President Buchanan’s Blunder Before Battle

1856 was a critical year that would change the course of history for the United States. Tensions between the North and the South had been on the rise for many decades, and the threat of civil collapse was imminent. On March 4th, 1857, James Buchanan was inaugurated as the nation's fifteenth president. At the time, Americans believed that Buchanan was the leader necessary to prevent total civil unrest and the South leaving the Union. However, Buchanan’s actions during the Utah War, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott decision failed to resolve the crisis. Many historians rate President James Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in history.

Lillian Jiang explains.

President Buchanan (center) and his cabinet.

Historians sometimes refer to the Utah War as “Buchanan’s Blunder”. In simple terms, The Utah War was an unnecessary confrontation between Mormon settlers (the members of the Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints in Utah) and the Armed Forces of the United States from 1857 to 1859. Mormons desired their own isolated territory, to practice freedom of religion. But many Americans and President Buchanan viewed Mormonism and the leaders of the LDS Church negatively, specifically because they practiced poligamy. Tensions between Americans and the Mormans had been growing for a long time, and when Buchanan sent an army of 2,500 troops in what he called the “Utah Expedition '', Mormans assumed that they were being persecuted and armed themselves in preparation for war.

Although no direct battles occured, Mormons feared occupation, and murdered 120 migrants at Mountain Meadows (Ellen, 1). The Utah War or the Mormon Rebellion only lasted for a single year, and congress blamed Buchanan for the unnecessary violent conflict.

President Buchanan’s friend, Thomas L. Kane, who corresponded regularly with Brigham Young, intervened, and convinced the present that all Mormons would accept peace if offered, so the president granted amnesty to all Utah residents who would accept federal authority. (Ellen, 1)

Buchanan’s approach to the crisis only left a bitter aftertaste of his administration. (Stampp, 60).

Inauguration

In the year of President Buchanan’s inauguration, the Panic of 1857 swept the nation. The Panic of 1857 was a financial crisis in the United States caused by a sudden downturn in the economy, which was a result of false banking practices and the decline of many important businesses that were central to the economy, including railroad companies. At the beginning of President Buchanan’s inauguration in 1857, the United States had “$1.3 million dollars surplus and a moderate $28.7 million debt.” (Ellen, 1) When the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, took the presidency in 1861, the U.S. Treasury recorded a “25.2 million deficit and a 76.4 million debt… The amount of fiscal accumulated in the years was the largest imbalance by a pre-Civil War leader.” (Ellen, 1).

To ease the financial crisis, President Buchanan ordered the withdrawal of all banknotes under twenty dollars and ordered the state banks to follow the federal government’s “Independent Treasury System,” which required that “all federal funds be deposited into treasuries” (History Central, 1)  instead of private banks. Although this did ease the financial crisis, the Utah War had added millions to the army’s budget (Ellen, 1). The financial crisis also had an impact on sectionalism between the North and South. As the South was not affected by the crisis as much as the North because of the prevalence of slavery, Southern states began to believe they had a far superior economy, which divided the Union even further. On this matter and Buchanan’s actions, historian Mark W. Summers said, “the most devastating proof of government abuse of power since the founding of the Republic.” (Ellen, 1)

Bleeding Kansas

One of Buchanan’s most significant missteps was in regards to the way he dealt with Bleeding Kansas, a period of violent warfare between pro and anti-slavery factions in Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed in May of 1854 by President Franklin Pierce, gave residents residing in Kansas Territory the right to choose whether or not to permit slavery because of Popular Sovereignty, which gave rise to violent confrontations over the legality of slavery. On December 8th, 1957, in his first annual address to Congress, President Buchanan promised to resolve the conflict. However, his future decisions would not promote a resolution between factions and instead would escalate tension and violence.

