Why does Robert Strauss consider James Buchanan a bad president?

Robert Strauss does much more, leading readers out of Buchanan's terrible term in office meddling in the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, exacerbating the Panic of 1857, helping foment the John Brown uprisings and Bloody Kansas, virtually inviting a half-dozen states to secede from the Union as a lame duck, and on and on to explore with insight and humor his own obsession with presidents, and ultimately the entire notion of ranking our presidents. He guides us through the POTUS rating game of historians and others who have made their own Mount Rushmores or Marianas Trenches of presidential achievement, showing why Buchanan easily loses to any of the others, but also offering insights into presidential history buffs like himself, the forgotten "lesser" presidential sites, sex and the presidency, the presidency itself, and how and why it can often take the best measures out of even the most dedicated men

  i think colonial period |-/

Ithink the answer is d. the lower appellate and trial courts in the state.