Most worthless US territorial acquisition

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,021
Iowa USA
That's politics. The E.P. could not affect the economic interests of the political elite in states that did not secede. The Proclamation was a war time statement of what the Union finally intended, issued by the President. Too bad, but there it is. In order to institutionalize the intent, the 13th Amendment had to be ratified later in 1865.
Lincoln needed to get re-elected to "finish" the process, so as you say, the latitude to act was narrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,985
I'd venture he's the least "humanized" of all forty-four of the Chief Executives. Hence, this was a VERY unexpected comment!
Well, Buchanan has been considered the "worst President in American history." A neighbor of mine, a former 27 year Republican President Pro Tem of the Pennsylvania Senate, considers him the "second worst President in American history." ;) Wink wink; nudge nudge. Say no more.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
345
California
Philippines. As soon as the island was occupied, the USA had to deal with terrorism until its independence. Possession of the island pushed japan to attack the USA as it could strangle supply lines to Indonesia that they planned to conquer. If we didn’t take the Philippines, the pacific war could have been avoided as japan just wanted to act like Britain of Asia
You know now that you put it like that, how much more fitting is the "Phillippines" response if we factor into the "cost" side of a "cost/benefit" analysis all of post war history, and consider how much better off we might be if we had supported the clean, intelligent, non-theiving Japanese against the Chinese Scum and the Russians and let them do what they would with China (i.e., had we seen fit to come off our high-horse and come to an accomodation). Had we done so, how much better off would we be now? I mean avoiding having to deal with China from 1950-present and beyond, and instead being able to deal with a reasonable anti-Commie Japan which we had left to its own devices whilst minding our own damn business?
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,021
Iowa USA
You know now that you put it like that, how much more fitting is the "Phillippines" response if we factor into the "cost" side of a "cost/benefit" analysis all of post war history, and consider how much better off we might be if we had supported the clean, intelligent, non-theiving Japanese against the Chinese Scum and the Russians and let them do what they would with China (i.e., had we seen fit to come off our high-horse and come to an accomodation). Had we done so, how much better off would we be now? I mean avoiding having to deal with China from 1950-present and beyond, and instead being able to deal with a reasonable anti-Commie Japan which we had left to its own devices whilst minding our own damn business?
American "elites" had adopted the Victorian perspective on global politics by the '20s. It would have been a huge change of course for the isolationists to have won the day with respect to either the Pacific or the European wars from the Japanese invasion of China.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,258
Sydney
Buchanan was the last president faithful to the spirit of the constitution as the founding fathers saw it
a public figure void of any personal power
faced with the rising storm of the emancipation , he did nothing and there was no war
Lincoln broke the old rule and created the new system of an elected constitutional monarch , and there was a war
Jefferson would have been appalled .
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,985
Buchanan was the last president faithful to the spirit of the constitution as the founding fathers saw it
a public figure void of any personal power
faced with the rising storm of the emancipation , he did nothing and there was no war
Lincoln broke the old rule and created the new system of an elected constitutional monarch , and there was a war
Jefferson would have been appalled .
Buchanan has had a negative reputation, and deservedly so. However, the argument that Abraham Lincoln broke old rules that resulted in a war is incorrect. The sense in the seceding states that their established interests and their way of life was threatened was well advanced long before Lincoln was elected (or even nominated). Any reasonable chance of compromise had become a chimera during the prior decade. Northern and Southern political interests in Congress had essentially stopped working with one another. Buchanan was in a situation where whatever he may have proposed as a leader was unlikely to go anywhere. He was a Northern Democrat with Southern sympathies, but he attempted to be even handed politically. That was a failure.

James Buchanan did aspire to lead through neutrality and impartiality, but that was not in fashion politically in the 1850s. By 1860, enough of the seceding states had already made up their collective mind that the United States was broken for them and it could not be fixed. Buchanan may have been able to see that development - that a conflict on some level was inevitable. How it took shape was a worst possible scenario. Lincoln inherited that sh!t storm, and he had to deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,021
Iowa USA
Buchanan was the last president faithful to the spirit of the constitution as the founding fathers saw it
a public figure void of any personal power
faced with the rising storm of the emancipation , he did nothing and there was no war
Lincoln broke the old rule and created the new system of an elected constitutional monarch , and there was a war
Jefferson would have been appalled .
Without any personal disrespect I would say that the predicate "as the founding fathers saw it" is more of a romantic or rhetorical construction than a specific description.

During the first two decades of the 19th century it was clear that founders from New York and New England had a different "spirit" than those from Maryland to Georgia.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,985
Without any personal disrespect I would say that the predicate "as the founding fathers saw it" is more of a romantic or rhetorical construction than a specific description.

During the first two decades of the 19th century it was clear that founders from New York and New England had a different "spirit" than those from Maryland to Georgia.
The Founders were consummate masters of compromise. They made something out of strongly competing factions. This was most likely because they all came from relatively similar backgrounds, and the political class was correspondingly small in 1787-89. By the 1850s, noted above, the US Congress, at any rate, was exhausted by compromises in the previous decades, and the different spirits were ready to look to their guns. The US in 1860 was very, very different than 70 or so years before.

IMO, to a substantial degree, 1860-65 was the real American Revolution. 1876-77 was the Counterrevolution. The Whites paid more of the price in the first; the Blacks in the second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist and sparky

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,258
Sydney
I would propose that the founding father would have reluctantly conceded that secession was an inherent right
Lincoln faction upheld the proposition that it wasn't ,

Buchanan was the last president of a confederation of states , Lincoln the first president of a centralized Unitarian one
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,021
Iowa USA
I would propose that the founding father would have reluctantly conceded that secession was an inherent right
Lincoln faction upheld the proposition that it wasn't ,
Buchana was the last president of a confederation of states , lincoln the first president of a centralized Unitarian one
Thank you for clarification.

But would James Madison's reaction to the Hartford Convention (1814, I believe) of sending regular army to Hartford be an example of Madison conceding that secession was an inherent right? Your thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist