A concise but complete description of Buchanan's presidency which was followed by Lincoln's. Some historians feel that Buchanan's presidency was over shadowed by the Lincoln's which led to major changes in America with the Emancipation and a stronger interpretation of the Constitution when it came to state rights. This historian feels that Buchanan was poor president because he let his strong bias towards the South to interfere in what he truly wish to protest- the Union. Ironically, his actions especially with the slavery issue in Kansas and the lack of fortifying Fort Sumpter encouraged the Secessionists to be bold in their actions against the Union.

This historian puts him the list of the our worst presidents in US history. ( )

Briefly summarizes the case for the conclusion that Buchanan was indeed, as often supposed, the worst US President prior to 2001. In contrast to his predecessors he not only failed through omission to take the steps that would have avoided the Civil War, but acts of commission (the collusion with Taney in the Dred Scott case was only the most notorious example) were so wrong that they made the war inevitable. Recommended. ( )

An excellent, brief biography of the worst president in US history, and nearly a traitor at that. ( )

This short work is a part of the American Presidents series of short biographies of our nation’s chief executives, and while I understand the concept, and can make allowance for the comparative obscurity of the subject in this case, 150 pages is simply not much book.

I wouldn’t recommend the American Presidents series for Presidents such as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, either Roosevelt or most of the Presidents in the 20th century. However, for many of the 19th century Presidents, 200 pages of material will contain about all the material you need to know about Presidents such as Pierce, Tyler, Buchanan, Arthur, Garfield, Van Buren, Fillmore, Hayes, etc.

Buchanan is routinely ranked among the least effective of U. S. Presidents. The antebellum triumvirate of Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan routinely join Harding and Nixon at the bottom of most lists. In some ways, Pierce and Buchanan were handicapped by the looming Civil War and the issues involved made a successful presidency unlikely. It is no coincidence that three of the most maligned U.S. Presidents are the three immediately preceding the War, as if their actions precipitated the War and that others in their position might have somehow avoided it.

Surprisingly, Buchanan was one of the most well prepared and experienced candidates to ever win the Presidency. He served several terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate, before serving as Secretary of State and Ambassador to both Russia and England. His policies toward Kansas statehood and the events leading up to the Civil War revealed him to be an ardent southern sympathizer and slavery apologist. As a result, he was unable to generate any support from either the Republican politicians or even northern Democrats. His tacit approval of South Carolina’s secession, not only made the War inevitable (which it probably was anyway), but in some cases bordered on treason.

Certainly, the life of James Buchanan and the events of his presidency would easily support a longer biography, but at the end of the day, who wants to read about James Buchanan? ( )

Short biography, straight to the point. Seems to be objective portrait of the very unsuccessful president. It's kind of tragedy since he was a capable administrator and politician but totally lacked a good judgement while in Oval office. This together with stubbornness ensured a tragical consequences for the country. It seems that if a more reasonable and pragmatic president was in his place then the war could have been avoided. It's widely and in my opinion undeservedly accepted that his predecessors, such as Millard Fillmore, are failed presidents. If Fillmore have been in the office around Buchanan's time we could have avoided the war. ( )