He's in the bottom five on every list I've seen. Lincoln is in the top 5 in every list and mostly in the first position. Strangely Buchanan would appear much more qualified than Lincoln. Buchanan served in the House, the Senate and as Secretary of State. Lincoln served only a single (2 yr) term in the House and that term ended 10 years before he ran for president. So should we reject government experience as a qualifying factor for office? Many modern day skeptics might say so. Politics is corrupting they say. The longer you serve, the more corrupt you become? Well that may be a bit extreme. I think Lincoln just happened to be the right person for the time. He made mistakes and didn't deny them. He understood the gravity of the situation and the importance of keeping the preservation of the Union foremost. Any thoughts?Lincoln's predecessor is generally considered one of the worst presidents in American history, for his weak-willed approach to the rising Secessionist crisis. What is Historum's take on this somewhat unappealing personality?