Why didn't Buchanan do more to stop the Civil War (Short Animated Documentary)
video description
Date: 2025-04-20
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
nolongeramused8135
At one point when I was studying the early history of the Union in depth, it was clear that there were at least three opportunities to resolve the slavery issue, and they punted all three times. At that point the war was inevitable - everyone had made it clear that only force was going to resolve the issue. And they're right that slaves were never intended to be citizens if slavery ended; African slaves occupied a spot somewhere analogous to livestock to many southerners, and a great majority of the public, both north and south, wanted them all removed from the country - preferentially to Africa so they'd never have to put up with them returning. Slaves held a different social status to those serving out indentured servitude - you could treat your indentured servants like crap, but they still had rights and when their contracts were up they could just walk off. Slaves could be abused or killed with impunity, though if they weren't YOUR slaves you'd have to reimburse their owner for the loss.
The national identity was still one of primarily being the great European experiment of a people free of kings. As such they considered themselves to be Anglo-Saxons, and they didn't even have warm fuzzy feelings towards those from southern or eastern Europe, many of which were considered lesser versions of white or of mixed heritage. I can remember when Italians and Sicilians were classified as Mediterranean instead of white because they weren't pale enough. That didn't really change completely until the 80s.
reply
At one point when I was studying the early history of the Union in depth, it was clear that there were at least three opportunities to resolve the slavery issue, and they punted all three times. At that point the war was inevitable - everyone had made it clear that only force was going to resolve the issue. And they're right that slaves were never intended to be citizens if slavery ended; African slaves occupied a spot somewhere analogous to livestock to many southerners, and a great majority of the public, both north and south, wanted them all removed from the country - preferentially to Africa so they'd never have to put up with them returning. Slaves held a different social status to those serving out indentured servitude - you could treat your indentured servants like crap, but they still had rights and when their contracts were up they could just walk off. Slaves could be abused or killed with impunity, though if they weren't YOUR slaves you'd have to reimburse their owner for the loss.
The national identity was still one of primarily being the great European experiment of a people free of kings. As such they considered themselves to be Anglo-Saxons, and they didn't even have warm fuzzy feelings towards those from southern or eastern Europe, many of which were considered lesser versions of white or of mixed heritage. I can remember when Italians and Sicilians were classified as Mediterranean instead of white because they weren't pale enough. That didn't really change completely until the 80s.
reply
44hawk28
Buchanan did everything he could to stop the Civil War he acknowledged their right to secede and he even started pulling troops out of Fort Sumter because it was no longer on US territory. Read the Paris treaty that ended the Revolutionary War every state is its own Sovereign Nation and they joined a confederation of individual states as a compact voluntarily. Please underline and make sure that you understand what voluntary means, that means you can walk away.
He recognized reality. When Abraham Lincoln came into office he decided that he was going to violate current law and try and end slavery. Which is a laudable goal but he should have done it legally instead of going to a bunch of Northern states, Gathering 75, 000 troops, and invading another country declaration of war justifying his illegal acts he even sent troops down into Maryland and arrested the government of Maryland so that they couldn't vote on seceding from the Union and if you don't think secession is legal you explain to me why West Virginia even exists
reply
Buchanan did everything he could to stop the Civil War he acknowledged their right to secede and he even started pulling troops out of Fort Sumter because it was no longer on US territory. Read the Paris treaty that ended the Revolutionary War every state is its own Sovereign Nation and they joined a confederation of individual states as a compact voluntarily. Please underline and make sure that you understand what voluntary means, that means you can walk away.
He recognized reality. When Abraham Lincoln came into office he decided that he was going to violate current law and try and end slavery. Which is a laudable goal but he should have done it legally instead of going to a bunch of Northern states, Gathering 75, 000 troops, and invading another country declaration of war justifying his illegal acts he even sent troops down into Maryland and arrested the government of Maryland so that they couldn't vote on seceding from the Union and if you don't think secession is legal you explain to me why West Virginia even exists
reply
Wildcat_Media
Buchanan was also the utter GENIUS who sent the army out west to deal with the Indian Problem. Which wasn’t a problem so much as it was an honest miscommunication, but it was going to spark a huge fight between the native tribes, the US government, and the settlers who just wanted to be left alone. My great-great-grandfather - who was a leader among the settlers - went to the tribes’ leadership, learned enough of their language to communicate, and everyone came to a peaceful agreement. No one wanted any trouble, they all just wanted to be good neighbors, and they sure as hell didn’t want Buchanan’s army sticking their noses where they weren’t wanted.
