“The Presidency Of James Buchanan was written by Elbert B. Smith in 1975. He was a teacher professor at the University of Maryland and held a masters degree and a PhD in history ( Elbert B. Smith (1921–2013). He has written other history books on U.S presidents Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore and other books about U.S history including “ The Death of Slavery: The United States 1837-1865 and Magnificent Missourian: The Life of Thomas Hart Benton (Elbert B. Smith (1921–2013). While the book itself did not win any awards, Elbert Smith won the Phi Alph Theta book award for this work because Elbert “presents important new evaluations for the consideration of students of both the Civil War and the presidency. ( The Presidency of James Buchanan).
…show more content…
The author states that “for more than a century the most common adjectives applied by historians to James Buchanan have been indecisive and weak. In most of his actions during a long lifetime however, James Buchanan was neither indecisive nor weak” (Smith 11). This is a very bias statement by the author because he is refuting what almost all historians say about President Buchanan without immediately backing it up with any evidence. He later went on to say in the paragraph that his actions “usually served a purpose that he clearly had in mind ( Smith 11)”. The author continues his favoring of James Buchanan later in the book by saying “ If the president really meant everything he said and wrote, and no contrary evidence exists, he wanted to eliminate all European influence in Central America (Smith 68)”. The author stating that “no contrary evidence exists” shows that he is trying to show support that Buchanan was not as bad of a president as most historians make him out to be and clearly shows that the author himself is pro-Buchanan. While historically, James Buchanan has been viewed as a weak, his biggest flaw as a president was his emotional attachment to the south. His cabinet was chosen “largely on the basis of compatibility with his own views and outlook (Smith 22)”. James Buchanan was pro-slavery and he showed that when he backed Kansas as being as slave …show more content…
I found the book incredibly difficult to get into and stay focused while reading it. I thought that chapter two was the best chapter in the book because it was basically a chapter biography of the president. I feel I learned information in that chapter that I will retain for a long time after this class is over then everything else I learned in the book. I also did not like how the author would sometimes refute what other historians have been saying more many years. Personally, I felt the author was coming off as a little self centered and egotistical. One thing I will remember from Buchanan 's presidency was that he attempted to buy Cuba. I can 't believe that during all of the problems going on in America, he was concerned with territorial expansion and even willing to spend $30,000,000 to do it. I would recommended this book for people looking for a different view of Buchanan 's presidency than the traditional view that he was the worst president America ever had and instead came in at a bad time in American history and the civil war was already inevitable by the time he became
The author states that “for more than a century the most common adjectives applied by historians to James Buchanan have been indecisive and weak. In most of his actions during a long lifetime however, James Buchanan was neither indecisive nor weak” (Smith 11). This is a very bias statement by the author because he is refuting what almost all historians say about President Buchanan without immediately backing it up with any evidence. He later went on to say in the paragraph that his actions “usually served a purpose that he clearly had in mind ( Smith 11)”. The author continues his favoring of James Buchanan later in the book by saying “ If the president really meant everything he said and wrote, and no contrary evidence exists, he wanted to eliminate all European influence in Central America (Smith 68)”. The author stating that “no contrary evidence exists” shows that he is trying to show support that Buchanan was not as bad of a president as most historians make him out to be and clearly shows that the author himself is pro-Buchanan. While historically, James Buchanan has been viewed as a weak, his biggest flaw as a president was his emotional attachment to the south. His cabinet was chosen “largely on the basis of compatibility with his own views and outlook (Smith 22)”. James Buchanan was pro-slavery and he showed that when he backed Kansas as being as slave …show more content…
I found the book incredibly difficult to get into and stay focused while reading it. I thought that chapter two was the best chapter in the book because it was basically a chapter biography of the president. I feel I learned information in that chapter that I will retain for a long time after this class is over then everything else I learned in the book. I also did not like how the author would sometimes refute what other historians have been saying more many years. Personally, I felt the author was coming off as a little self centered and egotistical. One thing I will remember from Buchanan 's presidency was that he attempted to buy Cuba. I can 't believe that during all of the problems going on in America, he was concerned with territorial expansion and even willing to spend $30,000,000 to do it. I would recommended this book for people looking for a different view of Buchanan 's presidency than the traditional view that he was the worst president America ever had and instead came in at a bad time in American history and the civil war was already inevitable by the time he became