Three
Cheers for the President (Jimmy Buchanan)
by
Clyde Wilson
by Clyde Wilson
DIGG THIS
The
historians have put out another one of those ratings of Presidents
– the great, the near great, etc. I always hoped that I would be
asked to participate in that survey so I could start a boomlet for
the truly greatest – John Tyler. But, alas, I was never asked. My
disappointment has been assuaged, however, on seeing that LewRockwell.com
has drawn attention once more to the important book Reassessing
the Presidency, edited by John V. Denson. This book puts
the subject into proper perspective.
Of course,
the greatest Presidents, according to the Mainstream Intelligentsia
(MSI), are those who grew the federal government the most and who
exercised the most dictatorial power – that being their definition
of greatness. The whole enterprise of such ratings has always seemed
fishy to me. What do we mean, for instance, by Great? Genghis Kahn,
Hitler, and Mao were great – in the sense that they made a great
impact on history. Being Great in history is not necessarily a good
thing. And greatness is surely a matter of perspective. Many may
have profited from the doings of a great President, but there
are also many who suffered. I doubt if very many of the 600,000
Americans who died in the War to Prevent Southern Independence would
be all that enthusiastic about the greatness of Honest Abe Lincoln
if they were allowed to vote.
As John Denson
has written, the Presidency is a mirror of the progressive loss
of freedom that has marked the history of the United States. The
air is full of claptrap about presidential legacies. It is full
of the declarations of fools that the current occupant of the executive
mansion in the federal city is my president and our president, and
our commander-in-chief.
The Founders
of the American Union would have regarded all this as a sign of
servility. In our worse times it is fearfully portentous of the
spread of Führer worship. Constitutionally, the President is not
the commander-in-chief of the country. He is not even the commander-in-chief
of the government. He is merely the commander-in-chief (operations
director) of the armed forces. And, constitutionally, the armed
forces exist only as created by the Congress which must re-authorize
their funding every two years.
Why does a
President need a legacy? Isn’t it legacy enough that he did his
job – that he obeyed and executed the laws honestly and competently
and avoided getting the country into any unnecessary trouble? He
was not supposed to be an object of worship, but simply a citizen
who was to exercise power for a stated time and then retire once
more to the body of the people.
When the MSI
blather on about presidential legacies and presidential greatness,
they reveal, among other things, their historical ignorance. The
idea of presidential "greatness" hardly existed before
Lincoln and really did not get a firm hold over national discourse
until Teddy Roosevelt. Further, they fail to understand the reversal
of values that has taken place. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
and even Andrew Jackson became president because they were great
men; they were not great men because they became president or even
necessarily great Presidents. Whereas their successors usually owe
their greatness only to their luck in being able to manipulate a
corrupt system well enough to be elected.
The lower end
of presidential performers, according to the utterly predictable
historians of the MSI, is occupied by those who failed to exercise
dictatorial power. This reveals how ignorant of American history
they are and how disdainful of democracy and Constitutionalism.
The worst of
all Presidents, we are told, was James Buchanan, who failed to use
force against the South to quash secession in 186061. This
only works if we accept two assumptions: 1) Southerners are nonpersons
who should be killed by the government if they resist it; 2) the
government is a power eternal and self-justifying without any reference
to limitations or to the consent of the governed. And of course,
these are things that the MSI assume without question and without
even noticing.
But James Buchanan's
world was not like that. Southerners were not criminals to be suppressed
but Americans and fellow citizens – indeed good fellow citizens
who had always contributed loyally and mightily to the American
Union. They had enacted secession in an open, democratic, and constitutionally-based
manner. A great many Northerners, like Buchanan himself, believed
that the South had just grievances even if it had acted too rashly.
In Buchanan’s world neither the President nor the federal government
enjoyed unlimited power – he had been nominated and elected by a
party that had made state rights its centerpiece since the time
of Jefferson. The President and the federal government were limited
to the powers expressly delegated to them, which did not include
the power to make war on legitimate state governments and private
citizens. Further, the government was not an eternal self-justifying
force but rested on the "consent of the governed" – such
consent being the bedrock American principle.
As a practical
matter, Buchanan was aware that there were as yet more Southern
people and states within the Union than out of it. They were not
eager to rush into secession nor were they willing to countenance
a brutal war of conquest against the seceded states, which they
rightly regarded as an unprecedented atrocity that would destroy
the Union in the guise of preserving it – and all in the interest
of the state capitalist agenda of certain Northern elements. Not
to mention that half of the officers of the army, and the better
half, had already resigned or were in agreement with the Southern
states that had not yet departed. With the position of the upper
South and of vast numbers of Northerners who did not wish for the
horror of civil war, there was plenty of room for negotiation. The
obstacle to peace was the Republican party and its leader, who was
glorying in his rise to power even as a minority candidate.
The
Republican leader called for the invasion and conquest of the South,
pretending that seven states were merely combinations of lawbreakers
to be suppressed. The upper South seceded, more than doubling the
resources of the rebels, the border states were put into bloody
play, and the minority president reached for greatness by a seizure
of powers that was previously unthinkable to Americans. Lincoln,
in his narrowness and inexperience, seemed to think that 75,000
men could crush the rebellion though it eventually took a million
men. It was either the biggest mistake or the biggest crime in American
history. Heaven save us from such Greatness.
January
10, 2007
Dr.
Wilson [send him mail]
is a recovering
professor of history.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Clyde
Wilson Archives
|