It wasn’t so long ago that the “Dixiecrats” still wielded considerable influence in the Democratic Party; they were only purged when it became clear that die-hard segregation was political suicide outside the deep South. And the Republicans started out and remain to the present the capitalist/industrialist party; it’s just that in 1860 that was considered radical and progressive, compared to the old planter/aristocrat system. Indeed some pundits have considered the Civil War to be basically a revolution of a new power elite against the old one.
Actually, I wouldn’t have thought a compromise out of reach. Buchanon wasn’t terribly energetic in pursuing any such thing. Of course, it might not have helped anyway. Just about the only “solution” from their point of view was if the North delcared slavery a positive good, guarranteed it in the territories, and possibly conquered Cuba*.
*No joke. The South was crazy for Cuba.
Oscar Wilde said more than 100 years ago, “The youth of America is their oldest tradition.” In terms of self-governing nations with continuous government institutions, the U.S. is among the oldest on earth.
I’d say the ultimate defense is that Buchanan isn’t accused of treason, implicit or otherwise. He’s accused of incompetence.
And you’re wrong about the paucity of suggestions being made. Everyone was throwing out suggestions; the Republicans certainly among those doing so. Buchanan’s fault was that he essentially didn’t follow up on any of the ideas being offered.
All true, and I think he was terrified by the prospect of war. He wasn’t willing to face the grim possibility, and Lincoln was. Buchanan also failed to more closely monitor what his Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, was up to. Floyd arranged for the massive shipment of arms south of the Mason-Dixon Line in his last months in office, arms which the firebreathers of the South were more than happy to snap up once secession got underway. Floyd later served as a Confederate general.
Buchanan’s options were limited, it’s true. But he did nothing other than give a flaccid speech, and tossed the whole mess into Lincoln’s lap with a sign of relief.
The consensus of this thread seems to be that Buchanan could have done nothing to prevent the war but a great deal to prepare for it. All agreed?
Well, I dunno. If he had grown a pair and channeled Andrew Jackson, growling that he’d personally lead an army into whichever state was the first to secede, then he might have scared them out of it. But I highly doubt it.
Sitnam in post#3 accuses Buchanan of treason.
As for incompetence, if one defines the objective as fighting and winning a Civil War in the most expeditious manner possible, then Buchanan was incompetent. If one defines the objective (as Buchanan did) of preserving peace until the end of his term, thus preserving opportunities for compromise, and leaving the widest range of options to his successor (who was after all the man in response to whom the Southern states were seceding), then he was successful.
Actually, he only lobbied one Justice, his fellow Pennsylvanian Robert Grier. He wanted Grier to join the Southern justices so that Dred Scott wouldn’t be a sectional ruling, and Grier did so.
That was bad enough. I’ll cheerfully rank Buchanan among the worst Presidents of all time–although not the absolute worst, because Andrew Johnson has that “honor” under lock, key, and hermetical seal. It’s just that, for my money, the events between the election and inauguration of Lincoln play only a small part in that ranking.
What opportunities for compromise? Realistically, there was probably no hope for a general compromise. South Carolina and several other states were determined to secede and there was virtually no chance they could be convinced otherwise. But Buchanan made it as easy as possible for them to secede. He didn’t call up any troops or redeploy the ones he had, he made no effort to send troops into the seceeding states or to reinforce military bases in the south, he didn’t withdraw federal property like the gold in New Orleans to the north, he didn’t prevent American arms from being sent South, he didn’t impose a blockade on southern ports, he didn’t send diplomatic missions to Europe to gather foreign support, he didn’t send envoys to the southern states to try to convince them to stay in the union.
And the crisis wasn’t static. More states kept seceding and more federal property was being seized. The problem kept getting worse with every passing week. But Buchanan continued to do nothing. Waiting was not a credible plan.
Johnson had the misfortune of facing a hostile Congress that wanted to control Reconstruction and and that was much more in favor of civil rights for blacks than he was. He combined that with an inability to compromise. That together made his presidency less than successful.
This comment has got me thinking and rather than hijack this thread I have begun another one. Was that a bad strategy? What would have happened if they were let to secede and economic isolation was attempted instead? If followed up on may that have had a better result in the long term at less cost? Please bring any comments to the other thread. Carry on.
Not everybody felt that way at the time. Throughout the winter of 1860-61, the Senate Committee of Thirteen and the Tyler “Peace Convention” worked on compromises. In hindsight these meetings were both futile and immoral, because the North had made enough concessions regarding slavery and had no business making any more.
Nevertheless, leading Senate Republicans such as Seward and Ben Wade took part. Seward was expected to be offered a place in Lincoln’s cabinet and be a leading voice in his administration. It’s hard to argue that Buchanan should have been more bellicose than Seward.