Presidents on Coins

This letter appeared as a "Guest Commentary" on the editorial page of the June 14, 2004 issue of Coin World. -Bob

I read with much interest collector Rodney Scott's Guest Commentary (May 3) in which he objected to James Buchanan appearing in the proposed Presidential coin program series. "My animosity toward James Buchanan is total," he says. "I would never carry one of his coins around in my pocket. I would refuse one instantly if it were (sic) given to me."

This is because, Mr. Scott says, Buchanan was "the only person who had any real chance of averting the "tragedy" of the Civil War, yet "he chose to do nothing."

I taught college-level American history for thirty-five years, and I never found one student, one colleague, or one Civil War or Civil Rights specialist who had a workable, nonviolent solution to the mid-nineteenth century American slavery issue.

Even the Abolitionists of the time were sharply divided into "immediatists" and "gradualists." The immediatists stood strictly on principle, while the gradualists - including Lincoln - recognized the severe economic and social trauma which immediate abolition would have caused - to freed slaves as well as to their masters..

Perhaps it has always been part of human nature - including James Buchanan's - to want to believe that there is a clear, practical and peaceful solution to any problem, Unfortunately, peacefully and permanently resolving conflict which involves two or more sets of deeply held, diametrically opposed principles may be extremely difficult or even impossible.

If that is true, then President Buchanan was a victim of unreasonable expectations. As the American Heritage Book of the Presidents notes, although Buchanan "supported Lincoln and the war, saying he would have done what Lincoln did once Fort Sumter was fired on, ...Lincoln...needed someone to blame for the war and led off the attack on Buchanan - an attack that continues to this day...The conciliating James Buchanan reaped a whirlwind that had been decades in the making."

"James Buchanan was the last in a string of Presidents...who stood for compromise between two bitterly opposed groups of radicals...Pierce had been broken by it."

Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, and Pierce - had all had their turn. The only difference was that by Buchanan's watch the need for a solution was more intense.

It was Lincoln who eventually got it right. "A house divided against itself cannot stand. It must become all one thing, or all the other." That is what many Southerners finally understood too, and why they considered secession the only solution short of war.

Beyond the difficulty of any one President achieving an adequate settlement of the Great Issue, Mr. Scott's "total animosity" suggests that James Buchanan was just a lousy President and a lousy person. No doubt a case could be made that Buchanan was not one of our all-time top Presidents.

But quoting again from American Heritage's Book of the Presidents, "Buchanan was a gentle, diplomatic person,"...(In his twenty years in Congress) he was a conscientious committee member and was meticulously detailed when presenting a case." I haven't heard too many people say these are despicable traits.

"Foreign policy was always Buchanan's strong suit," the Book notes. He worked out a compromise with Britain over the controversial Clayton-Bulwer treaty which helped avert further conflict with that nineteenth century superpower. He "labored to enlarge United States influence in Central and South America, partly...because the constant political turmoil south of the border invited intervention by European powers...Had Buchanan been President in a quieter time, he might today be remembered as an empire builder..."

His "ambitious" legislative program, "which included the purchase of Cuba and enlargement of the armed forces (was) wrecked by sectionalist bickering and the vengefulness of congressmen who could not have their own way."

Today empire building is a controversial issue. But why would this make Buchanan a worse President than, say, James K. Polk, William McKinley, or even George W. Bush, all of whom have been accused of deliberately sanctioning war against a weaker nation (Mexico for Polk, Spain for McKinley and Afghanistan and Iraq for Bush) to advance American interests?

Then there was James Buchanan the private person. Again quoting from the American Heritage Book of the Presidents, Buchanan, the son of a Pennsylvania storekeeper, "worked hard;" ...he "habitually kept his financial records accurate to the penny and knew how every (large) cent was spent; before long he had amassed a considerable fortune." Scrooge-like perhaps, but honest hard work and frugality have generally been considered admirable virtues.

Presidents are people too. They had good qualities, and they had frailties. To be charitable, on the whole they probably had fewer of the latter than most of us, or they never would have gotten as far as they did. The majority who voted - except for the odd time when the electoral college "vote" contradicted the popular majority - decided he was the best man for the job. And each one in his own time was a symbol of leadership and unity for the nation we call home.

So bring on the Presidential dollar coins. I'll gladly accept them all, warts and all, and I won't be ashamed to have any of them in my pocket.