What do you think?
Rate this book
The Presidency of James Buchanan
This book offers conclusions that are very different from most of the traditional historical interpretations of the Buchanan presidency. Historians have either condemned Buchanan for weakness and vacillation or portrayed him as a president dedicated to peace who did everything constitutionally possible to avoid war. Under the scrutiny of Elbert B. Smith, Buchanan emerges as a strong figure who made vital contributions not to peace but to the accelerating animosities that produced the war.
"Historians who have considered the Civil War a necessary and justifiable price for the destruction of slavery should feel a debt to James Buchanan," Smith writes. "Those who think the war could and should have been avoided owe him nothing."
Most of the accounts of the era have concentrated on the Dred Scott Case, Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton Constitution, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, John Brown, the rise of the Republicans and the disintegration of the Democrats, the election of 1860, and the bitter quarrels over slavery extension occasioned by these events. Buchanan has often appeared on a stage occupied by more important actors.
Whether or not the war was already inevitable by March, 1857, cannot be proved. That a subsequent series of emotion-packed events filled both North and South with rage and fear, triggering secession and the war, is undebatable. It is Smith's theory that Buchanan, in leading the United States through these fateful years, added much to the war spirit that developed in both sections. Driven by affection and sympathy for the Southerners, he tried to satisfy their demands for slavery rights in the territories. This aroused bitter anti-South feelings throughout the North, which foiled his efforts and further convinced the Southerners that they could no longer have their way inside the Union. The one event that finally triggered the Southern secession was the election of a Republican president, and Buchanan's agreement with the Southern demands and his personal hatred for Stephen A. Douglas did much to accomplish this.
Covering the most controversial period in American history, Smith presents important new evaluations for the consideration of students of both the Civil War and the presidency.
"Historians who have considered the Civil War a necessary and justifiable price for the destruction of slavery should feel a debt to James Buchanan," Smith writes. "Those who think the war could and should have been avoided owe him nothing."
Most of the accounts of the era have concentrated on the Dred Scott Case, Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton Constitution, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, John Brown, the rise of the Republicans and the disintegration of the Democrats, the election of 1860, and the bitter quarrels over slavery extension occasioned by these events. Buchanan has often appeared on a stage occupied by more important actors.
Whether or not the war was already inevitable by March, 1857, cannot be proved. That a subsequent series of emotion-packed events filled both North and South with rage and fear, triggering secession and the war, is undebatable. It is Smith's theory that Buchanan, in leading the United States through these fateful years, added much to the war spirit that developed in both sections. Driven by affection and sympathy for the Southerners, he tried to satisfy their demands for slavery rights in the territories. This aroused bitter anti-South feelings throughout the North, which foiled his efforts and further convinced the Southerners that they could no longer have their way inside the Union. The one event that finally triggered the Southern secession was the election of a Republican president, and Buchanan's agreement with the Southern demands and his personal hatred for Stephen A. Douglas did much to accomplish this.
Covering the most controversial period in American history, Smith presents important new evaluations for the consideration of students of both the Civil War and the presidency.
244 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1975
30 people want to read
About the author
Elbert B. Smith
13 booksA graduate of Maryville College in Tennessee Elbert B. Smith earned his master’s (1947) and Ph.D, (1949) in history from the University of Chicago. Smith taught at Youngstown University, Iowa State University, and the University of Wisconsin before moving to the University of Maryland, where he retired as professor emeritus as American history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 11, 2012
reading through biographies of fillmore, pierce, and buchanan to get to lincoln was kinda like eating through a mile of shit to get to rosario dawson's ass.
December 6, 2021
This is a tough book to rate and review - should it be judged for what it is, or what it ought to have been? For what is expected from entries in this series, or for what this particular author decided to write for his entry in the series instead?
I decided to judge it on what it purports to be about - the presidency of James Buchanan, instead of what it's actually about - a history of the United States during the time period that happened to coincide with Buchanan's presidency. As the latter, it's not a bad overview. But as the former, it's disappointing, since one might reasonably conclude that a book called "The Presidency of James Buchanan" might have more to say about the presidency of James Buchanan.
Smith did signal his intentions in the introduction, explaining that the book "often digresses from the president." And he wasn't kidding. Buchanan is absent from much of the narrative, which instead focuses on the growing divide over slavery that ultimately led to secession and the Civil War.
It is, of course, necessary to understand the issues and debates of the time in order to understand Buchanan's positions on them. But Buchanan just isn't particularly prominent in this telling. Full chapters are devoted to topics like Bleeding Kansas and the secession crisis, during which Buchanan isn't even mentioned. When he does show up, there's comparatively little discussion and analysis of his response to events. Instead, what ought to have been the backstory has essentially become the story, and vice versa.
