The Heroes and Villians Series - Civil War: The Road to the War and President Buchanan's Presidency

The Little Giant: The Life of Stephen A. Douglas

The morning of April 23, 1813, dawned over a modest farmhouse in Brandon, Vermont, as a newborn’s first cries echoed through the home of Stephen Arnold Douglas and Sarah Fisk Douglas. The boy was named after his father, a well-respected doctor in their small town. But young Stephen’s life was marked by hardship early on—his father died suddenly when the child was only two months old. His mother struggled to make ends meet, and Stephen’s childhood was not one of privilege, but of perseverance.

As he grew, so did his ambitions. He was small in stature but towering in intellect, earning him the nickname "The Little Giant" in later years. From a young age, Douglas developed a passion for debate and law. In his teens, he longed for an education, but with limited financial means, he was forced to apprentice as a cabinetmaker. Yet, the smell of sawdust and the hum of tools did not satisfy his hunger for knowledge.

At age 20, Douglas set out on his own, journeying westward to Illinois—a land of opportunity, where he believed he could make a name for himself. He arrived in Jacksonville in 1833, nearly penniless but determined. He studied law feverishly, often borrowing books from generous attorneys. Within a year, his relentless efforts bore fruit—he passed the Illinois bar exam in 1834.

His rise in politics was meteoric. He was charismatic, persuasive, and unrelenting in his drive for success. By 1836, at the age of 23, he was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives. He quickly became a judge, then the Illinois Secretary of State, and later a U.S. Congressman. He was a staunch Democrat, known for his fiery speeches and an unwavering belief in popular sovereignty—the idea that each new U.S. territory should decide for itself whether to allow slavery.

In 1847, Douglas was elected to the U.S. Senate, where his influence only grew. He became a chief architect of the Compromise of 1850, a controversial series of laws designed to ease tensions between the North and South over slavery. But it was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that would define his career—and his legacy.

Douglas championed the act, believing that allowing settlers in new territories to vote on slavery would be a democratic solution. Instead, the law ignited violent conflict in "Bleeding Kansas", as pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers clashed. Many in the North, including a rising Republican leader named Abraham Lincoln, vehemently opposed the act. It was Douglas and Lincoln’s epic debates in 1858 that turned Douglas into a national figure—and a marked man among Southern Democrats.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were unlike anything the country had seen before. Seven debates, spread across Illinois, saw Douglas defend his doctrine of popular sovereignty while Lincoln argued that the nation could not survive half slave and half free. Though Douglas won re-election to the Senate, the debates catapulted Lincoln into national prominence, setting the stage for the next great political battle.

In 1860, Douglas sought the highest office in the land: the presidency. But his party was fractured—Southern Democrats despised his moderate stance on slavery, and a third party split the vote further. When election night arrived, Abraham Lincoln emerged victorious. Douglas, defeated but not broken, still commanded respect and influence.

As the storm of secession broke across the Union, Douglas knew the country he had fought to preserve was in danger. Despite his political rivalry with Lincoln, he rallied behind the new president, urging unity against Southern rebellion. His final speech in April 1861, just as the Civil War erupted, was one of fervent patriotism—he begged the North and South to set aside their differences and preserve the Union.

But time was not on Douglas’s side. Only two months later, on June 3, 1861, at the age of 48, the Little Giant breathed his last in a Chicago hotel room, succumbing to typhoid fever. His final words were whispered with regret but also resolve:"Tell my children to obey the laws and support the Constitution of the United States."

Stephen A. Douglas had spent his life fighting for democracy, for expansion, for the principles of self-government. Though his policies had failed to prevent the Civil War, his legacy as a political warrior and national leader was undeniable.

Even today, his name lingers in the pages of history, a reminder of a man who stood at the crossroads of a divided nation—a man whose dreams for America were as grand as the land he once helped shape.

The Abolitionists Before the Civil War: A Perspective from Stephen A. Douglas

I have long stood upon the political battlefield, witnessing the intensifying divisions between North and South. Among the most formidable forces shaping this great debate were the Abolitionists—men and women who dedicated their lives to the eradication of slavery in the United States. Though I often opposed their methods and principles, I cannot deny their relentless energy and influence in shaping the course of our nation.

The Rise of the Abolitionist Movement

The roots of abolition stretch back to the earliest days of the republic, but it was not until the early 19th century that it became a true political force. Many of these men and women were guided by moral conviction, religious faith, and a steadfast belief in human liberty. In churches, newspapers, and public squares, they denounced slavery as a sin, an abomination, a stain on the nation’s ideals.

Leaders such as William Lloyd Garrison gave voice to this cause through his fiery newspaper, The Liberator, demanding immediate and unconditional emancipation. Unlike the gradualist approach of earlier anti-slavery societies, Garrison and his followers refused to compromise. They attacked the U.S. Constitution as a pro-slavery document, refused to participate in politics, and even burned copies of laws they saw as unjust.

While I disagreed with their radicalism, I never underestimated their ability to stir public sentiment. Their arguments found receptive ears, particularly in the Northern states, where slavery had long been abolished, and where many now viewed it as an institution contrary to republican principles.

The Underground Railroad and Direct Action

Many Abolitionists did not limit their efforts to mere speeches or publications; they took direct action against the institution of slavery. One of the most remarkable efforts was the Underground Railroad, a vast network of secret routes and safe houses that aided enslaved individuals in their escape to free states and Canada.

Figures such as Harriet Tubman, herself an escaped slave, became legendary conductors, leading hundreds to freedom. Others, like Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave who became one of the most eloquent voices against the institution, exposed the brutal realities of bondage.

Though I believed in the principle of popular sovereignty—that each state or territory should decide its stance on slavery—I knew that the actions of these Abolitionists directly challenged the law. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which I helped pass as part of the Compromise of 1850, was meant to return escaped slaves to their Southern owners. Yet in defiance, Abolitionists encouraged resistance, sometimes forcibly freeing captured fugitives from federal custody.

This defiance further radicalized the South, deepening the chasm that separated the Union.

Violence in the Struggle Against Slavery

Not all Abolitionists confined themselves to peaceful means. There were those who took up arms, believing that force was the only means to rid the nation of slavery. The most infamous among them was John Brown, a man who believed that only bloodshed could purge America of its sin.

Brown first gained notoriety in "Bleeding Kansas," the battleground created by my Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. When I proposed that settlers in new territories should decide the slavery question themselves, I had envisioned peaceful self-government. Instead, Kansas erupted in violent clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. Brown and his followers slaughtered pro-slavery settlers at Pottawatomie Creek in retaliation for attacks on Free-Soilers.