President Buchanan was careless about whether or not Kansas would become a slave state or a free state. Although Buchanan was morally opposed to slavery, he believed that it ultimately protected by the laws of the constitution. He wanted to admit Kansas into the Union as soon as possible in hopes of settling conflicts. In 1857, Buchanan demanded approval of Kansas’s Lecompton Constitution, which protected the rights of slaveholders because he was politically dependent on Southern Democrats. However, Buchanan endorsed Popular Sovereignty, so he held an election in Kansas, on January 4th, 1858, to decide whether the constitution should be rejected or ratified. The constitution was rejected by a vote of “11,300 to 1,788” (Ellen, 1). In the end, Buchanan conflicting stances on slavery did not gain approbation from neither the Northern nor Southern states.    

Buchanan’s unrelenting support for the constitution and his dedication to Popular Sovereignty ultimately had a destructive impact on the Union. The rejection of the constitution angered many Southerners. The Northerners felt betrayed by Buchanan for protecting slave owners after being so vocally anti-slavery. In his inaugural address, he stated:

To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that under the Nebraska-Kansas act the appropriate period will be when the number of actual residents in the Territory shall justify the formation of a constitution with a view to its admission as a State into the Union (Wilder, 117).

He believed that governing the territories with Popular Sovereignty would reunite the opposing factions, but instead, it aggravated them even further.

Poor judgments

Buchanan’s poor judgments continued into the Dred Scott V. Sandford case as well. The Dred Scott case was when a formerly enslaved man, Dred Scott, sued his master for his freedom in 1846. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and The Missouri Compromise of 1820 both prohibited slavery in Fort Snelling—what is now present-day Minnesota—therefore, he argued that he had been illegally enslaved in a free territory. (Ellen, 1). After winning his lawsuits in a lower court, the case was handed over to the Supreme Court after eleven years. Despite the long wait, the Supreme Court’s decision did not satisfy the abolitionists. On March 6, 1857, referring to the “Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom”, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney decided:

The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied. . . . And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under territorial government, as well as that covered by States. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. (79)

The court determined that African-Americans could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery (Swain, 79). Buchanan also concurred with the decision, believing that the Constitution protected slavery. The Republicans quoted Buchanan’s inaugural address to claim that he was aware of the court’s verdict as he had addressed that he would “cheerfully submit” to the decision regarding the Dred Scott case and urged citizens to do the same (Ellen, 1).

This case is one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions to this date. The result invalidated the Missouri Compromise and further widened the divide between North and South over slavery (Ellen, 1). In his fourth annual address, Buchanan explained that his power was restrained under the Constitution and laws. He stated:

It is beyond the power of any president, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the states. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous question. (Hirschfield, 70).

His actions or rather, non-actions, towards sectionalism became the rallying point for nations to vote for Abraham Lincoln into office in 1860.

Sectionalism and slavocracy were the most contentious issues at the time. An empowered and decisive leadership was needed to settle the crisis between the North and the South, but Buchanan lacked these qualities as president. His blunders during the Utah War, Panic of 1857, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case only further raised tensions between the factions and left the U.S. in great turmoil. Although Buchanan had good intentions and was trying to prevent the outbreak of an imminent civil war, his administration failed to do so.

What do you think of President Buchanan? Let us know below.

Works Cited

Ellen, Kelly. “Everything Wrong with the Buchanan Administration.” Libertarianism.org, 12 June 2020, www.libertarianism.org/everything-wrong-presidents/everything-wrong-buchanan-administration#_edn15.

Hirschfield, Robert S.. The Power of the Presidency: Concepts and Controversy. United States, Aldine, 1982.

Pray, Bobbie, and Marilyn Irvin Holt. Kansas History, a Journal of the Central Plains: a Ten-Year Cumulative Index. Kansas State Historical Society, 1988.

Stampp, Kenneth M. And the War Came: the North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-1861. Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Swain, Gwenyth. Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2010.

Wilder, Daniel Webster. The Annals of Kansas. United States, G. W. Martin, 1875.

President James Buchanan and the American Civil War: Part I: Bleeding Kansas

James Buchanan was US President from 1857-1861. He is often considered one of the worst presidents of the US, with his presidency leading up to the US Civil War. Here, Ian Craig takes a look at Buchanan’s presidency. He starts by arguing that, in spite of his Democratic Party generally favoring slavery, what are often seen as pro-slavery actions during the Bleeding Kansas crisis (1854-1861), actually led to Kansas becoming an anti-slavery state.