To Smith's credit, his book is not as formulaic as others in this series. Most others I've read are exclusively and unapologetically based on secondary sources, and are rote in their structure - one chapter of background, one chapter on the president choosing his cabinet, one chapter on foreign policy, etc.
Smith did a lot more research, and provides a very thorough and interesting bibliographical essay at the end. And he incorporates all of the necessary information into a narrative instead of into disconnected, perfunctory chapters. It's just that the narrative is more about the times than it is about the man or his presidency.
Smith gets in a few good observations, noting that the fickle and cautious Buchanan "had always shown a talent for shifting positions under political stress," and chiding him for failing to recognize that his desire to set aside the issue of slavery so he'd be free to pursue his expansionist goals only exacerbated sectionalist strife. In "looking at the world through Southern eyes" in his desire for acquiring more territory, which Southerners might eye as potential slave territory, Buchanan "was not a careful student of Northern public opinion," Smith observes.
But such observations are few and far between. The goal of this series is to provide an in-depth look at each president's administration, setting aside the requirements of a full biography to take a deep dive into the presidencies themselves. But Smith managed to set aside both, and ends up providing neither a satisfying look at Buchanan or at his presidency.
The book's conclusion is also kind of odd, in that Smith somewhat passive aggressively concludes that if one believes the Civil War was inevitable, then Buchanan should be lauded for helping to bring it about, thanks to his litany of bad decisions. Smith ultimately ends with a series of questions about what was, and what might have been - all of which remain unanswered, because "fortunately," he writes, "the historian is not required to furnish definitive answers to his own questions." Unfortunately, those answers aren't all that's missing from this book.
I decided to judge it on what it purports to be about - the presidency of James Buchanan, instead of what it's actually about - a history of the United States during the time period that happened to coincide with Buchanan's presidency. As the latter, it's not a bad overview. But as the former, it's disappointing, since one might reasonably conclude that a book called "The Presidency of James Buchanan" might have more to say about the presidency of James Buchanan.
Smith did signal his intentions in the introduction, explaining that the book "often digresses from the president." And he wasn't kidding. Buchanan is absent from much of the narrative, which instead focuses on the growing divide over slavery that ultimately led to secession and the Civil War.
It is, of course, necessary to understand the issues and debates of the time in order to understand Buchanan's positions on them. But Buchanan just isn't particularly prominent in this telling. Full chapters are devoted to topics like Bleeding Kansas and the secession crisis, during which Buchanan isn't even mentioned. When he does show up, there's comparatively little discussion and analysis of his response to events. Instead, what ought to have been the backstory has essentially become the story, and vice versa.
To Smith's credit, his book is not as formulaic as others in this series. Most others I've read are exclusively and unapologetically based on secondary sources, and are rote in their structure - one chapter of background, one chapter on the president choosing his cabinet, one chapter on foreign policy, etc.
Smith did a lot more research, and provides a very thorough and interesting bibliographical essay at the end. And he incorporates all of the necessary information into a narrative instead of into disconnected, perfunctory chapters. It's just that the narrative is more about the times than it is about the man or his presidency.
Smith gets in a few good observations, noting that the fickle and cautious Buchanan "had always shown a talent for shifting positions under political stress," and chiding him for failing to recognize that his desire to set aside the issue of slavery so he'd be free to pursue his expansionist goals only exacerbated sectionalist strife. In "looking at the world through Southern eyes" in his desire for acquiring more territory, which Southerners might eye as potential slave territory, Buchanan "was not a careful student of Northern public opinion," Smith observes.
But such observations are few and far between. The goal of this series is to provide an in-depth look at each president's administration, setting aside the requirements of a full biography to take a deep dive into the presidencies themselves. But Smith managed to set aside both, and ends up providing neither a satisfying look at Buchanan or at his presidency.
The book's conclusion is also kind of odd, in that Smith somewhat passive aggressively concludes that if one believes the Civil War was inevitable, then Buchanan should be lauded for helping to bring it about, thanks to his litany of bad decisions. Smith ultimately ends with a series of questions about what was, and what might have been - all of which remain unanswered, because "fortunately," he writes, "the historian is not required to furnish definitive answers to his own questions." Unfortunately, those answers aren't all that's missing from this book.
December 18, 2025
This book ends with the observation that "No president ever had better intentions than James Buchanan. Few have done more to frustrate their own objectives." Throughout the book Smith seems to be a grudging admirer of Buchanan, unlike many historians. He writes that had it not been for the slavery issue, the allegedly timid president might have been remembered as the most aggressive would-be imperialist in American history. Of course, Buchanan failed in his imperialist ambitions, as he did in his feeble attempts to save the Union. Smith also writes that Buchanan very successfully refuted charges of malfeasance in 1860-1861 in his memoirs and left a firm base of innocence for future biographers. Did he, though?