His most daring act, however, was his raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. He sought to seize a federal arsenal and incite an armed slave rebellion. Though his plan failed, and he was executed for treason, his actions sent shockwaves through the South. Many Southerners saw Brown as the embodiment of Northern aggression and proof that Abolitionists sought to destroy their way of life by force.

Abolitionism in Politics and the Rise of the Republican Party

While radical Abolitionists had long denounced political engagement, their influence began reshaping the nation’s political landscape. The Republican Party, formed in 1854, was built upon opposition to the expansion of slavery into new territories—a direct challenge to my doctrine of popular sovereignty.

One of the rising figures of this movement was Abraham Lincoln, a man whose debates with me in 1858 would define the national discourse on slavery. While Lincoln claimed he had no desire to interfere with slavery where it already existed, he held fast to the belief that "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

This Republican sentiment, which sought to contain slavery and ultimately lead to its gradual extinction, alarmed the South. My efforts to preserve the Union through compromise were met with scorn from both sides—Abolitionists saw me as too lenient toward slavery, while Southerners viewed me as untrustworthy for failing to fully protect their institutions.

The Road to Civil War

By the time I stood for the presidency in 1860, the nation was on the brink. The Republican victory under Lincoln was seen as a catastrophe by the South, a sign that Abolitionists and their allies had gained full control of the federal government.

Southern states, unwilling to risk federal interference in slavery, seceded from the Union. I, who had spent my career fighting to hold this country together, could only watch as the bonds that had held North and South together tore apart.

Though I had clashed with the Abolitionists throughout my life, I did not rejoice in the coming of war. I urged my fellow Democrats to stand with the Union, to resist secession, and to fight for the preservation of our great republic.

Yet, I knew that with the Abolitionist cause now entwined with the war itself, the fate of slavery was sealed. Whether through law, resistance, or the bayonets of Union soldiers, the institution that had divided America for so long would not endure.

Though history may remember me as an opponent of the Abolitionists, let it not be said that I was an enemy of freedom. I believed in the right of the people to govern themselves, even when I disagreed with their choices. I sought to preserve the Union through compromise, but the time for compromise had passed.

The Abolitionists, through their voices, their actions, and their sacrifices, changed the course of our nation. They were a force that could not be ignored, and ultimately, their cause triumphed.

Would I have done things differently? Perhaps. But history is not written in what-ifs. It is written in the deeds of those who dare to act. And the Abolitionists, for all our disagreements, dared greatly.

A Nation Divided: The Growing Crisis Before the Civil War – Told by Douglas

The years leading up to the Civil War were not simply defined by the question of slavery, though that issue certainly lay at the heart of our growing divisions. The true fault lines of our nation ran deeper, cutting through states’ rights, economic struggles, and sectional grievances that had been festering since the birth of the Republic. I spent my career seeking a path to hold this Union together, believing that the principle of popular sovereignty—letting the people of each state and territory decide their own affairs—could be our salvation. But as I witnessed the North and South hardening against one another, it became clear that compromise would not be easy.

The Question of Slavery: A Nation at Odds

Slavery, more than any other issue, shaped the political discourse of the 1850s. The North increasingly saw it as a moral evil, an institution that had no place in a democratic society, while the South viewed it as essential to its way of life and economic survival. The Abolitionist movement, growing in strength and fervor, called for its immediate end, while Southern leaders feared that Northern interference would destroy their economy and social order.

I believed that slavery’s fate should be determined by the people of each state and territory, not by the federal government. This was the foundation of popular sovereignty, which I defended in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. My goal was to remove the slavery question from the halls of Congress and place it in the hands of local settlers, hoping this would ease tensions between North and South. Instead, it led to violent conflict in Kansas and only deepened the divide.

Yet, slavery alone did not cause the great rupture in our nation. Many Southern leaders feared that the North would dominate the federal government, using its growing population and industrial power to control policies that affected the entire country—including those that harmed the South’s economy and state authority.

States’ Rights: The Battle Over Federal Authority

For decades, Southern leaders had resisted federal overreach, believing that each state had the right to govern itself without interference from Washington. This belief was not only tied to slavery but to a larger concern that the federal government was favoring Northern interests at the expense of the South.

Many Southerners pointed to the Tariff of Abominations (1828) and later economic policies as evidence that the North was using its power to force unfair economic burdens on Southern states. The South relied heavily on the export of cotton, tobacco, and other agricultural goods, while the North was rapidly industrializing. High tariffs on imported goods helped Northern manufacturers but raised the cost of goods for Southern farmers, who depended on trade with Europe.

This economic strain was worsened by Northern-led policies that sought to encourage industry and railroads rather than agricultural expansion. Southerners feared that, over time, the federal government would increase its power and limit the rights of states, including their ability to preserve their unique economies and social structures.

It is often said that the South seceded only over slavery, but I believe that many Southerners saw secession as a last resort to protect their sovereignty—their right to make decisions without the interference of Northern politicians. They feared a future where a Northern-dominated government dictated laws that would cripple their economy and alter their way of life.

The Economic Divide: Industry vs. Agriculture

One of the greatest differences between North and South was their economic foundations. The North had embraced industry, investing in factories, railroads, and commerce, while the South remained agricultural, depending on cash crops like cotton and tobacco to sustain its economy.

This difference was not merely a matter of choice but of geography and history. The fertile soil of the South made large-scale farming profitable, while the North’s rocky terrain led to an early shift toward manufacturing and trade. Over time, these economic paths diverged further.

By the 1850s, the North’s rapid industrialization had made it economically dominant, giving it greater political influence. Meanwhile, the South’s wealth was tied to land and enslaved labor, creating an economic system that many believed could not survive without slavery. When Northern states began to push for the expansion of free labor, Southerners saw it as a direct threat to their prosperity.

Additionally, economic struggles affected the common people—not just plantation owners. Small farmers in the South often suffered under economic policies that benefited large landowners and Northern industrialists alike. Many resented high tariffs and the lack of infrastructure investment in the South, which left them struggling while Northern cities flourished.

Thus, the economic grievances of the South were not merely about protecting wealthy planters but about preserving an entire way of life that seemed to be under attack from an increasingly powerful and industrialized North.

The Collapse of Compromise and the Road to War

For years, leaders like Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster had fought to maintain the balance between North and South. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, and my own Kansas-Nebraska Act were all efforts to settle the disputes between free and slave states through negotiation.

