James Buchanan (1857-1861)

Slavery persisted deep into the 19th century, and more than 600,000 brave young American men lost their lives in order to abolish the cruel practice and preserve the Union. Democrats were in charge of America leading up to the beginning of hostilities in April 1861, and bear a special historical responsibility. Of course, on campus there is a noticeable gap in studying party's history during the last half of the 19th century, which academics also underplay when discussing the casus belli of the War Between the States. The worst among a bad lot of Democrat presidents, ranked at the bottom of several ranking lists, was the man who preceded Abraham Lincoln and left the country in ruins, Pennsylvania-born Democrat(ic) President James Buchanan -- the only man who was a bachelor when elected to the presidency.

Though Franklin Pierce, who served directly prior to Buchanan, was just as disastrous (as was this entire era of Democratic politics), during Mr. Buchanan's administration the Union broke apart, and as he left office, the only Civil War in US history was 39 days away.

The country was divided in the middle of the 19th century. Not divided in the 'red state, blue state' way that today's emotional media decries, but divided over the serious issue of slavery. Violence was everywhere, with abolitionists murdered in Kansas having their murders avenged by radical northerners in Virginia, lynching’s and so on.

What did Mr. Buchanan, apparently learning nothing from the failures of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act that led to this tipping point, do? He kept to the Democrat status quo, asserting that slavery should be a matter for individual states and territories to decide for themselves. The Southern slaveholders, largely Democrats, approved. His opponent in the 1856 presidential election, Senator John C. Fremont, literally the first Republican presidential candidate, argued that the federal government should prevent slavery from spreading into the new western territories. Buchanan won the election, although he failed to get a popular majority over Fremont and former president Millard Fillmore, candidate from the erstwhile Know-Nothing party.

Buchanan, still ignoring common sense and appeasing evil, decided to end the troubles in Kansas by urging the admission of the territory as a slave state, endorsing a proslavery constitution. In his inaugural address, he even encouraged the Supreme Court's forthcoming Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Congress had no power to keep slavery out of the territories.

Republicans won the House in 1858, but every significant bill they passed fell before Southern votes in the Senate or a Presidential veto. The Federal Government thus reached a stalemate, and sectional strife then forced the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern wings, each nominating its own candidate for the Presidency.

When the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln, it was a foregone conclusion that he would be elected. The South advocated secession. Like the Democrats 150 years later in dealing with Islamic terrorists, Buchanan hoped for compromise or diplomacy, but secessionist leaders did not want compromise. He sat idle as the furor of the situation spiraled out of control, naively believing that the Constitution did not give the president power to act against seceders.

In March 1861 he retired to his Pennsylvania home Wheatland, where he died seven years later, leaving his successor to resolve the frightful issue facing the nation.

Even the White House website seems to concur:

"Buchanan grasped inadequately the political realities of the time. Relying on constitutional doctrines to close the widening rift over slavery, he failed to understand that the North would not accept constitutional arguments which favored the South. Nor could he realize how sectionalism had realigned political parties: the Democrats split; the Whigs were destroyed, giving rise to the Republicans."

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)

I will avoid discussing LBJ's adventures in foreign policy. Like Mr. Carter, his presidency was so full of mishaps there is not enough space to cover them all, and Johnson's foreign policy was particularly contentious. Rather, I will focus on his long lasting social policies which have had lasting, regressive, deadly effects.

Lyndon Baines Johnson's policies laid the groundwork for victicrats Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Inner cities and black America have been relegated to poverty and lack of incentive to succeed as a direct result of Johnson's socialist policies. Many contemporary historians may consider LBJ a "progressive pioneer" but I see a different story.

Johnson was sworn in as our 36th president at Love Field in Dallas, roughly 100 minutes after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963. LBJ was preceded by a romantic figure cut down in Johnson's home state.

Though he was elected in 1964, the GOP may have aided that victory with a somewhat polarizing candidate in Arizona senator, Barry Goldwater. The Republican nominee had a great record of supporting civil rights, but Goldwater opposed certain preferences in the bills that became the Civil Rights Act. His vote against it ultimately led to a 44 to 6 state triumph for LBJ in the general election. Johnson benefited greatly from a profound expansion in liberal control over much of the mainstream press, Hollywood, and academia, a process that, of course, continues today.

Not remembered much in current history textbooks or the media of today, was that in the 1920s Republicans proposed anti-lynching legislation, reflecting back to Civil War times when Democrats, including founders of the KKK, had been involved in this horrific act. The legislation passed the House , an opposition speech was given by a Democrat Congressman from Texas named Lyndon B. Johnson, but was killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Finally in 1939 it passed the Senate.

