James Buchanan

[DannyW]

When you look at presidential blunders, James Buchanan’s name comes up. It mentions how he did nothing to prevent war. But ,in actuality, what could he have done to prevent Civil War?
Thanks in advance for any responses !

[Steve]

In most of the Southern states, even just after Lincoln's election, there was a reluctance to leave the Union and secessionists in those states looked to South Carolina to lead the way/make sure the consequences weren't too dire. If Buchanan had somehow been able to prevent South Carolina's secession, it likely would have staved off secession until after Lincoln assumed office. If Lincoln was as hands-off of slavery within the states as his rhetoric during the campaign suggests, then perhaps there would have been less political will to leave the Union, despite Southern leaders' fear of losing power in the national government.

If South Carolina secession had gone through and Buchanan had responded forcefully, that might still have prevented the war. But it would have to be done in a certain way with political tact. Somehow like the way President Jackson dealt with the tariff issue in his day. The reactions of the other slave states would have to be taken into account to prevent unintended consequences.

[L Verge]

David L. will be very pleased that I am directing your attention to a 2010 article in the New York Times - sort of a tongue-in-cheek (but fairly accurate) appraisal of what Buchanan did and did not do to prevent war. Personally, I think war was inevitable and it was just a matter of time before the powder keg would explode. Even if the Southern states were allowed to secede and form their own government in 1861, there would always be someone (north and south) to throw a monkey wrench into things at some point.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-too-late/

[Steve]

Thanks for sharing the article, Laurie!