But by the late 1850s, compromise was failing. The North saw slavery as a blight that must be contained, while the South saw any attempt to limit it as a step toward its destruction. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 declared that Congress had no right to restrict slavery in the territories, enraging Northerners who believed that the South was using the courts to expand its power.

Then came the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Though Lincoln insisted he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed, the South saw his victory as proof that they had lost all influence in Washington. To them, Lincoln and the Republicans represented a North that would dictate their economy, their laws, and their fate.

Secession followed swiftly. One by one, Southern states withdrew from the Union, believing they had no other choice but to form their own government where their rights would be secure. The North, on the other hand, saw secession as an act of treason, a direct assault on the Constitution and the Union itself.

I had spent my career trying to keep the nation whole, believing that the people should decide their own fate through democracy, not violence. But as I watched the Union unravel in those final months, I realized that words and debates were no longer enough.

Final Thoughts: A Nation’s Fate

The war that followed was not simply a fight over slavery—it was a war over the future of the Union, the balance of power between federal and state governments, and the economic survival of two distinct regions. Had there been a way to prevent it, I would have taken it. But by 1861, the divide was too great, and neither side would yield.

In my final days, as war broke out across the land, I urged my fellow Democrats and Southerners to stand with the Union, for I believed that no cause—no matter how deeply held—was worth the destruction of the country we had built together.

Yet, history had set its course, and the great struggle that followed would shape the destiny of America for generations to come.

Laws That Shaped a Nation: My Role in Congress Before the War – Told by Douglas

Throughout my career in Congress, I worked tirelessly to craft legislation that I believed would preserve the Union and maintain a balance between North and South. I did not seek to ignite sectional tensions, nor did I aim to take sides in the heated debate over slavery. Instead, I upheld the principle of popular sovereignty, believing that the people of each state and territory should determine their own fate.

Yet, despite my efforts, some of the laws I helped shape brought the nation together for a time, while others deepened the divide between North and South. Here, I shall recount these legislative battles and their impact on our fragile Union.

The Compromise of 1850: A Temporary Peace

By 1850, the United States faced a crisis over the expansion of slavery into new territories won from Mexico. Would these new lands be free or slave territories? The North insisted that slavery should not spread, while the South demanded its protection. Tensions flared, and some Southern leaders even began whispering of secession.

I played a key role in passing the Compromise of 1850, a series of measures originally proposed by Henry Clay to ease sectional tensions. When Clay’s plan stalled, I took up the cause, breaking it into separate bills so that different factions in Congress could support or oppose each piece individually. The compromise included:

1. California was admitted as a free state, pleasing the North.

2. The slave trade (but not slavery itself) was abolished in Washington, D.C., another concession to anti-slavery forces.

3. The new territories of Utah and New Mexico were allowed to decide for themselves whether to permit slavery—this was my principle of popular sovereignty in action.

4. A stricter Fugitive Slave Act was passed, requiring that runaway slaves be returned to their owners, which enraged Northern abolitionists.

5. Texas relinquished claims to land in exchange for financial compensation, which settled disputes with New Mexico.

For a time, this compromise held the Union together, easing tensions between North and South. However, it did not resolve the deeper conflict. Instead, it merely postponed the inevitable clash.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854): A Nation Divided

The most consequential piece of legislation I ever introduced was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. At the time, the Louisiana Purchase lands were still unsettled in terms of their status regarding slavery. According to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, all land north of the 36°30' line was free territory.

But I believed that popular sovereignty was the fairest way to decide the issue, allowing settlers to choose for themselves whether to permit slavery. My bill repealed the Missouri Compromise and created two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—where the people would vote on the slavery question.

I had hoped that this law would reduce sectional tensions by removing Congress from the slavery debate, leaving the decision to the people. Instead, it ignited violent conflict, particularly in Kansas, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers poured into the territory and clashed in what became known as "Bleeding Kansas."

Abolitionists condemned the act as a betrayal of previous agreements, while Southerners saw it as a test of their right to expand slavery. Instead of settling disputes peacefully, my law brought bloodshed to the frontier and deepened the divide between North and South.

Moreover, it led to the formation of the Republican Party, a political movement dedicated to stopping the expansion of slavery. This party, which would ultimately elect Abraham Lincoln in 1860, set the South on the path to secession.

Though I defended my bill until my dying breath, I cannot deny that it became one of the key causes of the Civil War.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: A Law that Backfired

One of the most contentious parts of the Compromise of 1850 was the Fugitive Slave Act, which I supported as part of an effort to appease Southern concerns. The law required all citizens to assist in the capture of runaway slaves and denied accused fugitives the right to a jury trial.

At the time, I believed this law was necessary to preserve the Union by reassuring Southern slaveholders that the federal government would protect their property rights. But in the North, the act provoked outrage. Many saw it as a violation of personal liberty, and some states even passed "personal liberty laws" to resist its enforcement.

The law galvanized the abolitionist movement, inspiring greater resistance to slavery and turning previously indifferent Northerners into active opponents of the institution. It led to violent confrontations, such as the famous Christiana Riot (1851) and the rescue of fugitive slaves in Boston (1854).

Ultimately, instead of unifying the country, the Fugitive Slave Act drove the North and South further apart, reinforcing the idea that the federal government was becoming an instrument of Southern slave interests.

The Lecompton Constitution (1857): A Struggle for Democracy

After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the battle over slavery erupted into full-scale violence in Kansas. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers both tried to control the territory’s government. In 1857, a pro-slavery faction drafted the Lecompton Constitution, which would have made Kansas a slave state without a fair vote by its people.

I, a champion of popular sovereignty, could not support such a fraud. Though I had backed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, I would not allow my principle to be manipulated by Southern extremists who sought to impose slavery against the will of the people.

I broke with President James Buchanan, who wanted to accept the Lecompton Constitution. Instead, I fought to ensure that Kansas settlers had a legitimate vote, and in 1858, they rejected slavery in the territory. This stand cost me Southern support in my later presidential bid, but I believed I had upheld the integrity of democracy.

Final Thoughts: Laws That Shaped a Nation

Throughout my career, I sought to create laws that would preserve the Union. I believed in compromise, democracy, and the right of people to govern themselves. Yet, despite my best efforts, the very laws I helped pass pushed the nation closer to war.

The Compromise of 1850 held the Union together for a decade but planted the seeds of division.The Kansas-Nebraska Act destroyed earlier agreements and led to open conflict.The Fugitive Slave Act emboldened the abolitionist cause rather than calming the South’s fears.The Lecompton Constitution fight exposed the growing rift within my own Democratic Party.

