James Buchanan: The Failed Presidency and Its Legacy
James Buchanan served as the 15th president of the United States from 1857 to 1861. While he is often criticized for his handling of the pre-Civil War era, it is also important to examine whether his presidency was entirely without merit. This article evaluates his successes and failures, focusing on his role in the escalating tensions leading to the Civil War. We will explore reasons why Buchanan is seen as a poor president, but also highlight instances where his approach could have been improved.
Failed Prevention of Civil War
One of the primary criticisms of James Buchanan’s presidency is his failure to prevent the American Civil War. It is argued that if he had vetoed the Morrill Tariff, he might have prevented the conflict (Buchanan, 1860). However, it is important to note that the inevitability of the Civil War was a common concern among leaders of the time. No president could single-handedly resolve the complex issue of slavery, which underscored the sectional divide between the North and the South (Klein, 1894; Smith, 1889).
Torial Activities and Frustrations
Buchanan's presidency was marked by several frustrating and controversial actions. For instance, he tried to approve a fraudulent pro-slavery Kansas state constitution, which was widely recognized as a sham (Klein, 1894). Additionally, he colluded with Chief Justice Taney in a manner that further exacerbated tensions, particularly with actions leading to the Dred Scott decision (Taney, 1857).
Missed Opportunities for Peace
Several missed opportunities during Buchanan's presidency could have mitigated the severity of the conflict. For example, if Buchanan had employed Andrew Jackson’s answer to South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, he might have defused the situation more effectively (Morgan, 1860). Furthermore, Buchanan could have prevented the buildup of military supplies in the South without adequate guard presence, which potentially heightened Southern fears and pre-empted hostilities (Klein, 1894).
Concessions and Rejections
A significant misstep during the last days of Buchanan's presidency was his handling of the situation at Fort Sumter. On February 6, 1861, under pressure from his cabinet, he conceded to the demand that federal forces should not withdraw from Fort Sumter by February 9th (New York Times, 1861). This decision, combined with the evacuation of family members from the fort, further fueled Southern perceptions that the North was abandoning its position (New York Times, 1861).
Key Events
February 6, 1861: Buchanan officially informed Peace Commissioners that federal forces would not withdraw from Fort Sumter, leading to a series of military and political changes (New York Times, 1861). South Carolina's Secession: After the state's secession on December 20, 1860, Buchanan refused to abandon Forts in South Carolina, citing the protection of federal property (New York Times, 1861). Fort Moultrie Parade: A symbolic and somewhat peaceful military parade took place at Fort Moultrie, involving the 1st Regiment of S.C. Volunteers (Daily Dispatch, 1861). Fort Sumter Garrison: Despite being understaffed, Major Anderson and the garrison prepared the fort for the worst, highlighting their dedication to their duties (New York Times, 1861). Resignations in the Home Squadron: Several North-South appointed officers resigned, reflecting the deep divisions within the military (New York Times, 1861).Conclusion
While James Buchanan is often vilified for his role in the leading up to the Civil War, it is crucial to acknowledge the complex political and social factors at play. He made several decisions that may have been understandable given the circumstances but ultimately contributed to the escalation of tensions. Whether he could have done more to prevent the war remains a matter of historical debate (Klein, 1894; Nicolay and Hay, 1900; Auchampaugh, 1974).
It is important to recognize that while Buchanan is a prime candidate for criticism, his presidency was not without nuances and challenges. The legacy of his presidency continues to be a subject of scholarly inquiry and historical discussion.