James buchanan was the worst president ever!
Debate Rounds (4)
1. He is the worst president ever according to scholars and did nothing to stop the civil war:
According to a group of presidential historians, it should be 15th President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvania native, for failing to avert the bloodiest war in U.S. history. Scholars who participated weren't surprised to see that Buchanan — who was born near Mercersburg, Pa., in 1791 and died in Lancaster in 1868 — topped the list. They say he didn't do enough to oppose efforts by southern states to secede from the Union, which led to the Civil War.
"The Constitution gives him executive power. It's the power to get things done, not to sit there," said Richard Pious, a political science professor at Barnard College, a women's college affiliated with Columbia University. 
refusal to take action when action needed to be taken. He didn't dare challenge the slavery issue, or try to get a united front on the issue. Bleeding Kansas: Buchanan fully endorsed the entry of Kansas as a slave state by backing the LeCompton Constitution  So he helped create the mini civil war in kansas because he endorsed it.
3. Financial Panic: Buchanan had his own economic troubles. The government faced a significant shortfall of revenue due to the Democrats' push to lower the tariff. Buchanan's Treasury Secretary ordered the issuance of deficit financing for the government -- causing a financial panic and claims of the Buchanan administration's financial irresponsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org... 
4. he denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want it. He then watched silently as South Carolina seceded on December 20, followed by six cotton states. Before Buchanan left office on March 4, all arsenals and forts in the seceded states were lost (except Fort Sumter) 
Buchanan's failure to deal with the secession issue is the reason that most historians rate his performance so poorly....this failure led directly to the Civil War 
So his inability to act to prevent the crises he faced make him the worst president ever.
Nur-Ab-Sal forfeited this round.
I apologize for my late response, I have been busy.
Rebuttal to 1 and 4
Buchanan did not "do nothing" to avoid the Civil War. Im fact, he not only politically rejected the Southerners when he "publicly rejected both the right and the wisdom of secession," but he also militarily rejected them, as he "declined to reinforce the federal forts in the Deep South, fearing that doing so would ignite hostilities." Sure, Buchanan could have done more, and sure, there were plenty of better politicians who would have taken more action. But this is no reason to characterize the man as some fool who did nothing.
Rebuttal to 2
Because he endorsed Bleeding Kansas, he is qualified as the worst President of all time? No.
Rebuttal to 3
First, I would like to draw a line between Buchanan and his administration. Although the man is ultimately responsible for his administration's accomplishments and shortcomings, Buchanan may have simply suffered from internal stupidity in the same way that Grant suffered from numerous scandals despite his authority.
All your refutation from 1 and 4 are worthless. It just proves your point. Yes he did publically reject the southerners, but he did not do anything more for that effort, even you say he could have done more. Just tell me one thing, why didnt he reinforce the forts in the south? That would have stopped or even delayed the war, but he didnt. Action is acction, insuffiecient action is as good as none at all.
No, the bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst, its just another reason. Does tripling the debt make obama the worst president ever? No it is just a reason to rank him lower then Lincolon.
"Although the man is ultimately responsible for his administration's accomplishments and shortcomings, Buchanan may have simply suffered from internal stupidity in the same way that Grant suffered from numerous scandals despite his authority."
This proves my point, he is respoonsible for his administrations failures, and also you cant blame one scandal for all of his fails. I think that his incompetence is what got in his way. And I forgot to tell you, there is a rumor I am related to him through marriage, so it is like a family member and I hate him. So that should say somehting.
Also you have failed to recognise my point that political scholars have ranked him at the bottom, so that is my main case other then 1, and the others are just extra proof.
My computer is fritzing, so go to this article for more info, I will posts its info next round when it will open, I read it once before though. So read it or wait.
I thank my opponent for his reply.
A quick response
My opponent says, 'All your refutation from 1 and 4 are worthless. It just proves your point.' I'm not sure how to take this. My opponent says they are worthless but then goes on to concede and say they prove my point.
There have been many Presidents in the past who have done nothing but endorse a side rather than take action, but this does not mean they should have or shouldn't have. He grew up with Southern sympathies, it says a lot more for this man to reject the Southerners than for someone such as Lincoln. You say, "he should have done more," but even if he had done more, but still failed, he would still be compared to his successor, Lincoln, who was obviously a better President. Perhaps this sudden contrast of great leadership and bad leadership leads people to ignore his accomplishments and focus on his shortcomings.
"No, the bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst, its just another reason." If it does not make him the worst, then why would you use this as a point? We are arguing, as the title boldly proclaims, over whether "James buchanan was the worst president ever!" A point that does not support your claim -- "bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst," in your own words -- is an irrelevant point.
"This proves my point, he is respoonsible for his administrations failures, and also you cant blame one scandal for all his fails." I never said ONE scandal was reponsible for "all of his fails" -- I gave evidence that this particular failure was the responsibility of a scandal, which is why I put that evidence under the header "Rebuttal to 3." I never said one scandal caused all of his failures. Although I don't like accusing my opponent of fallacies, this is basically the definition of the straw man.
Rebuttal to the "scholars" point
I am not debating Mr. Jay Tolson of US News. I had a similar debate like this where my opponent told me to read an article about a thousand times. You must understand, I cannot debate an article. Please write your argument in the space provided (quoting the article would be nice and even recommended), but telling me to read an article is very vague. Voters may take this as bad conduct, but I'm trying my best not to sound condescending. This goes for the scholars point, too.
I look forward to my opponent's response.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: no one was very convincing but con did forfeit a round and pro did use better sources
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.