By the time I ran against Lincoln in 1860, the nation was already in turmoil. The South saw me as an unreliable ally, and the North viewed me as a failed compromiser. I fought until the end to save the Union, even urging support for Lincoln in the face of secession. But the war I had spent my career trying to prevent could not be stopped.

History may judge me as a man of failed compromises, but let it not be said that I did not strive with all my might to hold this great nation together.

The Election of 1856: A Nation on the Brink – Told by Douglas

By the year 1856, the country was already deeply divided, and the presidential election that year did nothing to ease tensions—it only widened the rift between North and South. I did not run for office that year, though I remained deeply involved in the Democratic Party and closely watched as the contest unfolded between three major candidates:

• James Buchanan, the Democratic nominee

• John C. Frémont, the first presidential candidate of the newly-formed Republican Party

• Millard Fillmore, running under the American (Know-Nothing) Party

It was an election that did not simply determine who would sit in the White House. It was a referendum on the future of the Union itself.

The Democratic Nominee: James Buchanan, A Man of Appeasement

The Democratic Party was the only major party that still had support in both the North and the South, and we were determined to hold the Union together by appeasing Southern demands while keeping Northern Democrats loyal. My own name was considered for the nomination, but party leaders feared that my association with the controversial Kansas-Nebraska Act would alienate too many voters. Instead, they chose James Buchanan, a career politician from Pennsylvania who had spent the last few years as a diplomat overseas, safely away from the domestic turmoil.

Buchanan’s main advantage was that he had not been involved in the bitter battles over Kansas, and Democrats could argue that he was a neutral choice who would prevent the spread of sectional conflict. He ran on a platform of preserving the Union, enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, and allowing popular sovereignty to determine slavery in the territories.

Despite this strategy, many in the North saw Buchanan as a weak candidate who would allow pro-slavery forces to expand their influence unchecked. Meanwhile, Southerners hoped he would be a firm ally in their cause.

The Republican Nominee: John C. Frémont and the Rise of the Anti-Slavery Movement

For the first time, a new political force emerged—the Republican Party, which had been formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the spread of slavery into Western territories. Their candidate, John C. Frémont, was a Western explorer and war hero, known for his expeditions in California and his involvement in the Mexican-American War.

Frémont’s campaign was centered around a single, powerful idea: preventing the expansion of slavery. His slogan, "Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont," made it clear that he represented the growing movement in the North to stop the spread of slavery entirely.

His candidacy alarmed the South. Many Southern leaders declared that if Frémont won the presidency, they would have no choice but to secede from the Union, fearing that his administration would lead to the complete abolition of slavery. The Republican Party was viewed in the South as a purely Northern faction, hostile to Southern interests and intent on using federal power to undermine the institution of slavery.

For many Americans, the rise of the Republican Party meant the end of national unity—no longer could a single party, like the Whigs or Democrats of earlier decades, appeal to both sections of the country. The North and South were hardening into separate camps, and Frémont’s candidacy only intensified that divide.

The Know-Nothing Candidate: Millard Fillmore and the Nativist Movement

A third contender entered the race: former President Millard Fillmore, running under the American Party, commonly known as the Know-Nothing Party.

The Know-Nothings had risen to prominence as an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement, fueled by fears that large numbers of Irish and German immigrants were threatening American values. While they did not take a strong stance on slavery, their platform focused on preserving "Americanism" and restricting the rights of foreign-born citizens.

Fillmore had previously served as president after Zachary Taylor’s death in 1850, and while he personally opposed the expansion of slavery, he believed in preserving the Union at all costs. He argued that extreme positions—whether abolitionist or pro-slavery—would destroy the country and that moderation was the only path forward.

His campaign failed to gain widespread traction, but he still managed to win the state of Maryland, showing that some Americans still hoped for a middle ground in an increasingly divided country.

A Contentious and Divisive Campaign

The election of 1856 was unlike any in American history. It was not simply a contest of policies—it was a battle for the soul of the nation. Each candidate represented a different vision for America’s future:

• Buchanan: A continuation of compromise and popular sovereignty.

• Frémont: A clear anti-slavery stance, rejecting further compromises with the South.

• Fillmore: A desperate attempt to restore national unity through moderation.

Campaign rhetoric became increasingly hostile. The South warned that a Frémont victory would mean secession, while Northern Republicans accused Democrats of being puppets of the "Slave Power." Violence in Kansas had already shown how deep the divide had become, and many feared that bloodshed might soon spread beyond the territories.

Buchanan and the Democrats used fear to rally voters, warning that a Republican victory would bring civil war and national collapse. This argument proved effective, as many Northern voters—who may have opposed slavery—were unwilling to take the risk of electing Frémont.

The Results: A Fractured Nation

When the votes were counted, James Buchanan won with 174 electoral votes, carrying nearly every Southern state and enough Northern states to secure victory. Frémont won 114 electoral votes, sweeping the North but failing to gain any support in the South. Fillmore won only 8 electoral votes, a clear sign that the days of national compromise were fading.

While Buchanan’s victory temporarily calmed fears of disunion, the election showed just how deeply the country had divided along sectional lines. The North had nearly united behind Frémont, while the South had overwhelmingly backed Buchanan. The fact that a candidate like Frémont could win such widespread support terrified the South, as it meant that an anti-slavery president was entirely possible in the near future.

Even though Buchanan won the presidency, the writing was on the wall: the next time a Republican ran for office, the South might not accept the results.

The Election that Set the Stage for War

The election of 1856 was more than just a contest between candidates—it was a reflection of a broken nation. It revealed that America was no longer a country of shared compromises, but of two distinct regions locked in an irreconcilable struggle.

The Republican Party had risen as a formidable anti-slavery force, ensuring that the South would never again trust national politics to protect its interests. Buchanan, though victorious, would spend his presidency failing to contain the growing tensions.

As I watched these events unfold, I knew that our time to save the Union was running out. The election of 1856 had only delayed the inevitable. The next presidential election—if sectional tensions continued to rise—might tear the country apart completely. And, as history would soon show, it did.

The Presidency of James Buchanan

James Buchanan: The President Who Watched the Union Fall

On the crisp autumn morning of April 23, 1791, in a small log cabin nestled in the Pennsylvania frontier town of Cove Gap, a child was born into a world of promise and peril. His name was James Buchanan, the son of Irish immigrants who had carved out a modest but respectable life in the young American republic. His father, a successful storekeeper, ensured that James received a proper education—one that would set him on a path far grander than the rough frontier lands of his birth.

Little did Buchanan know, as he pored over his books at Dickinson College, that he would one day become the 15th president of the United States, nor that history would remember him as the man who watched the Union unravel under his leadership.