By the time the army got here, it was clear that rumors of hostilities were greatly exaggerated, everyone was getting along, and there was no need for violence. The soldiers were annoyed they didn’t get to shoot anybody, but they had no choice but to leave. And Buchanan looked like an even bigger dumbass than he already was.
reply
Buchanan was also the utter GENIUS who sent the army out west to deal with the Indian Problem. Which wasn’t a problem so much as it was an honest miscommunication, but it was going to spark a huge fight between the native tribes, the US government, and the settlers who just wanted to be left alone. My great-great-grandfather - who was a leader among the settlers - went to the tribes’ leadership, learned enough of their language to communicate, and everyone came to a peaceful agreement. No one wanted any trouble, they all just wanted to be good neighbors, and they sure as hell didn’t want Buchanan’s army sticking their noses where they weren’t wanted.
By the time the army got here, it was clear that rumors of hostilities were greatly exaggerated, everyone was getting along, and there was no need for violence. The soldiers were annoyed they didn’t get to shoot anybody, but they had no choice but to leave. And Buchanan looked like an even bigger dumbass than he already was.
reply
history_matters
I think this video is a bit unfair to Buchanan. Buchanan was not a good president, and his support of the Lecompton constitution for Kansas was a blunder. But in my view, Buchanan handled the 1860 succession crisis as well as he could, and laid the groundwork for Lincoln's eventual victory. Buchanan (and Lincoln who succeeded him) both new that firing the first shots against the South would be a big mistake. The people of the Northern states opposed starting the war, and both Buchanan and Lincoln knew this. Instead, Buchanan waited for the South to make the first move. Meanwhile, Buchanan replaced some pro-Southern cabinet members with pro-Union loyalists such as Stanton. Buchanan's new cabinet persuaded Buchanan not to abandon Fort Sumter. When Lincoln took over, he continued Buchanan's strategy of not shooting first. When the South made the mistake of attacking Fort Sumter, Lincoln was finally able to rally public support for a war to preserve the Union.
reply
I think this video is a bit unfair to Buchanan. Buchanan was not a good president, and his support of the Lecompton constitution for Kansas was a blunder. But in my view, Buchanan handled the 1860 succession crisis as well as he could, and laid the groundwork for Lincoln's eventual victory. Buchanan (and Lincoln who succeeded him) both new that firing the first shots against the South would be a big mistake. The people of the Northern states opposed starting the war, and both Buchanan and Lincoln knew this. Instead, Buchanan waited for the South to make the first move. Meanwhile, Buchanan replaced some pro-Southern cabinet members with pro-Union loyalists such as Stanton. Buchanan's new cabinet persuaded Buchanan not to abandon Fort Sumter. When Lincoln took over, he continued Buchanan's strategy of not shooting first. When the South made the mistake of attacking Fort Sumter, Lincoln was finally able to rally public support for a war to preserve the Union.
reply
raylast3873
He tried. Its just that his methods didn’tand couldn’twork. In large part because he and his party were far too compromised by the influence of the slave owners. On the other hand, the fact that there was no solution both sides would ever find acceptable was not a problem that could be solved, and the escalation that would be necessary to decide the issue was not something most people were willing to do.
This was the main dilemma: neither side was willing to give up, compromise was impossible, this made a resolution by force inevitable but the latter politically just as inacceptable, except to a minority of hardliners on both sides. Very likely, even strong abolitionists at this time generally wouldn’t have wanted a violent solution, they only went down that road in response to the existential threat posed by secession. Buchanan simply wasn’t willing to go there.
reply
He tried. Its just that his methods didn’tand couldn’twork. In large part because he and his party were far too compromised by the influence of the slave owners. On the other hand, the fact that there was no solution both sides would ever find acceptable was not a problem that could be solved, and the escalation that would be necessary to decide the issue was not something most people were willing to do.