LBJ and the Southern wing of the Democratic Party persisted in supporting anti-black positions. Consider, as LBJ's term neared:

- In 1956, Democrats expressed their opposition to the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred members of Congress, all Democrats, signed the manifesto.

- In 1957, REPUBLICAN President Eisenhower authored a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats for nearly a century. Passage of the bill was blocked by Senate Democrats.

- In 1959, Eisenhower authored a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats.

But then, following the JFK assasination:

- In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), filibustered the bill. Once the filibuster was overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans voted for passage than did Democrats.

- In 1965, Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster was prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoyed support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Johnson, of course, is now president and gets "credit" for this legislation -- authored by Republicans, designed by Republicans to undo a century of damage done by Democrats, and voted for by a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.

- This was followed by the Great Socety programs designed to eliminate poverty and racism.

At this point, the media and academic elite began using a powerful combination of information control and revisionist history to engineer a massive electoral shift. Falling for the blandishments of the Democrats and their media allies, blacks, once exclusively Republican, began voting Democrat in numbers greater than 90 percent,

The actual consequences of Johnson's Great Society were disastrous for blacks, discouraging initiative, encouraging a sense of entitlement and victimhood, and creating a permanent dependency class. Until 1965, 82% of black households had both a mother and a father in the home -- a statistic on par with or even slightly higher than white families. After 1965 (the year the Democrats and President Johnson decided it was time to stop oppressing blacks and start "helping" them), the presence of black fathers in the home began a precipitous decline; today, the American black out-of-wedlock birthrate is at 69%.

Unlike its socialist cousin (the New Deal), the Great Society emerged in a period of prosperity. Johnson presented his goals for the Great Society in a speech at an elite liberal public university, the University of Michigan, in May 1964. So-called "do-gooder liberals," having little faith in their common man, loved its aims. The elitist "White Guilt" (see Shelby Steele's book of the same name) resulted in terrible long-term impacts. Soon after, the programs were heavily criticized by conservatives as being ineffective and creating an underclass of lazy citizens. They have been proven correct. Current evidence makes Johnson the villain. If he were alive today to see the effects, he'd cringe.

Socialism clearly makes individuals worse. Incalculable damage has been done to the black family by the neo-socialist policies begun under Johnson, which are a perverted form of what Eisenhower wisely began a decade prior. And for that, even ignoring the Vietnam adventure, LBJ goes down as one of our three worst presidents of all time.

so by your post, the Republicans were these trailblazing radicals....my question then, is,...what happened to the the GOP?? Since it is now a conservative, christian, pro-government group.

JNP wow, really well done and thought out, articulate, intelligent, informative. 4 out 4 stars really.


symbelmyne- the biggest claimto frame from either side is the dems are for bigger government and its programs, the republicans are for smaller government and less programs.....having said that, how do you get to the point where you say republicans are pro-gov group? how did they get to a point where they are conservative, christians? WTF does that mean? if your talking about doing the right thing for human beings means you have to be a lib? come on already since when has a lib or any other their ideas helped someone? really I would like to know the last liberal idea that was passed into law that made a positive difference in someones life!!! flake.

The Social Security Act...for one.

you dont need to call me names son...

You're actually wrong...the first social security program was implemented by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party after the civil war...it wasn't called the Social Security Act but it was a Republican idea that made a positive difference in many peoples lives..

wow

and the truth shall set you free.

Confusion runs deep up north aye?

#1.The United States Government made its first foray into guaranteeing old age income by promising pensions to encourage enlistments in the Union Army in the Civil War. This system was then put into law by legislation in 1879 and 1888.

#2.The Social Security Act of 1935 is one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history. Passed during the depth of the Great Depression, it was an omnibus act, creating a variety of programs to serve many groups of citizens. But the Act takes its name from the landmark social insurance program which was designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.
###
the first act was an enticement meant to increase the number of soldiers for the Northern army, Republican way of thinking, "earn it"

the second one was meant to increase aid to the needy without any strings attached...Socialist way of thinking, "you're entitled to it"

I support the second way....

no confusion and the only flakes we have are madeof frozen water crystals

military pensions

Thats not SS. Thats taking care of the boy's.

Its a given if you want to survive as a Nation.

They earned it...........

What have you done for your country?

The facts are the facts. The posts were not meant to be pro any party. They were meant to point out the damage done by "Progressive", "Socialist", "Liberal" ideas and policies.

The point of the posts was mainly in response to the "Worst President" comment posted here about President Bush. I agree with many things he has done and strongly oppose many others. Is he perfect? Not at all. All 43 have had faults to be sure. But he in no way is the worst.

