The horrific presidencies of Warren G. Harding and James Buchanan often spark debate between historians on who was the lesser of the two evils, but when the position that Buchanan is taken into consideration, one can conclude that Harding was worst of the two presidents. Although Buchanan divided the nation, it can also be said that he attempted to resolve the issue of slavery, but similar to that of Harding, he was indecisive. According to the Miller Center, “Buchanan's passivity is considered by most historians to have been a prime contributing factor in the coming of the Civil War” (UVA 1). Unlike Buchanan, Harding would have dealt with the situation differently, instead of attacking the position with a firm stance on the matter it can be assumed that he would have delegated himself out of debates regarding slavery. Buchanan was a skilled political tactician, but slavery …show more content…
Although his position on slavery was vile, it would be unfair to not understand where he was coming from with regards to his opinion. If the United States were to the immediate abolition of slavery at the time the Southern economy would have hit rock bottom, and the culture shift would be so drastic that it probably would have started a conflict by itself. It is unfair to blame him solely for the Civil War because the issue of slavery was growing before he set foot in office, and though he may not have dealt with it well, at least he fought for a cause and took a stance on an issue, because Harding was unable to do that throughout his political career. The argument of the two being terrible leaders is also debated among historians, but based off of Harding’s time in office it is easy to conclude that he was not a leader. As a result of his excessive delegation, he never led the country, instead his corrupt administration