Talk:James Buchanan

"As several Cabinet members resigned, he appointed northerners, and sent the Star of the West to carry reinforcements to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the vessel was far away."

Huh? Far away from where? Does "reinforcement" refer to additional soldiers? food? ammo? Did the reinforcements get there? Why bring up the issue of the Star of the West if only in order to drop it so suddenly?

It was a boat with both troops and supplies, didn't get there. Hopefully it's clearer now - [1] would be good source for a Star of the West article with all the details. Stan 17:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wait a second, the first shots of the civil war were fired under the Lincoln Adm. and Lincoln secretly supplied Ft. Sumter, this article is factually incorrect.

Sexuality

Here are the dueling accounts of JB's sexuality:

Buchanan was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D. C.. Rumors and speculation that the two had a homosexual relationship began at the time and have periodically been revived by historians, but decisive evidence one way or the other seems lacking.

Versus:

- Buchanan's sexuality has been the subject of academic debate. He never married; but he was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D. C. At the time, King was referred to as the President's "better half" and "his wife". When King was sent as an envoy to France, Buchanan was reported to have said: "I have gone wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any of them." Professor James W Loewen, in his 1995 work "Lies my Teacher told me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong", supports the thesis that Buchanan was homosexual.

The first is an even-handed summary, the second is original research/interpretation, and the second is NOT npov. So I think the first should stay and the second must go. NP

I think we can find some middle ground here. I'm inclined to agree that the first is superior, but there is no reason that we can't include some details from the second version. (Incidentally, I'm puzzled by singling out Loewen for special mention there. Great book, but I don't recall him doing any original research on Buchanan and he's not such a towering figure in history that his opinion deserves noting like this.)

Also, please sign your posts, which you can do with four tildes (~) and that automatically slaps up your user name and date in this format: Gamaliel 17:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote

To resolve the sexuality debate, I am proposing a vote, as on the similar controversy on the Lincoln page. I would be inclined compromise by including certain details, but those details are just more speculation and are too specific for a biographical article. NP

All in favor of the first account vote here:

NP

All in favor of the second account "Buchanan's sexuality has been the subject of academic debate"(plus or minus the special mention of Loewen), vote here:

152.71.20.183 10:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Article on Buchanan's Sexuality?

Maybe it would make more sense if a whole new article was done on the controversy. Something like Buchanan Sexuality Controversy or something similar. That way, all of the various theories and ideas could be heard out in one article.Mr. Blank 12:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)