James Buchanan is widely regarded as one of the worst presidents in the history of the US, and in my opinion, is the single worst among them.
This disdain largely stems from complacency and negligence in handling the secession of states from the Union. Some go as far as to claim Buchanan single-handedly caused the Civil War to occur, while others (such as myself) view it as a lack of action and decisiveness that allowed the division within the US to fester and culminate into the Civil War.
But what were Buchanan’s personal views on secession, and the ultimate divide that caused it to happen?
I believe no source illustrates this better than Buchanan’s fourth State of the Union Address. The full script is linked to this post, but to highlight some of the key takeaways from it:
The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its natural effects.
I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger.
All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy.
The immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom.
I believe that last excerpt is the nail in the coffin for Buchanan’s mishandling of US tensions. Rather than pinning the blame on the south for continuing the barbaric practice of slavery, he instead pins the blame on the north for making slavery an issue, even going as far as to claim the north is at fault for allowing slaves to even consider freedom.
The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder.
In later parts of the address, Buchanan continues to appease the South. He argues that it is the north’s obligation to cater to the demands of the South, and should they be rejected, the North is to blame for the resulting aftermath.
Looking back from a more modern perspective, we can see the war this would result in, and understand how perverse Buchanan’s views on civil rights were.
Perhaps my take on Buchanan is too harsh. If you disagree or want to elaborate, please feel free to discuss!
Buchanan definitely was not the president to change the course of events concerning slavery and the ensuing civil war. I think the critique of his stance and following complacency/inaction is on point. I don’t think that any one person holding power can be pointed to as the worst, though. Many presidents have made decisions or sat idle during decisive periods; many of which have had lasting negative effects. I think it is easier to see the ripples looking back, but maybe it also magnifies the contempt we have for someone at such a crucial point in time.
But I do agree, Buchanan kind of sucked hard.
Oh yeah, completely fair take.
If elected in another time, Buchanan may have performed better as president, and the same can be said for other leaders as well, such as Hoover, who was considered to be a great humanitarian, but really was shafted by the Great Depression and key measures he signed off on, like the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
Hindsight is 20/20 of course, and being able to see the ripples can often lead to us underestimating how difficult it was to make a “better” decision at the time, I agree.