This was the main dilemma: neither side was willing to give up, compromise was impossible, this made a resolution by force inevitable but the latter politically just as inacceptable, except to a minority of hardliners on both sides. Very likely, even strong abolitionists at this time generally wouldn’t have wanted a violent solution, they only went down that road in response to the existential threat posed by secession. Buchanan simply wasn’t willing to go there.
reply
bobnix3240
Yup. Worst President Ever. But you didn't even touch on the worst part. As he could see that the southern states were going to secede, he failed to have loyal Federal forces secure the forts, weapons, and munitions located in the southern states, which would have crippled the Confederacy right off the bat and likely produced a very short, one-sided war that would have cost vastly fewer lives (perhaps as little as 1-5% of the actual numbers) and would not have resulted in the total devastation of the south. Buchanan is personally responsible for virtually every death in America's most costly war AND for the total destruction of the south through that prolonged and vicious conflict. Reconstruction might hardly have been necessary and the north would have been a lot more forgiving.
reply
Yup. Worst President Ever. But you didn't even touch on the worst part. As he could see that the southern states were going to secede, he failed to have loyal Federal forces secure the forts, weapons, and munitions located in the southern states, which would have crippled the Confederacy right off the bat and likely produced a very short, one-sided war that would have cost vastly fewer lives (perhaps as little as 1-5% of the actual numbers) and would not have resulted in the total devastation of the south. Buchanan is personally responsible for virtually every death in America's most costly war AND for the total destruction of the south through that prolonged and vicious conflict. Reconstruction might hardly have been necessary and the north would have been a lot more forgiving.
reply
stevenmcnabb9185
Buchanan may have said publicly that he was in favor of Popular Sovereignty, but in practice he absolutely was not. I encourage everyone to read about the Lecompton Constitution affair. It demonstrates how Buchanan's every decision had really only one commonality: it advanced slaveholder interests.
Also, Buchanan had a very active role behind the scenes in the arrangement of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, including ensuring that an Associate Justice from the North not only voted with the majority, but signed on to Taney's majority opinion to minimize the appearance of sectionality. It wasn't merely some pressure. (I apologize if the phrase was made sarcastically and was meant to imply a much more active role, I often have trouble picking up on such things)
reply
Buchanan may have said publicly that he was in favor of Popular Sovereignty, but in practice he absolutely was not. I encourage everyone to read about the Lecompton Constitution affair. It demonstrates how Buchanan's every decision had really only one commonality: it advanced slaveholder interests.
Also, Buchanan had a very active role behind the scenes in the arrangement of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, including ensuring that an Associate Justice from the North not only voted with the majority, but signed on to Taney's majority opinion to minimize the appearance of sectionality. It wasn't merely some pressure. (I apologize if the phrase was made sarcastically and was meant to imply a much more active role, I often have trouble picking up on such things)
reply
adennjusik5455
Seeing a whole lot of TDS going down in these comments.
Which is funny to me, because in the 1860s Democrats were afraid of waning political power and losing their Socio-Economic Dominance over an entire group of people, a controversial Republican is elected, and a group of Democrats start a war over it. In last 10 years Democrats are afraid of waning political power and losing their Socio-Economic Dominance over an entire group of people, a controversial Republican is elected, and look we're hearing and seeing what appears to be an uptick in violence similar to the earliest days of Bleeding Kansas. Truly funny how history rhymes.
reply
Seeing a whole lot of TDS going down in these comments.
Which is funny to me, because in the 1860s Democrats were afraid of waning political power and losing their Socio-Economic Dominance over an entire group of people, a controversial Republican is elected, and a group of Democrats start a war over it. In last 10 years Democrats are afraid of waning political power and losing their Socio-Economic Dominance over an entire group of people, a controversial Republican is elected, and look we're hearing and seeing what appears to be an uptick in violence similar to the earliest days of Bleeding Kansas. Truly funny how history rhymes.
reply
jaredt2590
If the North had lost there may have been reconciliation later. No one knew there would be a war although it was understood it was a possibility by astute people at the time. The South could not exist as it’s own entity due to the loss of trade necessary for it to sustain itself having very little industry, if the North wasn’t able to defeat it and it had held out it would have joined or been conquered by someone else and possibly been part of the U. S. again later. The North would have had to make an adjustment without it and it was for that reason that Lincoln went to war.
reply
If the North had lost there may have been reconciliation later. No one knew there would be a war although it was understood it was a possibility by astute people at the time. The South could not exist as it’s own entity due to the loss of trade necessary for it to sustain itself having very little industry, if the North wasn’t able to defeat it and it had held out it would have joined or been conquered by someone else and possibly been part of the U. S. again later. The North would have had to make an adjustment without it and it was for that reason that Lincoln went to war.
reply
killerhound363
By the way, st louis, Missouri, is a traitorius snake of a local population and in rhe very few years betwen dred scot was decided by st louis curated federal judges, and the civil wars outbreak, the federal government learned this very well. As evidenced by the timing of the dred scot decision as well as the near immediate martial occupation of st louis, Missouri, by the union to secure the federal arsenal there, as st louis elite tried to arrange for slavery thru dred scot and then not secede from the union either, playing both sides in a destructive way like that.
reply
By the way, st louis, Missouri, is a traitorius snake of a local population and in rhe very few years betwen dred scot was decided by st louis curated federal judges, and the civil wars outbreak, the federal government learned this very well. As evidenced by the timing of the dred scot decision as well as the near immediate martial occupation of st louis, Missouri, by the union to secure the federal arsenal there, as st louis elite tried to arrange for slavery thru dred scot and then not secede from the union either, playing both sides in a destructive way like that.
reply
history_matters
The worst is always Andrew Johnson, who undermined Reconstruction, and illegally at that. As for James Buchanan, he was a limited government, Southern leaning Democrat, even though he was from Pennsylvania. He could have done a lot to help the national government he took an oath to defend win against those taking up arms against it, aka treason, but was ideologically opposed. The idea that Taney's opinion in Dred Scott spoke for the Court is another myth. Taney went way further than his majority supported. Buchanan did not ask for such a radical view.
reply
The worst is always Andrew Johnson, who undermined Reconstruction, and illegally at that. As for James Buchanan, he was a limited government, Southern leaning Democrat, even though he was from Pennsylvania. He could have done a lot to help the national government he took an oath to defend win against those taking up arms against it, aka treason, but was ideologically opposed. The idea that Taney's opinion in Dred Scott spoke for the Court is another myth. Taney went way further than his majority supported. Buchanan did not ask for such a radical view.
reply
VenomousSpyro
Nah mate. Woodrow Wilson still top for worst president for me.
And Joe Biden was that brain dead I don't even consider him a president. It was whoever his handlers were.
Obama up there too but we're kinda still living through the damage he helped cause. As time passes it will show the extent of the damage.
I guess as a technically we are living through the good and the bad that everyone has done. We are all still suffering for that Fart you let out during maths class.
If you ask me for best President Calvin Coolidge.
reply
Nah mate. Woodrow Wilson still top for worst president for me.
And Joe Biden was that brain dead I don't even consider him a president. It was whoever his handlers were.
Obama up there too but we're kinda still living through the damage he helped cause. As time passes it will show the extent of the damage.
I guess as a technically we are living through the good and the bad that everyone has done. We are all still suffering for that Fart you let out during maths class.
If you ask me for best President Calvin Coolidge.
reply
Smartguy-22
This actually helped me understand why he did nothing. Not just southern sympathies as I was told. It seems like if he had sent troops sooner than when Lincoln eventually did (Lincoln did so after Sumter was fired on) that the border states of Kentucky and Tennessee would likely have sided with the confederacy.
He did nothing because any move he would make would make things worse.
Would love to see a movie based on his presidency and the few years leading up to the war.
reply
This actually helped me understand why he did nothing. Not just southern sympathies as I was told. It seems like if he had sent troops sooner than when Lincoln eventually did (Lincoln did so after Sumter was fired on) that the border states of Kentucky and Tennessee would likely have sided with the confederacy.
He did nothing because any move he would make would make things worse.
Would love to see a movie based on his presidency and the few years leading up to the war.
reply
KingRandor82
Slavery, despite becoming the common public narrative, was actually not the major instigator of the Civil War; the Central Bank attempting to retake control was, to the point of having multiple spies in Lincoln's Cabinet, and Jefferson Davis being in the pocket of the Rothschild family.
