I'm no expert on Buchanan, but I don't consider him as bad as most historians do. Of course, most historians are mere cheerleaders of warfare. They see Lincoln as greatest, while I see him as tied for worst (Woodrow W. shares the dishonor, in my books). Buchanan let the South secede. That's not treason, as someone in the article suggests. That's just plain honorable good sense.
Clark Stooksbury is a native, and current resident of Knoxville, Tennessee. He is a former assistant editor at Liberty magazine; and has written for The American Conservative, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, First Principles Journal, Reason and Knoxville's weekly paper, Metro Pulse.
7 comments:
I'm no expert on Buchanan, but I don't consider him as bad as most historians do. Of course, most historians are mere cheerleaders of warfare. They see Lincoln as greatest, while I see him as tied for worst (Woodrow W. shares the dishonor, in my books). Buchanan let the South secede. That's not treason, as someone in the article suggests. That's just plain honorable good sense.
Bush is merely on the FDR level of horrid.
But, as you say, give him time.
I can't decide if he is closer to Nixon or LBJ.
Anyone who thinks the Dred Scott decision was about 'escapted slaves' is way too ignorant of American history to be writing articles about it.
Great work!
[url=http://qcnhprmp.com/nnwj/xgwr.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://dwlhurfl.com/ksxr/ptsm.html]Cool site[/url]
Good design!
My homepage | Please visit
Good design!
http://qcnhprmp.com/nnwj/xgwr.html | http://xsgdxgyb.com/hjba/xlgu.html
Post a Comment