I myself am a Conservative, and an Originalist, not a Republican. I am not a Christian. While many Republicans are, it is not a party plank. The GOP is NOT pro-government, in fact, it is for small government. The smaller the better. There is no guarantee in the Constitution of happiness, but merely the right to pursue it. As I have posted elsewhere, there is nothing any politician can do to make anyone’s life better with the exception of getting out of our way.

The pro-government party would be the DNC. More government control over every aspect of your life from cradle to grave with no personal responsibility for anything. The more the government gets involved in our lives and in business the harder it becomes for any of us to excel.

As for the current election/selection process, with the advent of instant media I think its time we went to a National Primary with no exit polling and a media blackout until the last poll closes. The same goes for the general election. The media has too much influence on the process for both sides and in my opinion has contributed greatly to voter apathy and low voter turn out for the last 30 years.

Additionally, people should not be allowed to vote in the primary for a party other than the one they are registered for. The GOP should not be allowed to select the DNC candidate or vise versa. In the general this would not apply, one can vote for either side. In the current election cycle I believe there was much of this going on which is why the GOP ended up with McCain rather than a Huckabee or Romney. Of course I only have anecdotal evidence of this.

of course you are for the second, my god, lets dont do anything to help support ourselves when we can depend on the backs of others....

first i must address the assertion that it was the civil war that brought about the first thinking of the SSA, when in fact the first person to bring up and put forth a plan on federal social security(and b the way before this it was handled at the local and state levels- the expression poorhouse comes from one of the two ways you could get FREE help the other way was called outdoor relief) but....

thomas paine in his 1795 final pamphlet to america called Agrarian Justice, called for economic security to insure that the eldery could stive off poverty. and although it remained a state issue untilthe end of the civil war it was thomas paine(the great thinker and writer of COMMON SENSE) who was the originator of the current social security act. even tho abraham epstien gets the credit with FDR.

then came the civil war stuff which was actually inheritable, many cases of young brides marrying old vets for the benefit, the last payment to such a widow was in 1999 if you can believe that crap.

but dont believe me I just pulled the info down from the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONs web site, the link if you want it is. http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

so back to the new question at hand, name one plan passed into law by dems that has made a positive impact on the lives of the populous.

Why bash Bush when he is on the way out? Will someone explain "Universal health care" to me. Am I to believe If Obama or Hillary become president health care will be free, gratis, zero cost, nada?

well skippy....if you read up on the history of social security you'll read that the civil war pensions was the beginning of what you know as social security...

and what have I done for my country?...what relevance does that question have?....

no it will not be free, you need to read the fine print or listen to the whispered disclaimers. you will be forced to buy into the insurance scheme, failure to do so would mean garnishment and or JAIL!

makes you wonder who is in whos pockets, all the mandatory insurance laws out there now with cars and houses and the like, and the only ones really getting rich off of the laws are the insurance companies- the lie was that making it mandatory meant that it ws going to lower insurance premiums, but it never did, and they all laughed their way to the banks.

Because, most of the people I hear talking **** about America are the ones in the Me, me, me category, and have done nothing for this country.
They rely on others sacrifices like Docs, mine, my nephew and the thousands of other true patriots to save it for them and enable their happy-go-lucky lifestyles.
I ask the question to see which side of the fence you stand on.

The watching side or the sacrificing side.

damn man, i didnt see where she wrote that or he or whatever sorry....
but, we cant get a pension now unless you serve your twenty.... thats twenty years of 4am wake ups and 11pm lights out, there ae some waivers tho, early retirement if you qualify, medical retirement if you qualify(and thats only after 15 yrs in service)
oops forgot the low pay(wow how did i miss that one)

we'd do it anyway because thats how we are but its nice, not going to lie.

If they'd start the draft and make all the lookers and talkers participate in the sacrifice., I'd be all for this war.
As long as they dont then I'll fight it just so I can tell them all to STFU!!!

Thank you Doc. It really is not hard to do. One need only put in the effort to do real research, get past the agenda's and keep emotion out of your thought process. Emotion will always cloud your reasoning.

Anyone can rant and name call. That takes no thought or effort at all. It is often the last resort of someone that has no valid counterpoint and is frustrated (read emotional again).

I for one refuse to drink anyone’s cool-aide. Both parties have some great people in them. Unfortunately both sides are riddled with people that care more about money and power than they do our country and her people.

I wish every American would take the time to think things through. Maybe then we could stop pitting ourselves against one another and work together for the good of us all and rid ourselves of those that want to rob Peter to pay Paul for his vote. We all need to stop being jealous of those that succeed, study how they did it and emulate them so that we ourselves succeed. Will we all be Bill Gates? No, but we all could make our lives better. We can do it ourselves, we do not need others to do it for us or pay our way. Who would you rather buy a new car for, you or your neighbor?