A Rising Political Star

James Buchanan was a brilliant student, though rebellious and outspoken in his youth. He had a knack for law and public speaking, which soon led him to a career in politics. In his early twenties, he moved to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he quickly became one of the state’s most successful lawyers.

By age 23, Buchanan had already been elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, setting him on the course of a lifetime in public service. Over the years, he served as a U.S. Congressman, Minister to Russia, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under President James K. Polk, and Minister to the United Kingdom. He was known as a skilled diplomat, a staunch defender of states' rights, and a Northern man with Southern sympathies—a combination that would define his presidency in the stormy years ahead.

Yet, for all his successes, Buchanan’s personal life was marked by loneliness and heartbreak. He was the only U.S. president who never married. His one true love, Ann Coleman, had mysteriously died after breaking off their engagement, and Buchanan never sought romance again. He immersed himself in politics, where he felt more at home than in any personal relationship.

The Election of 1856: The Last Hope for Unity

By the 1850s, the United States was on the brink of division, torn apart by the issue of slavery and states’ rights. The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, championed by my political rival, Stephen A. Douglas, had ignited "Bleeding Kansas", where pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers fought violently for control of the territory. The nation was at war with itself, even before the first cannon fired in the Civil War.

As a compromise candidate, Buchanan was chosen by the Democratic Party to calm tensions between North and South. His greatest advantage? He had been serving as Minister to the United Kingdom and had stayed out of the heated debates over slavery. This made him an ideal choice for those seeking a leader untainted by controversy.

In the presidential election of 1856, Buchanan defeated Republican John C. Frémont and former President Millard Fillmore. He won with strong support from the South and key Northern states, but the results revealed a nation deeply divided. Frémont, the first Republican candidate, had won nearly all of the North, while Buchanan had carried almost the entire South.

As Buchanan prepared to take office, he believed that the Dred Scott decision, soon to be issued by the Supreme Court, would settle the slavery question once and for all. He was gravely mistaken.

A Presidency Marred by Crisis

James Buchanan took the oath of office on March 4, 1857, full of confidence that he could preserve the Union. Yet, almost immediately, his presidency was overshadowed by one of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings in history: Dred Scott v. Sandford.

The Court’s decision declared that African Americans had no rights as citizens and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Instead of denouncing the ruling, Buchanan fully endorsed it, believing that it would put an end to the slavery debate. Instead, it infuriated the North and emboldened the South, setting the nation on a path toward war.

Buchanan’s belief in states' rights and his desire to appease the South led him to take a weak stance against secessionists. He refused to intervene when Southern states defied federal authority, and he did little to stop the violence in Kansas, which escalated into outright guerrilla warfare.

His administration faced scandals and failures, including the Lecompton Constitution controversy, where he tried to push Kansas into the Union as a slave state against the will of its settlers. Even fellow Democrats, including Stephen A. Douglas, turned against him for this attempt to force pro-slavery policies.

Then came the Panic of 1857, a devastating economic crisis that crippled the North’s economy while leaving the Southern cotton industry largely unaffected. Buchanan’s response was weak and ineffective, further alienating Northern states and fueling resentment toward his leadership.

The Election of 1860 and the Fall of the Union

As Buchanan’s presidency limped toward its final year, the Democratic Party was in shambles. The issue of slavery had split the party into Northern and Southern factions, and Buchanan’s failure to unify them ensured that the Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, would triumph in the election of 1860.

When Lincoln won, the South saw it as a catastrophe. One by one, Southern states began to secede from the Union, starting with South Carolina. Buchanan watched helplessly as the Union dissolved before his eyes.

Despite his belief that secession was illegal, he also insisted that the federal government had no power to stop it. As Southern leaders seized federal forts and armories, Buchanan stood by, unwilling to act.

By the time he left office on March 4, 1861, seven states had already left the Union, and the nation was on the brink of Civil War. His successor, Abraham Lincoln, inherited a country that was already collapsing into conflict.

The Final Years: A Man Without a Country

Buchanan retired to his estate, Wheatland, in Pennsylvania, a broken man. He had entered the White House hoping to prevent war, but instead, he had presided over the nation’s most disastrous unraveling.

As the Civil War erupted, Buchanan watched as the very Union he swore to protect fell apart. He spent his final years writing a defense of his presidency, arguing that he had done everything possible to preserve peace and that it was Lincoln and the Republicans who bore the blame for the war. But history would not be kind to him.

On June 1, 1868, James Buchanan died at the age of 77, leaving behind a legacy of failure and regret. His name would be remembered not for saving the Union, but for failing to act when it needed leadership the most.

The President Who Lost the Union

James Buchanan was a man of political skill and vast experience, yet he lacked the strength and conviction to face the greatest crisis in American history. His belief that the Supreme Court could settle the slavery question, his weak stance against Southern secession, and his failure to stop the economic crisis of 1857 all contributed to his reputation as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

But perhaps Buchanan’s greatest failure was his inability to see the storm gathering around him. He spent his presidency hoping for compromise when compromise was no longer possible. In the end, history remembers him not as the leader who saved the Union, but as the man who let it slip away.

My Views on Governing the Nation and the Divide That Came – Told by Buchanan

When I took the oath of office on March 4, 1857, I did so with the firm belief that my duty as President of the United States was to preserve the Union and uphold the Constitution. I had spent decades in public service—as a Senator, Secretary of State, and Minister to Great Britain—and I had seen firsthand the growing tensions between North and South. Yet, despite these challenges, I believed that the Constitution and the legal system could provide the answers to our nation’s disputes, and that passions would subside if only both sides adhered to the law.

I did not seek to expand slavery, nor did I seek to abolish it. I was a Northern man with Southern principles, believing that the rights of states must be respected. And though I was committed to the Union, I understood that a divide was coming—whether I took action or not.

My Philosophy on Governance: The Rule of Law and States' Rights

I have always believed that the federal government must remain neutral in the affairs of individual states, particularly on the issue of slavery. The Founders had crafted a delicate balance between federal power and state sovereignty, and I held firmly to the idea that the Constitution did not grant the government the power to interfere with slavery where it already existed.

My belief in states' rights was not a defense of slavery itself, but rather a defense of the Union. The moment the federal government dictated the course of slavery to the Southern states, I feared the South would resist with every means available, including secession.

At the same time, I believed that Congress should not interfere with slavery in the territories, and that it should be left to the courts and the people of those territories to decide for themselves. I placed my trust in the Supreme Court, hoping that its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford would finally settle the question of slavery in the territories. I was wrong.

