Yes, quite so. Although I do get a kick out of contemporary historians (especially of a left-wing ilk) trying to use "liberal" vs. "Conservative" on Presidents of that era and earlier. Those ideological labels as we know them today simply don't apply to those times. I can't really begin to label political figures (Presidents in this case) on such a scale until around 1892/96 and after, when the modern roots were coming more into focus (i.e. Cleveland was the "last" Conservative Democrat President).
"Pierce and Buchanan were awful Presidents by much more objective and pragmatic criteria: they presided over the country's decline to civil war, so I don't have any trouble rating them as the worst."
My point above being that it would not have mattered who occupied the office for the bulk of the 1850s, since what was coming was coming. Only difference would've been the speed towards what was coming. Winfield Scott vs. Pierce was negligable. Frémont vs. Buchanan, and the former probably would've seen it happen 4 years earlier (and likely that Lincoln would never have become President, and we'll never know how Frémont would've handled such a crisis).
"Why so astonishing? The Democrats were like that right down to the 1970s or so, and something similar was true of the Republicans. Parties just weren't as ideologically homogeneous as they are today."
Perhaps astonishing isn't the right word so much as "baffling" is. At least to me. I'm not naive on the subject, as I do know that both of the parties did have a decent presence across the ideological spectrum, although the dominant wings were asserting themselves before the '70s, though the Watergate babies really did a number on the Democrat party and managed to force (or force out) center-right members leftward. To elaborate why I chose the words "astonishing/baffling" is that it seems counterproductive to have a substantial chunk of one party opposed to what the rest of the party wants, you end up having constant internecine battles except during times of relative calm/prosperity. Of course, in a way, when both parties were counterbalanced within, it prevented the country from going off the deep end (hence you had your sane and rational folks balancing out or outvoting the nutters).
There have, of course, been purges of one ideology going back to the 19th century. Some more notables being the Silverites/Socialists who decided to take over the Democrat party with the 1896 race, led by the Bryans and the Altgeld moonbats, forcing out the Bourbon/Gold Democrats of Cleveland. The 1912 split between the Taft Conservatives and Roosevelt Progressives. The 1928 tempest between the pro- and anti-Catholics opposed to Al Smith (which, interestingly, would portend the direction New England would go in the long run towards the Democrats). The late '30s abortive purge by FDR to sack Conservative anti-New Dealer Democrats. The three-way split in 1948 between National Truman Democrats, Ultraleft Wallace Progressive Democrats and States Rights Democrats under Thurmond. The 1964 split between the Eastern Establishment Liberals under Rockefeller/Scranton, et al and the Goldwaterites. And, of course, the slow-burn build-up between 1968-1976 within the Democrats to move out the Conservatives/War Hawks and transform it into a McGovernite party.
That all begs the question, had we kept a balance within the parties, would that have staved off such divisions we see rising in the country, amped up post-1994 ? Now that the GOP has the bulk of Conservatives and moderates (with a smaller nuisance smattering of pro-big government RINOs), it has allowed the Democrats to completely jump off the deep end with no internal counterbalance to cool off their insane spending/gov't expansion and decadent social policy stances. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. This might be exactly like the 1850s again, what was coming was coming and it didn't matter entirely who was in charge, except to determine the speed of which we were headed towards this ultimate calamitous event. History does indeed have a nasty habit of repeating itself, and far too many folks have a nasty habit of not knowing history.
Letting Douglas and Congress open up the Kansas-Nebraska issue did a lot to hasten the coming of war. I can't say what Scott would have done, but not every possible President would have let that issue run away from him. That's why Pierce is rated so low.
Buchanan could have sent clearer signals about what the government would do. He could have restrained his pro-secessionist appointees and helped to resolve the situation one way or the other before Lincoln took office.
I get the whole "irrepressible conflict" theory. Maybe if Pierce or Buchanan had done things differently we'd still have ended up with war, but the fact that they did so little really counts against them.
To elaborate why I chose the words "astonishing/baffling" is that it seems counterproductive to have a substantial chunk of one party opposed to what the rest of the party wants, you end up having constant internecine battles except during times of relative calm/prosperity. Of course, in a way, when both parties were counterbalanced within, it prevented the country from going off the deep end (hence you had your sane and rational folks balancing out or outvoting the nutters).
The composition of the parties meant that national politics would be focused on issues that did more to unify the sections of the country. Democrats focused on different kinds of pork for Northern cities and Southern and Western farmlands, rather than on divisive social issues. When they formed their platforms the parties tended to avoid the questions that divided them internally for as long as they could. Of course they couldn't permanently avoid arguing things out, but they put off the explosions for a long time.
And of course in those days basic civil rights were a "divisive social issue" and the effect was to freeze action on that issue, but the party system did limit how far any party would go in any one direction. Actually the constitutional system of checks and balances limited what parties could do. The mixture of different elements within each party doused the rhetorical heat and tamped down the animosity between the parties. I'm not saying those were good old days that I'd want back, but there was something to be said for politicians tending not to claim to be more opposed to each other than they actually were or to promise things that they couldn't possibly deliver.
That all begs the question, had we kept a balance within the parties, would that have staved off such divisions we see rising in the country, amped up post-1994 ? Now that the GOP has the bulk of Conservatives and moderates (with a smaller nuisance smattering of pro-big government RINOs), it has allowed the Democrats to completely jump off the deep end with no internal counterbalance to cool off their insane spending/gov't expansion and decadent social policy stances. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. This might be exactly like the 1850s again, what was coming was coming and it didn't matter entirely who was in charge, except to determine the speed of which we were headed towards this ultimate calamitous event. History does indeed have a nasty habit of repeating itself, and far too many folks have a nasty habit of not knowing history.
There is a snowballing effect. So long as Southerners led the Democrats and Westerners or Middlewesterners led the Republicans ideological passions were weaker. Not that things were wonderful in all ways, but polarization was less than it could have been. With G.W.B and B.H.O. you have the parties led by people from their strongest base areas and polarization is greater. I wonder if that wasn't inevitable -- if after a certain point you couldn't get Democrats to nominate Southerners or Republicans to nominate Californians -- but I'm not sure that it's irreversible. Parties are as much competitive enterprises as ideological ones and look for ways to win the swing voters in the middle.