Was Buchanan the worst president in U.S. history (the jury still being out on Donald Trump)? I don’t have the wherewithal to say. I do know that this is the best book in this series I have read thus far, although I have only read five. In fact, this is the only book in the series thus far that I plan on reading again, and that I am considering purchasing for my own library.
Smith, of course, is not totally uncritical of Buchanan. He describes him as a man of strong determination, dogged stubbornness, and confused insight. Smith criticizes Buchanan's attitude towards the South: "He clearly considered the South a deeply injured party to whom the North owed apologies and pledges for better conduct in the future." Smith also notes that Buchanan's address of Dec 3, 1860 was hardly designed to discourage secession.
The American Presidency Series, unlike Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s American President series, seems to assume more prior knowledge on the part of the reader. Thus terms like Black Republicans, Compromise of 1850, Wilmot Proviso, and fire eaters are introduced with the assumption that the reader will know what the author is talking about (of course, Black Republican meant something different in 1860 than it does in 2025!). Both are great series in their own ways. Which one you choose to read depends upon your goals.
Was Buchanan the worst president in U.S. history (the jury still being out on Donald Trump)? I don’t have the wherewithal to say. I do know that this is the best book in this series I have read thus far, although I have only read five. In fact, this is the only book in the series thus far that I plan on reading again, and that I am considering purchasing for my own library.
Smith, of course, is not totally uncritical of Buchanan. He describes him as a man of strong determination, dogged stubbornness, and confused insight. Smith criticizes Buchanan's attitude towards the South: "He clearly considered the South a deeply injured party to whom the North owed apologies and pledges for better conduct in the future." Smith also notes that Buchanan's address of Dec 3, 1860 was hardly designed to discourage secession.
The American Presidency Series, unlike Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s American President series, seems to assume more prior knowledge on the part of the reader. Thus terms like Black Republicans, Compromise of 1850, Wilmot Proviso, and fire eaters are introduced with the assumption that the reader will know what the author is talking about (of course, Black Republican meant something different in 1860 than it does in 2025!). Both are great series in their own ways. Which one you choose to read depends upon your goals.
March 23, 2026
Serious scholarship on James Buchanan is surprisingly sparse, which makes The Presidency of James Buchanan by Elbert B. Smith a welcome, if somewhat restrained, contribution.
The book does exactly what its title promises: it focuses squarely on Buchanan’s presidency, tracing the decisions, pressures, and failures that defined his time in office on the eve of the American Civil War. Smith writes with clarity and discipline, and the narrative is easy to follow—almost deceptively so, given the complexity and consequence of the period.
At the same time, that straightforwardness is both a strength and a limitation. The prose is clean and accessible, but rarely rises to the level of deeper analysis or fresh interpretation. For a figure as controversial and consequential as Buchanan, I found myself wanting more—more probing insight, more engagement with the broader historiographical debates, more willingness to wrestle with the enduring question of how much responsibility he bears for the nation’s collapse into war.
Still, there is value here. As an entry point into a presidency often overshadowed or simplified, this book provides a solid, readable overview grounded in careful research. It may not redefine how we understand Buchanan, but it does ensure that his story is told with clarity and coherence.
The book does exactly what its title promises: it focuses squarely on Buchanan’s presidency, tracing the decisions, pressures, and failures that defined his time in office on the eve of the American Civil War. Smith writes with clarity and discipline, and the narrative is easy to follow—almost deceptively so, given the complexity and consequence of the period.
At the same time, that straightforwardness is both a strength and a limitation. The prose is clean and accessible, but rarely rises to the level of deeper analysis or fresh interpretation. For a figure as controversial and consequential as Buchanan, I found myself wanting more—more probing insight, more engagement with the broader historiographical debates, more willingness to wrestle with the enduring question of how much responsibility he bears for the nation’s collapse into war.
Still, there is value here. As an entry point into a presidency often overshadowed or simplified, this book provides a solid, readable overview grounded in careful research. It may not redefine how we understand Buchanan, but it does ensure that his story is told with clarity and coherence.
April 27, 2015
When I was learning to drive, there was an emphasis on the "last clear chance." In the realm of responsibility for road accidents this is the principle that even if the other driver made the mistake, if you had a clear chance to avoid the accident, you could be held responsible. In trying to determine blame for the causes of the American civil war, by the time James Buchanan became president the last clear chance to avoid the war had probably passed. While the overwhelming majority in all areas were strongly opposed to disunion, the minorities in favor of the forced abolition of slavery and secession had grown large and influential enough to determine the course of history. Therefore, any analysis of the presidency of James Buchanan must be done with that in mind.
