Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could James Buchanan be elected today?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Bronco69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 02:12 PM
Original message
Could James Buchanan be elected today?
"Tall, stately, stiffly formal in the high stock he wore around his jowls, James Buchanan was the only President who never married."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html



"Was the Fifteenth President of the United States Gay?"

"The only Buchanan actually to make it to the White House, James, the fifteenth president, is the subject of as much controversy this week as Pat. Once again historians find themselves in the middle of the battle. What's roiling the academy now is sociologist James Loewen's allegation that James Buchanan was gay."



http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/2458



Can you tell I'm bored today? :-)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'd hope not
He was one of our worst presidents, and that had nothing to do with his sexuality.

And yes, you're obviously very bored. But so am I - though I should be doing homework, I keep getting distracted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. Of course he wouldn't
Because of the rumors that Buchanan was gay and ONLY those rumors. They would be the only thing keeping him out of the White House.

I also regret to say that Abe Lincoln, with his history of mental health issues, probably would not have been elected today either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Not to mention he slept with a man for years!
Lincoln that is... (this is true, do the research).

There is also some documentary evidence that he had a certain 'relationship'.... with this guy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. He was an ardent supporter of slavery.
I don't have to delve into the guy's sexuality to know that there's no way in hell he'd be elected, even with the bigots that make up a good portion of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
urbanguerrilla Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fuck no, though he could elected in a district from Virginia...
Anyways, I know this is kinda iffy to derail a thread, but I'm going to be a very willing participant in the guerrilla marketing campaign started by some of the true patriots on here and I just had the best idea for a flyer, so great that I just had to quit lurking and sign up as fast I can to share it.

Get this, what do good, patriotic, murkans like more than their guns.....*pauses for 10 seconds*....

THEIR FOOTBALL!

If you examine more closely one would actually find many similarities to socialism within the NFL economic system.

So again, which is the most successful league by far in the country?

Yeah, I thought so.

If the MLB is Argentina (weird that Selig still donates to Dems), the NHL is Venezuela, the NBA is Canada, then the NFL must be Sweden. If you don't produce and eat up the cap, there will be no hesitation in cutting your ass to the curb, doesn't matter if your Jerry Rice or Jerry Azumah. Only in the NFL can a team like Green Bay (publicly-owned BTW!) compete for the title year in and year out.

If we could find some clever way to tie in the NFL to the ills of unfettered capitalism, I think we have a touchdown on our hands!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. My favorite Quote involving Buchanan was by Andy Jackson
When Jackson was asked why did he make Buchanan his Ambassador to Russia, Jackson said "Because we do not have an Embassy on the South Pole".

Buchanan was picked by the Democrats in 1856, for while he had been in National Politics for over 30 years, he had not expressed any comments on the issue of Slavery and as such could be portrayed in the North as opposing Slavery and in the South as supporting it. The next four years he did everything he could to delay the Civil War till the next President's term.

Buchanan was not a "Bad president" but one whose agenda would fit in with today's candidates, standing for nothing and everything good but avoiding the real issues of the day (i.e. Buchanan avoided Slavery in 1856, in 2004 he would be avoiding Iraq just like Bush and Kerry).

Furthermore Buchanan would be attacking his own party members who did address the issue like Buchanan attacking Stephen Douglas (Douglas did not oppose slavery where it was, but opposed its extension, an extension that the south saw as needed to preserve slavery).

Buchanan also sent troops to Utah to suppress the Mormons and lead an anti-Mormon movement NOT because he opposed the Mormon Religion, but because Buchanan saw it as a tactic to unite the Country for a while against a "common enemy". There is some indications Buchanan was planning an invasion of Cuba to achieve the same result but he was NOT re-nominated by his party.

As to Kansas, to keep his southern allies happy he recognized an election that was clearly Fraudulent and when the people revolted against that Government he moved to Suppress that majority. Buchanan continued Franklin Pierce Policy as to Kansas and made sure that the Territorial Governor of Kansas was so pro-south that any crime by a Southern in Kansas (As it relates to Politics) was unpunished, up to and including murder.

This policy had already lead to John Brown's actions killing Several Southerns who he believed participated in the Lawrence raid of May 21st, 1856 (Not to be confused with William C. Quantrill's raid on the same city on August 21st, 1863). It appears Brown only wanted to arrest the people killed, but the action got out of hand and he ended up killing the people he had planned to arrest. Brown did this action knowing that the Federal Army had done NOTHING to stop the raid nor were they making any effort to catch the people who did the raid. Furthermore Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was severely beaten by Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina two days before and this had been telegraph all over the country including into Kansas. The fact that Pierce had done anything about the caning of a US Senator was also known to Brown. While this all occurred during President Pierce's Presidency the Policy of Pierce was continued by Buchanan.