1859 portrait of President James Buchanan. Painting by George Peter Alexander Healy.

Of all the presidents in the history of the United States, none have been as ridiculed as the man who became the fifteenth president on March 4, 1857. Having secured the Democratic nomination in 1856, James Buchanan had little trouble defeating the Republican Party’s first candidate John C. Frémont and former president Millard Fillmore. At the time of his election, Buchanan was the nation’s most qualified person to hold the office of chief executive. Having been a lawyer, state legislature, U.S. representative, U.S. Senator, minister to both Russia and Great Britain, and Secretary of State, Buchanan remains one of the only presidents in U.S. history to have an extensive public service background.  The question then remains is, why he is considered the worst president in history and why is he blamed for the Civil War? These questions will be answered over a series of articles sequencing key events in Buchanan’s presidency.

Kansas-Nebraska Act

In his last message to Congress on January 8, 1861, Buchanan stated that, “I shall carry to my grave the consciousness that I at least meant well for my country.”[1]Since that time, over one hundred and fifty years have past since he left office and the Civil War concluded. However, his legacy remains plagued by the questions posed above.  To really understand the actions taken by Buchanan leading up to the outbreak of Civil War, one must look into the political climate of the time as well as the personal beliefs that shaped Buchanan’s governing style.

One particular event that would have a direct impact of Buchanan once he became president was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  This allowed for Kansas and Nebraska to create governments and decide for themselves the slavery question while also repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  Pro-slavery settlers from neighboring Missouri crossed the border illegally into Kansas, heavily influencing the election of a pro-slavery government in Kansas. This led to violence in the territory as both pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups fought for control.  It also led to the creation of two governments, one at Lecompton (pro-slavery) and one at Topeka (anti-slavery).  This series of events later became known as “Bleeding Kansas” for the violence and death that occurred.  Even the United States Senate was not spared from the violence. In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner was beaten over the head with a cane by Congressman Preston Brooks on the floor of the Senate.  Sumner had called out a relative of Brooks regarding the slavery issue offending his honor. Lecompton was also recognized as the legitimate government despite hostilities.

Dealing with Bleeding Kansas

Upon assuming office, Buchanan had to deal with the crisis in Kansas left to him by his predecessor Franklin Pierce.  Pierce had signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act believing that territories were “perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions in their own way.”[2]However, Pierce would come to favor the pro-slavery legislation over that of the anti-slavery actions.  James Buchanan’s views of the Kansas-Nebraska Act were not favorable. He wrote that “Congress which had commenced so auspiciously, by repealing the Missouri Compromise…reopened the floodgates of sectional strife.”[3]The governing style of James Buchanan was one based on that of a diplomat.  Having an extensive background as a negotiator, he used his prior experience in his many diplomatic and legislative roles as chief executive.  He also heavily relied on his days as a lawyer and his knowledge of constitutional law to formulate his opinions.  This is how he dealt with the crisis in Kansas.

As president, Buchanan believed that he did not have the authority to interfere in the elections which took place in Kansas despite the fraud that had occurred there.  He wrote that “it was far from my intention to interfere with the decision of the people of Kansas wither for or against slavery.”[4]Essentially, Buchanan felt that the people of Kansas could settle the matter themselves without government intervention. Despite his intentions, Buchanan took military action in sending federal troops to Kansas in 1857 to secure the legitimacy of a state constitution without fraud or violence.  His justification for this was that it was his duty to protect the recognized government and the people’s wishes as President of the United States.  Buchanan recalls, “under these circumstances, what was my duty? Was it not to sustain this government (in Lecompton)? To protect us from the violence of lawless men, who were determined to ruin or rule? It was for this purpose, and this alone, that I ordered a military force to Kansas.”[5]

In doing this, Buchanan was criticized for appearing to support the pro-slavery party in creating a slave state.  This, however, was not the case as he attempted to perform his duties in executing the laws and by preserving and protecting the Constitution.  He states in a broad question to such people, “would you have desired that I abandoned the Territorial Government, sanctioned as it had been by Congress, to illegal violence…this would, indeed have been to violate my oath of office.”[6]Standing firm on his beliefs, Buchanan was convinced that his action would help to support a positive and legal result at the next election.  To him, it was still up to the people to decide on the manner.

1858 Kansas Election

In early 1858, a new election was held to elect state officials based on the passage of the constitution in November.  This election for governor, lieutenant governor, and other officials, resulted in the election of several members of the anti-slavery Topeka Convention.  The balance of power shifted towards them and they were more determined to vote in the creation of a constitution with some aspects of the Lecompton Constitution.  James Buchanan took this as a victory because he had wished that the anti-slavery party would take part in the elections.  Buchanan, writing in the third person, states that “it had been his constant effort from the beginning to induce the Anti-Slavery party to vote.  Now that this had been accomplished, he knew that all revolutionary troubles in Kansas would speedily terminate.  A resort of the ballot box, instead of force, was the most effectual means of restoring peace and tranquility.”[7]Buchanan, keeping to his constitutional beliefs, used force only to enforce the rights of the people to vote under the Constitution. Essentially, Buchanan gave the anti-slavery party the tools to vote in a free and fair election without fear of violence.  It only took them a while to take him up on his efforts before they would vote in the government.  James Buchanan recognized that they were in effect the majority of the population and in accordance with the law, it was up to them to decide the slavery question.  

On February 2, 1858, James Buchanan gave a message to Congress regarding the constitution of Kansas.  The newly elected government (with a large majority of anti-slavery supporters) had sent the Lecompton Constitution (with slavery elements) to the president for Congressional approval.  In Buchanan’s message he stated that “slavery can therefore never be prohibited in Kansas except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no manner can this be obtained so promptly.”[8]Although this may be interpreted as pro-slavery, to Buchanan it was not, because the people of Kansas had elected their leaders and had submitted a constitution in forming a state legally.  It was his duty to ensure that their wishes were carried out. He warns that, “should Congress reject the constitution…no man can foretell the consequences.”[9]In Buchanan’s eyes, the admittance of Kansas into the Union in a timely manner would “restore peace and quiet to the whole country.”[10]  In closing his message to Congress, he admits that he had been forced to act in Kansas on behalf of the people to ensure fair elections and opportunities for both sides. He states of the matter, “I have been obliged in some degree to interfere with the expedition in order to keep down rebellion in Kansas.”[11]

Buchanan and the Constitution

Although Congress would reject the Lecompton Constitution due to the slavery elements, James Buchanan could not interfere as it was not in the powers of the executive granted in the Constitution.  In 1861, Kansas became a free state. In looking at the situation in Kansas, James Buchanan’s actions were in accordance with the Constitution and his role as chief executive.  Since the Lecompton government was established by Congress it was the legal government in Buchanan’s eyes.  He recognized that voter fraud and violent intimidation had elected pro-slavery delegates that did not speak for the majority of Kansas.  It was for this reason that he urged them to have new elections which were fair.  When that advice fell on deaf ears, he sent federal troops to defend the rights of the people at the ballot box.  This action was taken as his support of the pro-slavery election results.  However, it gave the anti-slavery party the ability to vote in unbiased elections which would lead to their control of the government.  In the words of James Buchanan, “I have thus performed my duty on this important question, under a deep sense of responsibility to God and my country.”[12]

What do you think of James Buchanan’s actions during Bleeding Kansas?

[1]Irving Sloan, James Buchanan: 1791-1868, (New York: Oceana Publishers, 1968): 84.

[2]Michael F. Holt, Franklin Pierce, (New York: Times Books, 2010): 77. 

[3]James Buchanan, Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of Rebellion, (Scituate: Digital Scanning Inc, 1866/2009): 13. 

[4]Sloan, 35. 

[5]Buchanan, 18. 

[6]Buchanan, 18. 

[7]Buchanan, 24. 

[8]Sloan, 47. 

[9]Sloan, 47. 

[10]Sloan, 48. 

[11]Sloan, 49. 

[12]Buchanan, 26.