The Dred Scott Decision: A Constitutional Ruling That Deepened the Divide

When the Supreme Court ruled in March 1857 that neither Congress nor territorial legislatures could prohibit slavery in the territories, I believed it was a definitive legal resolution to the issue. I publicly endorsed the ruling, thinking it would satisfy the South while giving the North the reassurance that slavery would not necessarily expand unless the people of a territory voted for it.

Instead of easing tensions, the ruling infuriated the North, which saw it as proof that the federal government was controlled by the Slave Power. Meanwhile, the South took it as a license to demand further guarantees for slavery’s expansion. Instead of stabilizing the nation, the ruling pushed the two sides further apart, and I found myself at the center of a raging firestorm.

My Decision to Avoid Direct Action on Secession

As my presidency continued, it became clear that the North and South were no longer willing to find common ground. The events in "Bleeding Kansas," where violent clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers turned the territory into a battleground, were proof that political compromise alone could not solve this crisis.

Many urged me to take strong action, either by standing firmly with the Union and suppressing secessionist talk in the South, or by fully supporting the rights of slaveholders to expand their institutions. But I chose a middle path, hoping to prevent war.

When Southern states began discussing secession after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, I condemned their actions as unconstitutional—but I also believed that the federal government had no power to stop them. I was caught between two truths:

1. Secession was illegal and a threat to the Union.

2. The Constitution did not grant me, as president, the power to force a state to remain in the Union.

I feared that if I used military force, I would be seen as a tyrant, igniting full-scale war before diplomacy had been exhausted. And yet, if I did nothing, the South would leave the Union with no resistance, setting a dangerous precedent.

I made my decision: I would not use force to stop secession, and I would leave the crisis to my successor, Abraham Lincoln.

Did I Fail?

Many have accused me of being weak, of allowing the nation to crumble because I did not act decisively. But let me ask this: What power did I have to stop the inevitable?

• Could I have prevented secession through force? Perhaps, but at what cost? A war begun in December 1860 instead of April 1861 might have torn the country apart even faster.

• Could I have forced Congress to agree on a compromise? No, the divisions were too deep. The Republican Party would not allow slavery to expand, and the South would not tolerate its restriction.

• Could I have forced the Supreme Court to rule differently on slavery? No, the justices had already spoken, and the decision only strengthened the South’s resolve.

I did what I believed was best for the Union—I sought to preserve peace for as long as possible, trusting that Lincoln would find a solution where I had failed.

And yet, history will not be kind to me. I know that my name will forever be linked to the failure to prevent the Civil War. But let it be remembered that I did not start this conflict, nor did I wish it upon this great nation.

Final Thoughts: A President in the Eye of the Storm

The divide in the nation was coming whether I acted or not. I was a man of the law, a defender of the Constitution, and a believer in compromise—but I led the country at a time when compromise was no longer possible.

I leave it to history to judge my presidency, but I ask this of those who would condemn me: What could have been done differently? The forces that tore the Union apart were greater than one man, greater than one administration. The Civil War was not caused by a single failure, but by decades of irreconcilable differences.

As I left office on March 4, 1861, I did so knowing that I had done all I could to keep the nation at peace, but also knowing that peace was no longer in our grasp.

Dred Scott Decision and Court Rulings That Shook the Nation – Told by Buchanan

As I took the oath of office in March 1857, I did so believing that the Supreme Court, not the presidency, would provide the final answer to the slavery question. I had spent my career defending the Constitution, and I believed that if the courts ruled on the matter, it would settle the debate once and for all.

Little did I know that the Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford would do anything but bring peace—it would divide the nation further and accelerate the march toward disunion. It was not the first time the Supreme Court had issued a ruling that shook the nation, and it would not be the last. But in that moment, I truly believed that the Court was acting as the proper authority to resolve this divisive issue.

History, I now realize, has judged that belief harshly.

The Dred Scott Case: A Slave’s Fight for Freedom

The case before the Court concerned Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his master in free territories, including Illinois and Wisconsin, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that his time in free land had made him a free man.

The case worked its way through the courts, and by the time it reached the Supreme Court in 1856, it had grown far beyond a simple legal dispute. The entire nation waited to hear whether the Court would uphold the Missouri Compromise’s ban on slavery in the territories—or strike it down.

I knew of the Court’s deliberations even before I took office. In fact, I discreetly inquired with justices about their decision, hoping that it would provide a definitive answer to the nation’s turmoil. I believed that if the Court ruled broadly enough, it could put an end to sectional tensions. Instead, it made them worse.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling: A Victory for the South, A Blow to the Union

On March 6, 1857, just two days after I was sworn in as president, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Court’s ruling in a 7-2 decision. The decision was staggering in its scope and consequences.

The Court ruled:

1. Dred Scott had no right to sue in federal court because African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not and could never be citizens of the United States.

2. Scott’s time in free territory did not make him free, because Congress had no power to restrict slavery in the territories.

3. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, meaning that slavery could exist anywhere in U.S. territories, regardless of local laws or votes.

This was the most sweeping pro-slavery ruling in American history, and it validated Southern claims that slavery was protected by the Constitution. I publicly endorsed the decision, believing that it provided a legal resolution to the question of slavery. I was mistaken.

Instead of ending the debate, the Dred Scott ruling outraged the North, which saw it as proof that the Supreme Court—and the entire federal government—was controlled by the Slave Power. Meanwhile, the South viewed it as a victory that confirmed slavery was untouchable by Congress. Rather than quelling tensions, the ruling pushed the nation closer to war.

Other Supreme Court Cases That Shaped the Nation

The Dred Scott case was not the only time the Supreme Court had issued rulings that shook the American people. Throughout my career, I witnessed several other landmark decisions that had profound consequences for the Union.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Establishing Judicial Power

The case that gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, Marbury v. Madison declared that the Court had the authority to strike down laws it deemed unconstitutional. This ruling, issued decades before my presidency, made the Supreme Court the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. It was because of this case that the Court was able to make such a sweeping ruling in Dred Scott.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832): A Ruling Defied by a President

In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court ruled that Native American tribes were sovereign nations, meaning that Georgia had no authority over Cherokee lands. However, President Andrew Jackson ignored the ruling, leading to the forced removal of Native Americans in what became the Trail of Tears.

This case proved that even the Supreme Court could be ignored if the executive branch refused to enforce its rulings—a precedent I feared when the nation began fracturing in 1860.