While no examination of that time can avoid an analysis of the issue of slavery, Smith makes one point that seems lost on many other commentators. A great deal of ink has been used in analyzing the economics of slavery and many argued that it did not make economic sense and would have ended. Others argue that it provided an effective source of cheap labor and would have remained economically viable. As Smith so succinctly points out, both points are of questionable validity. Slavery was no longer an economic issue, but a cultural, social and emotional one. To the south, slavery was their culture and any attempt to criticize, hinder or eliminate it was considered an attack on their very existence. In this environment, economics are a secondary concern, a point made very well in the book.
What will be surprising to many people is how expansionist a president James Buchanan was. I am in full agreement with the author that he was the most imperialist president the United States has ever had. For unlike McKinley who took Spanish territory, Buchanan's goal was to impose a brutal slavery on the new territories. He was very activist in the foreign arena, running foreign policy with a strong interventionist hand. However, nearly all of his plans for expansion were of dubious merit. The most wild was the attempt to purchase Cuba from Spain and make it another slave state. While slavery existed on Cuba, it was very mild relative to what existed in the United States and it would have taken an enormous "pacification" effort to impose American rule. Other schemes were to annex additional segments of Mexico as well as parts or all of Central America. Fortunately, sectional rivalries prevented any bipartisan consensus and Buchanan would not act without support. The only plan for territorial acquisition that was eventually completed was the only one that could be executed without conflict, namely the purchase of Alaska from the Russian empire.
Clearly, Buchanan was a president who took the Southern side in most disputes, which sometimes placated the southern radicals and other times emboldened them. Could he have done more to reduce the tensions? Of course. Would it have made a major difference in the outcome? Almost certainly not. The forces in favor of dissolution were becoming so powerful that only blood could have led to a long-term conclusion. Despite his southern leanings, Buchanan was a Unionist who was the last president before the war. In that position, he was the last person to have a chance to avert the conflict. He made many mistakes and if there was any chance at all to avoid the war, those mistakes eliminated it. Smith explains all this in describing the presidency of a man who could have been one of the greatest presidents of all time if he could have found a way to satisfy a set of unsatisfiable conditions.
This review also appears on Amazon
While no examination of that time can avoid an analysis of the issue of slavery, Smith makes one point that seems lost on many other commentators. A great deal of ink has been used in analyzing the economics of slavery and many argued that it did not make economic sense and would have ended. Others argue that it provided an effective source of cheap labor and would have remained economically viable. As Smith so succinctly points out, both points are of questionable validity. Slavery was no longer an economic issue, but a cultural, social and emotional one. To the south, slavery was their culture and any attempt to criticize, hinder or eliminate it was considered an attack on their very existence. In this environment, economics are a secondary concern, a point made very well in the book.
What will be surprising to many people is how expansionist a president James Buchanan was. I am in full agreement with the author that he was the most imperialist president the United States has ever had. For unlike McKinley who took Spanish territory, Buchanan's goal was to impose a brutal slavery on the new territories. He was very activist in the foreign arena, running foreign policy with a strong interventionist hand. However, nearly all of his plans for expansion were of dubious merit. The most wild was the attempt to purchase Cuba from Spain and make it another slave state. While slavery existed on Cuba, it was very mild relative to what existed in the United States and it would have taken an enormous "pacification" effort to impose American rule. Other schemes were to annex additional segments of Mexico as well as parts or all of Central America. Fortunately, sectional rivalries prevented any bipartisan consensus and Buchanan would not act without support. The only plan for territorial acquisition that was eventually completed was the only one that could be executed without conflict, namely the purchase of Alaska from the Russian empire.
Clearly, Buchanan was a president who took the Southern side in most disputes, which sometimes placated the southern radicals and other times emboldened them. Could he have done more to reduce the tensions? Of course. Would it have made a major difference in the outcome? Almost certainly not. The forces in favor of dissolution were becoming so powerful that only blood could have led to a long-term conclusion. Despite his southern leanings, Buchanan was a Unionist who was the last president before the war. In that position, he was the last person to have a chance to avert the conflict. He made many mistakes and if there was any chance at all to avoid the war, those mistakes eliminated it. Smith explains all this in describing the presidency of a man who could have been one of the greatest presidents of all time if he could have found a way to satisfy a set of unsatisfiable conditions.
This review also appears on Amazon
February 6, 2017
Smith does a nice job with Buchanan, it's definitely a tough time period to write about without casting blame, or forming bias. The book does get a little Lincoln/Civil war heavy in the last few chapters, so much that I almost forgot I was reading a Buchanan book, but that's kind of excusable. The south man, they were a little nuts!
April 15, 2013
Library
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews