (Paraphrase not exact quote).

James Buchanan seems to have provoked a fight with the Mormons on Utah (while Congress was trying to diffuse the conflict) so to unite the Country against a Common Enemy (and to delay the Civil War till after he was President). James Buchanan other dis-service to the Country include the following:

1. Leave Southerns move arms from Northern Armories to the South in 1860s (Often Stopped only by open protest against such movements of Weapons in the towns being stripped of weapons).

2. Recognize the Election of a Slave Constitution in Kansas when you only had something like 10,000 people in the Territory but the votes was something like 30,000 to 5,000 in favor of being admitted as a "Slave State". The extra votes were the result of Missouri residents crossing the State line to vote in the Kansas election. Now this was under his predecessor, but James Buchanan was involved in the decisions of that administration.

3, Permitting Officers in the US Army to Resign in 1860 rather then fulfill they obligations to the US (And then permitting them to travel freely to the South).

4. Refusing to reinforce Southern Garrisons with arms and supply in 1860 so that when the Election results lead to South Succession those Garrison had to surrender do to lack of Supply (Except for Ft Sumter which had adequate Supply do to previous administrations AND the actions of its Commander to keep his Garrison properly supplied BEFORE hostilities broke out.

5. Spoke Bravely of Supporting whatever the decision of the Supreme Court would be regarding Dred Scott BUT only after he knew what that result would be (But before it was released to the general Public).

6. Refusing to send adequate forces to stop Bleeding Kansas let the South take this as him supporting the North Settlers of Kansas (Who were by far the clear majority in Kansas during his Presidency). THis started unDer Franklin Pierce but continued under Buchanan.

7. His refusal to enforce Federal Law in Kansas in regards to deprivations done by Slavery Supports in Kansas. This lead to John Browns decision to take the law into his own hands and go after many of the people who had committed such attacks and to publicly executed them for that crime. Again this started under Perice by continued under Buchanan.

Unlike Bush jr, James Buchanan was know for his intelligence, but also being devious (Thus he had been in Federal Politics for over 20 years by the time he was Nominated by the Democrats in 1856, but no one knew where he stood on any real issue). I can go on and on as to the crime of James Buchanan and make the case he is worse than Bush Jr, but James Buchanan had a country divided over an issue that could NOT be resolved short of fighting, James Buchanan best he could hope for was to minimize the upcoming bloodbath. This James Buchanan did NOT do, in fact by giving into the South he gave the South more provisions and arms to fight the upcoming Civil war.

On the other hand George Bush's war is dividing this country but can be resolved WITHOUT any Fighting in the US. Furthermore Bush's actions will lead to widespread hardship in the US given his overall finance policy as while as his war Policy.

Thus it is a hard decision, but I have to go with Buchanan, more because we have NOT seen the full extent of the damage Bush jr has done while we can judge Buchanan's crimes quite well.

More on James Buchanan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html

John Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

..that he was leaving an impossible situation for Lincoln. Dubya is such a solipsist that he doesn't recognize a world that exists independent of his perception of it. I think I could make a case that Bush is evil incarnate.