The Central Bank also had far more influence over the media than people realize, likely also putting Buchanan in a compromised position, and leading Lincoln to suspending Habeas Corpus.
reply
Slavery, despite becoming the common public narrative, was actually not the major instigator of the Civil War; the Central Bank attempting to retake control was, to the point of having multiple spies in Lincoln's Cabinet, and Jefferson Davis being in the pocket of the Rothschild family.
The Central Bank also had far more influence over the media than people realize, likely also putting Buchanan in a compromised position, and leading Lincoln to suspending Habeas Corpus.
reply
gimmethegepgun
2: 11 About that isn't how amendments work but whatever thing, it might be It's written in the original Constitution (pre-Bill of Rights) that the nature of the Senate giving each state an equal number of representatives cannot be changed (this is such a terrible idea omg.
On the other hand, I think this is literally the only thing in it that can't be changed, and you could probably make an amendment that says that it can be changed, and then change it.
reply
2: 11 About that isn't how amendments work but whatever thing, it might be It's written in the original Constitution (pre-Bill of Rights) that the nature of the Senate giving each state an equal number of representatives cannot be changed (this is such a terrible idea omg.
On the other hand, I think this is literally the only thing in it that can't be changed, and you could probably make an amendment that says that it can be changed, and then change it.
reply
jamesmeppler6375
Since the dreadd scott verdict wasnt undone, the precidence is that your state rights follow you to states where those rights are illegal. Like me being able to bring marijuana from a state where its legal to a state where its not. My rights to posess and smoke are still my rights even in states where its illegal.
Id hate to fight that, as id have to be arrested and go to court. Until the verdict is repealed, my rights stand
reply
Since the dreadd scott verdict wasnt undone, the precidence is that your state rights follow you to states where those rights are illegal. Like me being able to bring marijuana from a state where its legal to a state where its not. My rights to posess and smoke are still my rights even in states where its illegal.
Id hate to fight that, as id have to be arrested and go to court. Until the verdict is repealed, my rights stand
reply
williambrennan104
It was not clear that civil war would result: prior to the attack on Fort Sumter, public opinion in the North was generally in favor of allowing the secession. By refusing to surrender the fort, Lincoln baited the rebels into attacking, leading to them being seen (possibly accurately) as aggressors aiming to impose slavery on the northern states as well, thus rallying the people to war.
reply
It was not clear that civil war would result: prior to the attack on Fort Sumter, public opinion in the North was generally in favor of allowing the secession. By refusing to surrender the fort, Lincoln baited the rebels into attacking, leading to them being seen (possibly accurately) as aggressors aiming to impose slavery on the northern states as well, thus rallying the people to war.
reply
trevorsmith6804
There is a very glaring error in this video. The Dred Scott decision involved slavery in federal territory, not states. The same as true with popular sovereignty. It was not about states deciding slavery, it was about people in federal territory deciding slavery. This is a very notable distinction. It really needs a correction in this video.
reply
There is a very glaring error in this video. The Dred Scott decision involved slavery in federal territory, not states. The same as true with popular sovereignty. It was not about states deciding slavery, it was about people in federal territory deciding slavery. This is a very notable distinction. It really needs a correction in this video.
reply
killerhound363
Just a drunk gayboy scot version of lots of civilian leaders the uk has seen. America was pretty pointless except as a resource exploitation cash cow for brits still at this point in its history. Their colonies traditionally dont even adjust to new behaviors a century after theyve successfully seceded from the uk.
reply
Just a drunk gayboy scot version of lots of civilian leaders the uk has seen. America was pretty pointless except as a resource exploitation cash cow for brits still at this point in its history. Their colonies traditionally dont even adjust to new behaviors a century after theyve successfully seceded from the uk.
reply
ryansearle6157
People always hate on Buchanan, but forget that Lincoln also did basically nothing until the firing on Fort Sumter for basically the same reason of stopping more secessions and not being the aggressor. Apparently he once said, it would be nice to have god on my side, but I need the border states
reply
People always hate on Buchanan, but forget that Lincoln also did basically nothing until the firing on Fort Sumter for basically the same reason of stopping more secessions and not being the aggressor. Apparently he once said, it would be nice to have god on my side, but I need the border states
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