Ableman v. Booth (1859): The Fight Over the Fugitive Slave Act

Another significant ruling during my presidency was Ableman v. Booth, which declared that state courts could not interfere with federal law enforcement, particularly in cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This ruling struck down Northern states’ efforts to resist returning escaped slaves, further enraging abolitionists.

This decision, combined with Dred Scott, made it clear to the North that the federal government was fully aligned with the South’s interests, which only pushed them closer to the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Dividing the Union

I had hoped that the Dred Scott ruling would be the final word on the matter, allowing the nation to move forward peacefully. Instead, it hardened both sides:

• The South saw it as confirmation that slavery must be protected at all costs and believed that any further resistance from the North was unconstitutional rebellion.

• The North saw it as an attack on democracy, proving that the South would never accept any limitations on slavery’s expansion.

I believed in the rule of law, but this decision did not bring peace—it made compromise impossible. The Republican Party used the ruling as proof that the federal government was corrupt, and when Abraham Lincoln ran for president in 1860, he campaigned on the idea that the Supreme Court had become an enemy of freedom.

When Lincoln won the presidency, Southern states began to secede, citing the Dred Scott decision as proof that the North would never accept their way of life.

Did the Supreme Court Seal the Nation’s Fate?

As I reflect on my presidency, I cannot help but wonder: did the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott doom the Union before the Civil War even began?

I had hoped that the courts, rather than politicians, could settle the slavery debate, but I now see that legal rulings cannot force unity when the hearts of the people are already divided. The Dred Scott case was not just a legal decision—it was a spark that lit the fire of war.

Literature of Slavery and Abolition: Stirring up a Nation – Told by Buchanan

During my years in public life, I witnessed firsthand how literature—books, pamphlets, newspapers, and speeches—became a weapon in the war over slavery. Words, more than muskets or cannons, had the power to shape public opinion, turn ordinary citizens into radicals, and push this nation further toward the abyss of division. The North and the South were not merely fighting over laws and policies; they were fighting over ideas—ideas that were spread through the printed word.

The rise of abolitionist literature in the North, countered by pro-slavery defenses in the South, fanned the flames of sectional hostility. I had long believed that calm discourse and legal rulings could settle the slavery issue, but these publications proved that the passions of the people could not be easily contained.

Abolitionist Literature: The Written Attack on Slavery

The North, driven by the growing abolitionist movement, saw a proliferation of books, pamphlets, and newspapers that sought to expose the evils of slavery and convince the public that it must be abolished.

1. Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) – The Book That Shook the Nation

Perhaps no single book did more to stir anti-slavery sentiment than Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Published in 1852, it was not merely a novel—it was a declaration of war against the institution of slavery.

Stowe painted slavery in the harshest light, depicting cruel masters, suffering families torn apart, and the moral corruption of those who participated in the system. The book became a sensation, selling hundreds of thousands of copies in the North and even spreading abroad. It turned many who had previously been indifferent into abolitionists, reinforcing the idea that slavery was not just a legal issue but a moral abomination.

In the South, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was viewed as a slanderous attack filled with exaggerations and lies. Southern authors responded with their own works, portraying slavery as a benevolent institution where enslaved people were treated as part of a “Christian household.” But they could not match the reach and emotional power of Stowe’s work.

2. The Liberator (1831-1865) – William Lloyd Garrison’s Fiery Newspaper

Long before Uncle Tom’s Cabin, another powerful voice had been spreading abolitionist ideals—that of William Lloyd Garrison and his newspaper, The Liberator. First published in 1831, this newspaper was relentless in its call for immediate emancipation. Garrison denounced gradual solutions and compromise, declaring slavery to be a sin that must be abolished at once.

His language was harsh, unapologetic, and uncompromising, and it enraged Southern leaders, who saw his writings as an incitement to rebellion. Many Southern states banned his paper, but his influence only grew, helping to radicalize Northern abolitionists.

3. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) – The Voice of a Former Slave

Few things were more powerful than firsthand accounts of slavery, and none was more influential than Frederick Douglass’s autobiography. In 1845, he published Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, detailing his journey from bondage to freedom.

Douglass exposed the brutality of slavery, describing the beatings, the dehumanization, and the constant fear of being sold away from family. His work was particularly damaging to the South because it could not be dismissed as fiction—this was the true story of a man who had lived under the lash.

As Douglass toured the North giving powerful speeches, he became a living symbol of slavery’s horror, turning many hearts and minds against the institution.

4. John Brown’s Writings – Calls for Violent Insurrection

Not all abolitionist literature was peaceful. The most radical abolitionists, like John Brown, believed that slavery could only be ended through violence. After leading an attack in Bleeding Kansas, Brown attempted to spark a slave revolt in 1859 at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. His letters, manifestos, and speeches were later printed and widely distributed.

Though Brown was captured and hanged for treason, his writings became a rallying cry for the abolitionist movement. Many in the North viewed him as a martyr, while the South saw him as a terrorist who proved that the North intended to destroy the Southern way of life.

Southern Pro-Slavery Literature: The Defense of the Institution

In response to Northern attacks, the South produced its own literature, defending slavery as not just necessary, but righteous. These works sought to prove that slavery was beneficial to both races and that the abolitionists were dangerous radicals bent on destroying America.

Cannibals All! (1857) – George Fitzhugh’s Attack on Free Labor

One of the most famous Southern defenses of slavery was George Fitzhugh’s Cannibals All! (1857). Fitzhugh argued that Northern wage laborers were treated worse than Southern slaves—that free men in factories were "wage slaves" who lived in poverty, while Southern slaves were cared for, fed, and housed by their masters.

He turned the abolitionist argument on its head, claiming that slavery was a humane alternative to the brutality of capitalist exploitation. His work found a strong audience in the South, reinforcing the belief that slavery was not just economically necessary but morally superior to Northern labor systems.

The Pro-Slavery Argument (1852) – The Southern Intellectual Defense of Slavery

A collection of essays by leading Southern scholars, The Pro-Slavery Argument sought to provide a legal, economic, and biblical justification for slavery. These writers claimed that slavery was rooted in the Bible, practiced throughout history, and essential to the success of civilization.

Such works were widely read in the South, reinforcing the idea that abolition was not just an attack on slavery, but an attack on the entire Southern way of life.

The Impact of Literature on a Divided Nation

By the time I assumed the presidency in 1857, the war of words had already poisoned the nation. The books, newspapers, and speeches of both sides had hardened people’s views, making compromise impossible.

The North was now filled with citizens who saw slavery as a moral evil that must be destroyed.The South was now filled with citizens who saw abolition as a threat to their very existence.

