James Buchanan and the Inevitability of the Civil War
Was the American Civil War inevitable, or could James Buchanan have done something to prevent it? This article explores the complex political landscape of the 1850s and examines the actions (or lack thereof) taken by Buchanan and other key figures. We will also discuss some critical factors that led to the civil conflict.
Was the Civil War Inevitable?
Some argue that the Civil War was inevitable due to the deepening divide between the North and the South over issues like slavery. Others suggest that James Buchanan could have taken specific actions to mitigate the conflict.
The Limits of Buchanan's Authority
Buchanan was not a forceful leader and took few proactive steps to address the situation. He allowed the takeover of government arsenals by the succeeding states, which further exacerbated tensions. By 1861, the radicals on both sides were set on non-compromise, and war was on the horizon.
The Avoidability of War
Despite the inevitability argument, the war was far from unavoidable. The rich slaveholding aristocrats initiated secession without realizing how difficult it would be to win a war against the North. By leaving the Union, they brought about the abolition of slavery much faster than it otherwise would have occurred.
Why was Secession Involuntary?
Several factors contributed to the inevitability of the conflict:
The Dred Scott Decision of 1857: This Supreme Court ruling invalidated the Missouri Compromise, a cornerstone of the nation's balance between free and slave states. This striking legal decision set the stage for further disagreements and conflicts.
The Corwin Amendment: Proposed just before Lincoln's inauguration, this amendment aimed to reconcile the sections by preventing Congress from abolishing or interfering with the institution of slavery in states. Buchanan signed this amendment, hoping to preserve the Union without bloodshed.
The Absence of a Federal Army: The framers deliberately avoided a large standing domestic army to prevent a military dictatorship. By 1860, the Army was severely understaffed, with only 16,367 troops on the rolls and no infantry stationed east of the Mississippi.
Why Immediate Action Was Challenging
Buchanan's hands were tied by the Dred Scott Decision and the subsequent political climate. Compromising on extending slavery in federal territory was not an option. Furthermore, the Corwin Amendment, while signed, was a temporary fix that did not address the underlying issues.
When Lincoln requested troops from the states, he called for 75,000 troops, a number far greater than what Congress had previously authorized. By the end of the war, over 2.6 million men had served in the Union army, more than doubling the pre-war numbers.
Lessons from Buchanan's Inaction
Buchanan's approach was to avoid repression and instead pursue compromise. His efforts, however, were ultimately unsuccessful. This is not solely his fault but rather an outcome of the deeply divided society of the 1850s.
While hindsight is always 20/20, Buchanan could certainly have implemented measures to mitigate the dissolution of the Union. His decision to use compromise rather than force may have been the best approach in a volatile political environment.
In conclusion, the American Civil War was not solely the result of James Buchanan's inaction. Multiple complex factors, including legal, economic, and social issues, contributed to the inevitability of the conflict. Understanding these factors helps us comprehend the challenges faced during that critical period in American history.