Given this pro-slavery policy of Buchanan many people did not think he would do ANYTHING to stop the escalation of violence on part of the American South. On the other hand Buchanan did everything he could to Suppress Northern Opposition including permitting the shipment of arms and ammunition from Northern Armories to the South throughout his Admin station. Buchanan enforced the Fugitive Slave Act even in states where to be a Slave had always to be proved (The Fugitive Slave Act followed the Southern Rule as to blacks and Slavery, i.e. if you were black you were a slave unless you could prove otherwise, thus no papers you could be sold).

As to Buchanan's following of the Constitution he only did so if he agreed with the Court on what the Constitution said. In his inaugural Speech he said he would support whatever the Supreme Court would decide on the Dred Scott Case (but he included this in his speech only after the Court had already told him how the decision was to go, the Decision came out after the Speech but Buchanan knew its content when he made his "promise" to enforce whatever the Court Decided). This was typical Buchanan, saying one thing but meaning many things to many different people. Buchanan stood for everything and nothing.

Buchanan was a bad president for the above not because he was or was not "gay".

For more on John Brown see:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/brown/timeline/

Brown and the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Kansas/jbrown.html
http://www.ku.edu/heritage/kshistory/pottamassacre.html

Map of Pottawatomie Creek:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/places/states/kansas/ks_pottawatomie.htm

A history of Lawrence Kansas:
http://www.kancoll.org/books/cordley_history/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. about the Mormons..
Edited on Sun Sep-26-04 04:54 PM by jbm
I'm wondering if he didn't have good reason to send the troops to Utah because he would have been president about the same time the Mountain Meadows massacre occurred.

http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/911/index.html

<snip>
September 11, 1857 is the day the Mountain Meadows Massacre transpired in southern Utah. Approximately 120 men, women, and children in a wagon train from Arkansas were murdered by a band of Mormons set on holy vengeance. The Native Americans who were also involved had been spurred by the Mormons, some of whom dressed as Indians to conceal their identity. John D. Lee pretended to come to the Arkansans' aid, and after having them lay down their weapons in truce, enabled a defenseless bloodbath to ensue.

<snip>


The Mormons had gone completely off the deep end during the years surrounding his presidency and I suspect that some sort of official reaction would have been required from any president.


on edit-I love the quote too! Thanks for posting it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I agree
But the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred AFTER Buchanan had sent troops to Utah (But before the Troops arrived). Thus Buchanan decision to invade Utah had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows (And the person who commanded the Mormon Forces at Mountain Meadows was NOT Arrested and Executed till long after the Civil War).

Given what the Mormons where doing in the mid to late 1850s some sort of action by the part of the President would have had to be done but Congress was already addressing the problem with offers of Compromise with the Mormons. In my opinion there was NO need to send the number of Troops that were sent (and when the Troops arrived no fighting took place). The Mormons had accepted the fact that they were in the United States and had to follow US Laws. A smaller expedition would have sufficed. A regiment or two just to back up the Federal Officials in the Area was all that was needed. Remember when he sent Troops to Utah, Kansas was in open guerrilla fighting. Why skip over one area of Fighting for a LESSER AREA of fighting? Why remove troops from an area about to revolt (The American South) to Occupy a desert hundreds of miles away from where the real enemy was?

My point as to the Mormons was NOT that Buchanan had reasons (or no reason) to go after the Mormons, but that Buchanan used the incident as a way to avoid having to decide what to do about Kansas. It smacks of Bush and the Mideast, instead of sending all of these troops to Kansas to keep the peace between the settlers in Kansas, Buchanan sent the troops to a much SMALLER fight in Utah but a fight that had no support in either the North or South.

Bush followed a similar stupidity, instead of sending his forces into an all out attack on bin Laden and Al Queda (A greater threat to US interest than Saddam was) Bush sent minimal troops to hunt down bin Laden and than transferred some of those troops to augment the Troops sent to take Iraq.

Buchanan took an easy Military Victory (against the Mormons) to avoid having to make some hard and UNPOPULAR decisions involving Kansas. Bush did the same, avoiding the hard and Unpopular Decision that we are to dependent on Middle East Oil and the only way to minimize that dependence is to cut down usage, and going for a quick victory over Saddam hoping thus to steal the oil the US is so dependent on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. thanks for elaborating..
I only knew the very basic outlines of events during that time period, so I appreciate the details. Now that you've pointed it out, I can clearly see the similarities between what Buchanan did and what Bush is doing currently.