I had always believed that legal rulings and political negotiation could resolve our differences. But literature had done what no law could undo—it had turned the slavery debate into a battle between irreconcilable moral worlds.

When the election of 1860 brought Abraham Lincoln to power, secession became inevitable. The South was convinced that Lincoln and his Republican allies would use the power of the federal government to abolish slavery entirely, a fear stoked by decades of abolitionist writing.

Words alone had not caused the Civil War. But they had prepared the hearts and minds of Americans for the fight to come.

And as I left office in March 1861, watching the nation I had served begin to crumble, I could not help but wonder—had the Union already been lost, not on the battlefield, but on the pages of literature?

Global Events That Shaped My Presidency – Told by Buchanan

When I assumed the presidency in March 1857, I did so with the firm belief that my most pressing duty was to preserve the Union and resolve the growing divisions between North and South. Yet, as I took my seat in the White House, I quickly realized that the United States did not exist in isolation. Events beyond our borders—wars, revolutions, economic collapses, and shifting alliances—shaped our destiny just as much as our own domestic disputes.

While my administration is remembered chiefly for its failure to prevent the Civil War, I was also responsible for navigating a rapidly changing world. The global economy faltered, European powers shifted their policies toward the Americas, and revolutions and wars erupted across the globe. These events did not merely influence our foreign policy; they directly impacted the tensions within our own country, contributing to the climate of instability that ultimately led to the great conflict.

The Panic of 1857: A Global Economic Collapse

Perhaps the most pressing international crisis of my presidency was the Panic of 1857, a financial disaster that swept through the United States and much of Europe, causing bank failures, business collapses, and widespread unemployment.

This economic catastrophe was caused by several factors:

1. Declining European Demand for American Goods – The Crimean War (1853–1856) had briefly boosted demand for American grain, but once the war ended, European nations resumed their own food production, reducing reliance on U.S. exports.

2. Railroad Speculation and Bank Failures – Overinvestment in railroad expansion led to speculation and reckless lending. When British banks raised interest rates and stopped funding American projects, many U.S. banks collapsed.

3. The Declining Price of Cotton – The Southern economy, built on cotton exports, was initially unaffected, but soon, cotton prices fell, exposing the South to the same financial strain as the North.

The Panic of 1857 deepened sectional divisions. The South claimed that its cotton-based economy was stronger than the industrial North’s and that the crisis proved the superiority of slavery-based agriculture over free labor. Meanwhile, the North demanded higher tariffs and federal economic intervention, which the South opposed.

My response was limited, as I believed that the federal government had no constitutional authority to interfere in the economy. Many viewed my inaction as weakness, and the economic turmoil only fueled political tensions leading into the 1860 election.

The Crimean War (1853–1856) and Its Aftermath

As I took office, Europe was still recovering from the Crimean War, a bloody conflict between Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, and France over influence in Eastern Europe. Though the war did not directly involve the United States, it had a profound impact on global trade and diplomacy.

During the war, American grain exports surged, as European nations relied on U.S. agriculture to supply their armies and populations. However, once the war ended, these same nations resumed their own farming, causing a collapse in U.S. grain prices and contributing to the Panic of 1857.

Additionally, the war weakened Russia, which would later lead to their willingness to sell Alaska to the United States (a matter not settled until after my presidency). Meanwhile, Britain and France emerged as stronger imperial powers, focusing more of their efforts on influencing Latin America, which complicated U.S. interests in the region.

European Revolutions and the Fear of Radicalism

Throughout the 1840s and 1850s, Europe was shaken by a series of revolutions, as the old monarchies of Europe clashed with growing liberal and nationalist movements. Though I had served as Minister to the United Kingdom before becoming president, I observed firsthand how these upheavals shaped European attitudes toward America.

Some Americans were inspired by revolutions in Italy, Germany, and France, seeing them as parallels to our own struggle for freedom and democracy. Others, particularly in the South, feared these movements, associating them with abolitionism and radical social change.

Europe’s monarchies, particularly Britain and France, viewed the United States with growing suspicion, fearing that American democratic ideals could inspire similar revolts in Europe. While I sought to maintain diplomatic stability, I knew that the growing divide within our own nation mirrored the same ideological battles being fought across the Atlantic.

The Struggle for Influence in Latin America

The United States, Britain, France, and Spain all sought influence in Latin America, and this struggle played a critical role in my presidency.

1. The Walker Affair and the Filibuster Expeditions

One of the most troublesome episodes was the rise of William Walker, an American filibuster (a private military adventurer) who sought to expand slavery into Latin America.

In 1855, Walker led an unauthorized invasion of Nicaragua, declaring himself president of the country and reintroducing slavery there. Though he was initially supported by pro-slavery Southerners, his rule collapsed, and he was eventually captured and executed in 1860.

His actions embarrassed the United States and strained relations with Latin American nations, who saw America as a bully seeking to expand slavery beyond its borders. While I officially opposed filibuster expeditions, many Southerners secretly supported them, hoping to create new slave states outside the United States. This deepened tensions between North and South, as abolitionists accused the government of turning a blind eye to illegal expansionist schemes.

2. The British and French Influence in Mexico

During my presidency, Mexico was in turmoil, struggling under debt and political instability. Britain and France saw this as an opportunity to extend their influence, which threatened the Monroe Doctrine—our longstanding policy against European intervention in the Western Hemisphere.

While I sought to maintain peace with European powers, I was aware that any direct intervention in Mexico could further inflame tensions between North and South. The South hoped to one day expand slavery into Mexico, while the North sought to prevent any new slaveholding territories. My attempts to navigate these competing interests without provoking war were difficult at best.

The Rising Power of Imperial Japan and China

In the Far East, the world was changing rapidly. The United States had opened Japan to trade in 1854 under Commodore Matthew Perry, and this new relationship began to reshape global commerce.

Meanwhile, in China, the Second Opium War (1856–1860) between Britain, France, and China disrupted trade, affecting American merchants operating in the Pacific. While I remained focused on domestic matters, I knew that American expansion into Asia was becoming increasingly important for future generations.

The World’s Influence on a Divided America

As I left office in March 1861, I knew that the United States was no longer just a domestic power, but a nation influenced by the greater forces of the world. The Panic of 1857 deepened sectional divisions, the Crimean War shifted global trade, the European revolutions inspired ideological battles, and the struggles in Latin America tested our foreign policy.

I had tried to balance the demands of a divided nation, believing that the Constitution and diplomacy could prevent the coming storm. But as history has shown, the global tides of war, revolution, and economic collapse could not be ignored. And neither could the growing rift between North and South, which had now reached a breaking point.