Buchanan had a defensible position, not regarding slavery but as to whether he was a) obligated to go to war with the south and b) whether or not he could reasonably wage a just war.
a) is a matter of law enforcement, so, this is possibly a weak argument.
b) is much stronger, especially given a historical perspective on the matter.
I'm not taking a position here, as it is the responsibility of the government to determine a war, and it is impossible to assume that I could adequately place myself in that situation.
However, it is remarkable how difficult the civil war was, and just how appalling the situation was is also remarkable.
I don't think I can save Buchanan's legacy, ultimately, because any sensible president should have silently started the war machine running in such a situation. Hopefully, in today's world, we'll not see a country split apart in order to keep slavery legal, and leave a government with such a dire legal and moral dilemma. That is, I dearly hope that this problem is not revisited.
a) is a matter of law enforcement, so, this is possibly a weak argument.
b) is much stronger, especially given a historical perspective on the matter.
I'm not taking a position here, as it is the responsibility of the government to determine a war, and it is impossible to assume that I could adequately place myself in that situation.
However, it is remarkable how difficult the civil war was, and just how appalling the situation was is also remarkable.
I don't think I can save Buchanan's legacy, ultimately, because any sensible president should have silently started the war machine running in such a situation. Hopefully, in today's world, we'll not see a country split apart in order to keep slavery legal, and leave a government with such a dire legal and moral dilemma. That is, I dearly hope that this problem is not revisited.