Thanks again for the post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DivinBreuvage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. A conservative who sold out America for the profit of Southern extremists?
OF COURSE he could be elected today, and in four years there'd be a movement to put his face on Mount Rushmore.

If anyone on this board believes that the media would be permitted to propagate rumors of homosexuality for such an ideal conserative candidate! Only the liberal, bed-sharing, negro-loving Abraham Lincoln can be gay (or a draft-dodger, or a drug/alcohol abuser, or a liar, or a flip-flopper).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. No Democrat has ever been elected since in Lancaster County.
The city has had its Democratic mayors and councils. But the county, about 6 times the size of the city, is ardently Republican, the heart of the biblebelt, and despises Buchanan's memory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. So what else is news
Robert Casey won Lancaster County in his run for re-election as governor in 1990. That a Democrat could even get more than 50% of the vote in Lancaster County was such big news that it even made the Pittsburgh Newspapers (where I read about it). Casey was the first Democrat to win Lancaster County in a state wide office since the time of Andrew Jackson.

Now Robert Casey was a very popular Governor, the Economy was booming and he had held state wide office for over 20 years (Both as Governor and Auditor General). Given these three factors no Republican wanted to run against him so the GOP convinced Barbara Hafer to run. To show you how desperate the GOP were remember Barbara Hafer was a PRO-Choice Republican (In 2003 she defected to the Democrats and endorsed Rendall).

In 1990 Barbara Hafer appears to have taken on the race for Governor more as a favor to her Fellow Republicans than any real chance of defeating Robert Casey (She had won the State Auditor General Position just two years before). The GOP then showed there gratitude when in 1994 they promptly supported Tom Ridge over Barbara Hafer as their candidate for Governor (a year when it was expected for the GOP to win given that Casey was NOT running and the "Contract with American" climate at that time).

Barbara Hafer stayed in the GOP for a few more years (Becoming Auditor General in 1988 and State Treasurer in 1996, both elected positions in Pennsylvania) in the GOP but more and more ran as an independent Republican and waiting for the best time to defect, which she did last year.

Pennsylvanian Governors:
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/governors/overview.asp?secid=31

Robert Casey:
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/governors/casey.asp

Barbara Hafer:
http://www.treasury.state.pa.us/BarbaraHafer.html

Her re-defection to the Democratic Party:
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031231haferlocal3p3.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demoHere Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
12. god...
i hope not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. Grover Cleveland was single when elected, too
And even more interestingly, after two years as president, he married his 22-year-old "ward," the daughter of his former law partner.

Prior to his election, he also survived a sex scandal, having been accused of fathering an out-of-wedlock child. He admitted that may have been the case, and survived the scandal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-04 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. The days of Political songs
Edited on Sun Sep-26-04 09:50 PM by happyslug
The GOP sang "Mama where Papa?" (After the Election the Democrats would add "Gone to the White House HA HA HA").

Cleveland's opponent (George Blaine) was the subject to a jingle also "Blaine, Blaine, George C. Blaine, that Continental Liar from the State of Maine". Blaine had been involved in the Credit Mobile Scandal of the 1870s but that did not stop him from running for President against Cleveland. It is said he lost when the Democrats found out that after giving a Speech at a Political meeting the next speaker started his speech. Before the Speech was over Blaine had to leave to catch a Train. Sometime after Blaine had left (It might have been while Blaine was already on the Train) the next speaker ended hsi speech with the Slogan "The Democrats are the Party of Rum, Romatism and Rebellion". The Democrats pounced on this Slogan and pointed out that it was made AFTER Blaine had Spoked (Ignoring the fact Blaine had left, but Politics is Politics). This attack on the Democrats of 1884 lead to most of the Irish in the Country voting Democratic, and solidified Cleveland's votes from the American South.

This, with the support of "Liberal" republicans like Mark Twain who supported Cleveland on the issue of Civil Service (Which Cleveland Supported and Blaine Opposed) made Cleveland President by a Whisker.

Cleveland would lose the Presidency four years later in the Electoral College while getting more votes than his Opponent Harrison. Cleveland would than defeat Harrison in 1892. This makes Cleveland stands with Franklin Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan as the only Candidates for President nominated by their party more than two times).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC