The American Civil War was the culmination of sectional tensions brought about by a number of regional differences. The primary disputes were with positions on slavery and states' rights. These issues spawned widespread economic, political, and social sectionalism which the statesmen of the time chose in large part to ignore. Rather than get into an all out political battle, the politicians of the day avoided the problems rather than addressing them outright, and possibly preventing the widespread blood letting that was the Civil War. Their ad hoc compromises and poorly thought out legislation merely bought time for the nation by treating its symptoms and not the disease. These blundering statesmen led the young nation down a road of destruction, not taking into account the negative impact that their short sighted actions would have on the future of America.
Martin Van Buren followed Andrew Jackson, one of the most popular presidents in American history, into office in 1837 (Anonymous "Martin..." 1). Van Buren was a man of good character and a shrewd politician. However, he became the fall guy for all of Jackson's failures, including the debacle that was his economic plan. These circumstances that surrounded his presidency set off a chain reaction that resulted in the election of a succession of presidents who were neither strong or far sighted enough to hold the nation together. Historian Dr. Alan Axelrod observed, one of the great ironies of American history was that the man who changed all of this and would have perhaps been able to hold America together:
Abraham Lincoln, strong, opinionated, and idealistic, perhaps the one person who might have been able to reunite the torn nation, was actually the proverbial, 'straw that broke the camel's back,' and provided the final justification to the South, driving it to secede from the Union. (Axelrod 123)
Burdened by the scandal and economic troubles of the Jacksonian presidency, Martin Van Buren, nonetheless, entered his 1841 reelection campaign with high hopes (Anonymous "Martin..." 2). As the only candidate of an established party, he felt he had the support of those who had previously backed Jackson. However, the problems of Jackson's tenure and his own controversial subtreasury policy continually came back to haunt him. The Whigs challenged him with a the black horse candidate of William Henry Harrison. Harrison was a produced politician. As Bailey says,
He was nominated primarily because he was issueless and enemyless - and a most unfortunate precedent was thus set. John Tyler of Virginia, an afterthought, was selected as the vice-presidential running mate. (Bailey 294)
The Whigs launched a campaign with only the most meager of political stances, but made up for it by playing to the emotions of the people. They portrayed Harrison as a war hero and a poor Westerner, reared in a backwoods log cabin; and, "Matty Van Ruin," as an aristocrat. In reality, Harrison was a wealthy Virginian from one of the First Families of Virginia and Van Buren was raised impoverished. (Bailey 294, Anonymous "Martin..." 1-3)
In 1841, Van Buren was ousted by popular politics and Harrison floated into office on a sea of hard cider (Garraty 381). The Whigs were ecstatic. Daniel Webster, a leader of the Whigs, was especially so. Tasked with editing Harrison's inaugural, Webster was free to change it as he wished. Therefore, he was able to act out his own agenda through Harrison. After less than a month in office, Harrison fell ill and on April 4, 1841 succumbed to pneumonia (Anonymous "William..." 3). John Tyler was the first vice-president to ascend to the presidency after the death of the incumbent. He was also the first in a series of presidents who acted without regard to the effects their actions might have on the future. (Garraty 381, Anonymous "William..." 3)
The issue of Tyler's accedence to the presidency was a topic of much Constitutional debate, but he was confident of his position as the Chief Executive. Upon arriving in Washington, shortly after Harrison's death, his power was immediately challenged by his inherited cabinet. Expecting him to be cowed by his new office and sudden elevation, the cabinet demanded that all administrative matters be approved by them prior to being affected. Shocking his cabinet, and setting the tone for his tenure, he sardonically replied,
I am very glad to have in my cabinet such able statesmen as you. But I can never consent to being dictated as to what I can and cannot do . . . I am the President . . . When you think otherwise, your resignations will be accepted. (Tyler)
In the opinion of John A. Garraty, "Tyler dared to do as his beliefs dictated, even if they contradicted those which the party leadership supported." He would persistently anger the Whig leadership and the opposition party resulting in vicious fighting within the political establishment (830). In his own words,
I became fully aware of the angry state of the factions against each other . . . I was surrounded by Clay men, Webster men, Anti-Mormons, Anti-Masons, original Harrisonians, old Whigs, and new Whigs, each jealous of each other and all struggling for the offices. (Tyler)
His repeated use of veto power enraged Clay and Webster, who both seriously called for an impeachment. The movement failed and the trial never began, but the message was clear. Tyler, however, was uncommon in that he would not be bullied, he felt that what he was doing was right and stood by his decisions. He repeatedly vetoed Whig plans for a new National Bank and a redesigned tariff. The bank proposal did not pass and he only allowed the tariff after it had been revisited and the tax lowered to 1832 levels (Brogan 173). (Anonymous "John Tyler," Brogan 173, Garraty 830, Kunhardt 210, Tyler)
Despite Tyler's good intentions, his short sighted views were prejudiced much in the same way as Jackson's were (Brogan 174). His greatest error came toward the end of his presidency. He fervently petitioned for the annexation of Texas. In fact, it was he who drafted and submitted the treaty which would transfer the sovereignty of Texas to America (Kunhardt 210). With a lack of foresight, typical of his contemporaries, he did not fully recognize how the spread of the nation would lead to a spread of slavery and potentially throw off the representative balance between the North and the South. In the end, it was his successor James K. Polk who would receive the glory and the blame of the annexation because a spiteful congress refused to address the issue until Tyler left office (Flexner 310). (Brogan 174, Flexner 310, Kunhardt 210)
In early 1845 the incumbent was cast out of office by the next dark horse candidate James Knox Polk (Anonymous "The 1844 Election..." 1). Van Buren had seemed to be the natural candidate for the presidency in 1845 but he soon defected from the Democrats and formed the anti-slavery, Free-Soil Party (Brogan 270). The Whig Party, torn apart by internal strife, saw its nominee, the wise, able, and staunch states' righter, John C. Calhoun, defeated (Anonymous "The 1844 Election..." 1). Although the defeat of Calhoun was a godsend which kept the radical politician, known as the father of ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In early 1845 the incumbent was cast out of office by the next dark horse candidate James Knox Polk (Anonymous "The 1844 Election..." 1). Van Buren had seemed to be the natural candidate for the presidency in 1845 but he soon defected from the Democrats and formed the anti-slavery, Free-Soil Party (Brogan 270). The Whig Party, torn apart by internal strife, saw its nominee, the wise, able, and staunch states' righter, John C. Calhoun, defeated (Anonymous "The 1844 Election..." 1). Although the defeat of Calhoun was a godsend which kept the radical politician, known as the father of the nullification movement and the developing secessionist movement, out of power, it embittered Calhoun and many of his Southern supporters. Only serving to further divide the nation (Brogan 279). The new president, James K. Polk, wrote that:
[John C. Calhoun] is desperate in his aspirations to the Presidency . . . unpatriotic [and] wicked . . . I now entertain a worse opinion of Mr. Calhoun than I have ver done before. He is wholly selfish, and I am satisfied has no patriotism. A few years ago he was the author of nullification and threatened to dissolve the Union on account of the tariff . . . he selects slavery upon which to agitate the country . . . the Constitution settles these [issues]. (Polk)
(Anonymous "The 1844 Election..." 1, Brogan 270, 279, Polk)
Fortunately for America, James K. Polk, the protege of the ailing Andrew Jackson, was of sound mind and principle. He was educated an capable. Furthermore, he was fully aware of the precarious situation that the nation was in, and made a concerted effort not to inflame sectional tempers. As the renown presidential historian Philip B. Kunhardt Jr. wrote:
Determined to exercise fairness to all sections of the country, Polk took care to balance his cabinet geographically. And in his presidential program he worked hard to balance local interests. Along with Northern Democrats, he supported an independent treasury; along with Southerners he worked for a lower tariff; and with Westerners he advocated lower prices on government land. (410)
(Kunhardt 410)
Although he worked hard to preserve the integrity of the nation, he made a great error in pressing for American expansion. The theory of Manifest Destiny was dear to him and even here he struggled to be fair by pushing equally as hard to the north- and southwest (Axelrod 130). However, he did not foresee the problems that would arise regarding the slavery issue. In 1846 the United States was in the midst of a border dispute over where the Canadian-American border would be in the Oregon Territory. After several denied attempts to attain all of the territory south of the 54? 40' North Latitude line the British finally capitulated and offered a new treaty (Bailey 387). It was to extend the previous eastern border westward granting all land south of it, with the exception of Vancouver's Island, to the United States. Article One of the treaty reads:
ARTICLE I. From the point of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, where the boundary laid down in existing treaties and conventions between the United States and Great Britain terminates, the line of boundary between the territories of the United States and those of her Britannic Majesty shall be continued westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's Straits, to the Pacific Ocean: Provided, however, That the navigation of the whole of the said channel and straits, south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, remain free and open to both parties. (Anonymous "The 1846..." 1)
The treaty was immediately ratified upon reception in the senate where the delegates recognized that America could not go to war with both England and Mexico. (Anonymous "The 1846..." 1, Axelrod 130, Bailey 387)
Earlier in 1846, the Lone Star republic of Texas was annexed by the United States (Axelrod 130). The Americans then engaged in a massive land grab, claiming territory in California and modern day New Mexico and Arizona. In response, the Mexican government, which felt it was still the rightful owner of Texas, cut all diplomatic ties with America. In a massive gamble, Polk dispatched General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande to supposedly protect the American citizens residing in Texas. Polk, expecting the Mexicans to attack and provide the excuse needed to invade Mexico almost moved for war himself when no attack came (Kunhardt 410). Then, on the same day that he was to address congress to press for a declaration of war, word arrived that the Mexicans had attacked.
(Axelrod, 130, Bailey 387, Kunhardt 410)
After nearly two years of fighting, an American envoy was dispatched to negotiate the terms of Mexico's surrender. Nicholas P. Trist, chief clerk of the State Department, represented the United States to a defeated Santa Anna. Disgusted with the heel dragging of Trist, Polk had him recalled but was rebuffed. As Bailey says, "Trist, grasping a fleeting opportunity to negotiate," finally signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on February 2, 1848 (391). The treaty recognized Texas as being a part of America, and granted all of Mexico's land north of the Rio Grande - with the exception of the Baja Peninsula - including the coveted California, to the United States. America now reached from the Atlantic to the Pacific (Griswold del Castillo 11). The Southern slave owners would press hard to claim the new territory for themselves, greatly upsetting the balance of power back in Washington. This effect is summed up by historian William R. Forstchen in his book, It Seemed Like a Good Idea:
The Mexican War resulted in a wide scale land grab as Americans swept up what would later be nearly one third of the continental United States. This in turn upset the balance in the United States government and eventually would lead to civil war. (Forstchen 110)
(Bailey 391, Forstchen 110, Griswold del Castillo 11)
Polk's time in office was highly successful, he achieved much in a short and stress filled four years. He managed to hold America together just a bit longer by enacting measures that appeased all of the nation. In the north he reestablished the independent treasury which had previously been disbanded by the Whigs in 1841. In the south he lowered the tariff significantly - from roughly 32 percent to 25 percent (Brogan 177). (Brogan 117)
As the debate over slavery in the west escalated, and Polk's administration came to a close, the nation was again beginning to unravel. The defeat of the Wilmot Proviso illustrates the pettiness and unwillingness to face the looming problem of slavery. The provision, presented by representative David Wilmot, stated that the new lands would not be opened to slavery. Although it twice passed through the House of Representatives, it was repeatedly shot down in the Senate (Wilmot1). (Wilmot 1)
James Polk did not run for reelection in 1849, instead opting to return home after spending the last four years, sacrificing his time and health, to hold America together. Coming back from Washington, he looked forward to retiring and spending time with his wife Sarah. Unfortunately, shortly after his return he gave into the poor health that he acquired in office and died (Kunhardt 411). (Kunhardt 411)
General Zachary Taylor, the successor to James Polk was an unlikely candidate. He was a career military man who had fought in the War of 1812 and become a national hero during the Mexican War. He was nominated by three parties to run for president but eventually, more out of necessity than personal preference, joined the Whig party (Kunhardt 141). Taylor was a Southerner but was a Unionist above all, and his repeated refusal to bend on his outlook alienated him from many of his Southern constituents. Taylor, compensated for his lack of political finesse with his candid and straightforward demeanor. He was willing to directly challenge the spread of slavery into the west, recognizing its possible harms despite the fact that he was himself an slave owner and supporter of the slave system (Summers 3). (Kunhardt 141, Summers 3)
In his annual address before congress and the nation, it was expected that he would speak in favor of the spread of slavery. Instead, he shocked his fellow party members by professing that he would put the preservation of the Union before all else. In fact, he went so far as to say that he favored admitting any of the new territories into the Union even if they banned slavery. As a result, Taylor was labeled a traitor by his fellow Southerners (Kunhardt 142). But, Taylor would not back down from his stance, and was willing to do all that was necessary to keep America intact. When he was confronted by a livid Alexander Stevens who threatened Taylor with secession unless he changed his policy, the General made his position clear. He announced that:
If they were taken in rebellion against the Union, I would hang them with less reluctance than I had hung deserters and spies in Mexico! (Taylor)
He even went as far as to say he would personally lead the troops against any rebels. He also stated that he would veto any compromise that dictated whether slavery would be legalized in the west. Unfortunately, this man who was fully willing to risk everything to preserve the Union, the leader who worked to educate the people on the plight of America suffered a severe bout of heat stroke while attending a Fourth of July Parade. He died less than a week later on July 9th 1850, passing the reigns onto vice president Millard Fillmore (Anonymous "Millard..." 2). (Anonymous "Millard..." 2, Kunhardt, Taylor)
Fillmore was very much the opposite of the deceased General Taylor. As David M. Potter points out, "unlike Taylor, who was fully opposed to any compromises that would create slavery in the far west, Fillmore strongly backed compromise," (Potter 95). After a heated congressional battle, several laws were enacted which are collectively known as The Compromise of 1850 (Newman 242). It provided for California's admission as a free state; the creation of two new territories - Utah and New Mexico - that would decide by means of popular sovereignty whether or not they would be free of slavery; give the debated lands between Texas and New Mexico to the new territories, and assume ten million dollars of Texas' debt; ban the slave trade in Washington D.C. but still allow for slavery to exist; and the adoption of a new Fugitive Slave Act (242) The Compromise was well thought out but existed only as a stop gap measure and merely served to delay what now appeared to be the inevitable. In fact, during the debate over the Compromise, sectional divisions were widened as the South was catalyzed into union. Calhoun observed that he had never seen the South so, "united . . . bold, and decided," (Calhoun). The objections of the South were summed up by Senator Robert Toombs, who on the floor if the Senate decreed:
I do not hesitate to avow before this house and the country, and in the presence of the living God, that if, by your legislation, you seek to drive us [the South] from the territories of California and New Mexico, purchased by the common blood and treasure of the whole people. And to abolish slavery in this District, thereby attempting to fix a national degradation upon half the states of the Confederacy, I am for disunion! (Toombs)
The Compromise was passed but was just that, a compromise, no party received what it wanted, and all were left unsatisfied. The Compromise was intended to cool tempers and sectional sentiments. It actually inflamed them further and created another point which the South could argue was an attempt by the North to extinguish the Southern economy. Fillmore's support for an impossible compromise, rather than direct confrontation of the issue of slavery, exemplified his weakness and poor leadership. (Calhoun, Newman 242, Potter 95, Toombs)
By the election of 1853 poor compromise was the political status quo. Franklin Pierce, the newly elected president, was just such a compromise. Nominated by the Democrats, he was chosen primarily because he had few enemies, was from the North, and favored the South (Kunhardt 54). Despite his credentials, he was not up to the job he was called to do. An emotional wreck by the time he reached Washington, he had lost three sons over the years, the last was killed just two months before Pierce's inauguration when the train the Pierces were riding derailed and eleven year old Bennie was crushed to death before their eyes (54). Franklin Pierce was removed from the times, and had little grasp on the terrible shape of the Union. Historian Alan Nevins wrote:
The President's address, though not without a decorous note of humility, breathed firm self-confidence, and showed that he [had not] recognized any grave problem before the nation. (45)
(Kunhardt 54, Nevins 45)
Pierce's administration was seemingly dedicated to division and mediocrity. Although a backer of the South, he felt it necessary not to offend other regions and accordingly decided to make his cabinet as politically diverse as possible.. His cabinet was composed of nearly every major Northern political faction. He selected Free-Soilers, Liberal Whigs, Conservative Whigs, and nearly any other political group imaginable (Nevins 47). Although theoretically a good plan, in practice, having so many views presented made it difficult for anything to be accomplished. His Southern appointments were even more ill conceived. As Civil War historian Allan Nevins observed, "If pliability marked Pierce's dealings with the Northern factions, downright flabbiness characterized his relations with those of the South (47). He chose as his secretary of war Jefferson Davis, arguably the most vocal of the secessionists and the future president of the Confederacy. His nomination, while pleasing to the South, angered many of the best senators of the day who continued to fight to preserve the nation. His contemporary Francis J. Grund wrote:
As for Jefferson Davis, the very mention of his name causes the bristling up of such men as Cass, Gwin, Clemens, Cobb, Foote, and a host of others. Be assured that such a nomination, unheard of as the thing may be, stands a chance of rejection in the Senate . . . There are those who say that the Administration would, start with a minority in one or the other House . . . This would . . .destroy the vital principle of Pierce's popularity. (Grund)
(Grund, Nevins 47)
Historical satirist Larry Gonick wrote that, "as Pierce fell apart emotionally," from the death of his son and his wife's refusal to accompany him to Washington, "the nation fell apart politically," (163) Rather than battle for unity, Pierce actually lent himself to the dissolution of the Union. He fought vigorously to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, part of the Compromise of 1850, and saw to it that all escaped slaves were returned to their Southern masters (Kunhardt 54). This move was highly controversial, and while hailed for his justness in the South, he was scorned by the North, which saw him as a traitor. His greatest failure, however, came when he backed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. (Gonick 163, Kunhardt 54)
The South, after realizing that the anti-slavery faction's power was growing, sought to extend slavery and their control. To the south was the island of Cuba, seen as the perfect place to establish a new state. The Spanish repeatedly denied Cuba to America, and the South's focus returned to the western territories and states (Brogan 310). Claiming the territory of Nebraska became the South's primary objective. The Shrewd senator Steven A. Douglas, grasping at a rare opportunity, proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Realizing that the South was getting desperate for new land, Douglas offered the South the two territories. At the center of his plan was the concept of popular sovereignty (311). The Act provided that the citizens of the territories would be able to vote for whether or not they favored slavery in their territory. Douglas was confident that even were the territories to legalize slavery, it would be no more than a symbolic victory for the South because the geography of the two territories was not right for slavery anyway (311). It would therefore appease the South while keeping the power in the hands of the North. Unfortunately, the rest of the nation did not see the genius of his actions. When the Act passed it outraged the North because it essentially nullified the Missouri Compromise, which did not allow for slavery above the 36? 30' north latitude line other than in Missouri (Axelrod 98). Although it was essentially an empty victory for the South, abolitionists screamed foul play. They drafted a manifesto which was written by senator Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, in which he wrote:
Part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free labourers from our own States, and convert it into as dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves. (Chase)
(Axelrod 98, Brogan 310, 311, Chase)
Pro-slavers and abolitionists rushed westward as protests and violence broke out across America. The fighting in Kansas escalated to the point where the territory earned the nickname Bleeding Kansas. As Gonick wryly observes:
Abolitionists and pro-slavery militants rushed in [to Kansas] blasting each other as the went, in the outmoded medical theory that bleeding anything, even Kansas, was therapeutic; 'give 'em a taste of medicine boys.' (Gonick 164)
In the South, freedmen, or free blacks, many from the North, stormed prisons to free arrested fugitive slaves while others fled to Canada (165). Over the next few years, the violence permeated every echelon of society. In May of 1856, Massachusetts representative and figurehead of the Free-Soilers, Charles Sumner, was crippled when he was attacked and clubbed on the Senate floor by Southern delegate Preston Brooks (Garraty 797). Above all, Douglas became a target of hatred, even in his home state of Illinois, dissent was spreading. He returned to Illinois in 1854, facing hostile protesters the entire way. He wrote:
I could travel all the way from Boston to Chicago by the light of my own effigy . . . All along the Western Reserve of Ohio I could find my effigy upon every tree we passed. (Douglas)
(Douglas, Garraty 797, Gonick 164, 165)
By the end of Pierce's term, the nation had been plunged into turmoil. As a president, he failed the nation by allowing it to deteriorate in his very hands. He achieved little good and only managed to further the division of the Union. Many historians, such as Allan Nevins, see his term as an utter failure (487) Although, some argue that he did all that he desired by splitting the nation. In a letter he wrote after leaving office, intended for Jefferson Davis, but intercepted by the press, betrayed his true feelings. He wrote:
If I were in the Southerners' places, after so many years of aggression, I should probably be doing what they are doing . . . If our Fathers were mistaken when they formed the Constitution, then the sooner we are apart, the better. (Pierce)
(Pierce, Nevins 487)
"Disunion," said James Buchanan, the newly elected president in 1857, "is a word which ought not to be breathed amongst us, even in a whisper," (Buchanan). Such was the foundation upon which the new president had established himself. He was a veteran statesman who had spent over forty years in politics. In 1857 he ran in an three way race as a Democrat, against John C. Frémont of the newly established, and primarily Northern, Republicans; and former president Millard Fillmore, the nominee of the xenophobic, nativist, American Party (Garraty 115). Kunhardt points out that at the time of his election, "Buchanan was hailed as the only man who could hold the country together," (97). (Buchanan, Garraty 115, Kunhardt 97)
Despite his support, and the faith of the people, Buchanan stumbled through his presidency. In an effort to bring unity to the divided nation, Buchanan mistakenly followed the example of former president Pierce, by appointing both Northerners and Southerners to his cabinet (Garraty 115). His policy of repeatedly granting concessions to the South in order to stave off the impending war, combined with his narrow view of his constitutional duties, only served to increase tensions in a nation torn apart by the fight over slavery and states' rights (115). In addition to this, he supported a number of controversial legislative and judicial measures, thereby pushing America closer toward conflict.
The Lecompton Constitution was formulated by pro-slavery factions in the Kansas government (Anonymous "Lecompton..." 1). It was ratified by the people of Kansas in a farce of an election in which the people were only given the choice between limited and unlimited slavery. When the Constitution was submitted to the congress, Buchanan strongly urged its acceptance. Fortunately, Stephen Douglas raised an opposition which stopped the bill (1). Buchanan's losses were double in that he lost Northern support by calling for the extension of slavery as well as lost face and political power upon being refused his will in the senate (Anonymous "Stephen..." 3). (Anonymous "Lecompton..." 1, Anonymous "Stephen..." 3)
Although his support for the Lecompton Constitution was a grave error, his greatest mistake was choosing to uphold the decision of the Dred Scott Case (Garraty 115). Dred Scott was the slave of an Army doctor (Forstchen 121). The doctor, John Emerson, repeatedly left his home in slave holding Missouri to go to free Minnesota and would take Scott with him (121). After Emerson died in 1846, Scott's white, abolitionist friends persuaded him to sue for freedom. He lost the case, but when it was appealed in Saint Louis in 1850, he was granted his freedom. The case was appealed once more and the previous ruling was overturned in 1852, returning Scott to slavery (122). In the meantime, Scott had been purchased by an abolitionist friend and was assured his freedom. Although Scott was now essentially free, he was technically kept in bondage so that he could appeal to the Supreme Court, and bring attention to the slavery issue. The slave owners soon recognized that they had been given an open forum and charged that the case should be in a state court under state law rather than in federal court, highlighting their beliefs regarding states' rights (122). The case soon became a microcosm of the overall political struggle of the time: white's for abolition, slavers for states' rights, and Northerners saying that federal law superceded state law (123). The court found in favor of the slave owners and asserted than no black man, free, or slave, was a citizen and was therefore not entitled to the right of judicial action (123). The ruling fell down party lines with the two Republican justices voting in favor of Scott and the seven Democrats casting their ballots against him (123) Forstchen hypothesizes that:
Such partisanship galvanized the Republican party, and may have been directly responsible for the eventual election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860 on [the] anti-slavery platform. An election which many . . . regard as the immediate cause of the Civil War(123)
Buchanan's support of the controversial ruling polarized the separate factions and cost him nearly all of his Northern and Western support while further dividing the nation. (Garraty 115, Forstchen 121-123)
When, in 1860, South Carolina led the Southern states to secede from the Union, the direct result of Lincoln's election, Buchanan denounced the move (Anonymous "Abraham..." 1). He kept control of several federal institutions in the South for the last few months of his presidency as he entered his lame duck period. He insisted, however, that the Constitution did not give him the power to deal with the crisis and essentially ignored it allowing to it spread and grow until he left office (Garraty115).
In his final address to the nation before leaving office, Buchanan stated with a tinge of regret and wistfulness that, "I at least meant well for my country," (Buchanan). But as historian John A. Garraty said:
His policies, and those of his predecessors, however, had further divided the nation and the political parties of the day; ensuring the election of Republican, Abraham Lincoln and failing to prevent the coming of the Civil War (115)
(Buchanan, Garraty 115)
