Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Frank Turner
Master of Arts Thesis California State University at San Marcos February, 2016 Dr. Watts
1
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Table of Contents
Title Page...………………………………………………………………………...1 Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….....2 Abstract………………………....…………………………………………………3
Introduction……………………………..………………………………………...4
Chapter One James Buchanan and Slavery……….……..……………………………………...16
Chapter Two Buchanan and the 1850s Press…………………………..………………………...35 Buchanan’s Inauguration……………….…………………………………………41 Dred Scott…………………………………………………………………..……..51
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..63 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..….67
2
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Abstract
James Buchanan was the fifteenth president of the United States, who served from1857 until 1861, preceding Abraham Lincoln. He is considered to have been one of the most ineffective presidents, due to policies that some historians believe helped lead to the American
Civil War. This thesis looks at how the antebellum presses viewed Buchanan, and what types of images they projected of him to the public. From the very beginning of his presidency, there were concerns in most of the presses about his leadership. In March of 1857, his inauguration and the Dred Scott decision were two events that happened early in his administration, that offer evidence that the press, from the start, projected negative images of him, especially in regards to his policies regarding slavery. This helped to create the belief that he was an ineffectual leader.
Buchanan was aware of the powerful influence the press held over its readership, and he immediately went to work to reconstruct his “organ,” the Washington Daily Union, as a mouthpiece for himself, as well as the Democratic Party. He intended to use the newspaper as a vehicle to express his policies, and to compete with his opponents in the press; the southern,
Republican, black, and abolitionist newspapers. These adversarial presses were a constant threat to Buchanan, and in combination with his early missteps, were effective in representing him unfavorably.
3
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Introduction
Although today judged harshly by historians, in 1856 James Buchanan seemed well qualified to become the new American president. He had built a long public career, beginning with his years as a lawyer, where he had been successful both in the courtroom, and financially-- although he was born to relative privilege, he had added to the family fortune. He had been a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and later served in Congress as both a
Representative and a Senator. He had been appointed as the United States Minister to Russia in the 1830s, and the minister to the United Kingdom in the 1850s. He had served as Secretary of
State in James Polk’s administration; Polk nominated him to become a Supreme Court justice, but he turned the position down. Buchanan had earned an impressive resume over the years he had served his country, and he was now poised to accept the grandest political prize of them all, the American presidency.
At the time of his election, many of Buchanan’s peers felt he was agreeable to work with.
According to Lord Clarendon, the English Foreign Minister, in a letter written to Buchanan, “I will always look back with sincere satisfaction to the friendly…relations…between us.”1 John A.
Dix, who served as Buchanan’s Secretary of the Treasury, and later as a Union general, wrote
“the remembrance of your kindness…will always be among my brightest retrospections.”2
Martin Van Buren, himself a former president, felt Buchanan was “a cautious, circumspect, and sagacious man, amply endowed with those clear perceptions of self-interest and duties connected
1 Lord Clarendon to James Buchanan, March 3, 1856, in The Works of James Buchanan, Vol X, ed. John Bassett Moore (Philadelphia and London: J.P.Lippencott Company 1910), 65-66. 2 John A. Dix to J. Buchanan, March 14, 1861, The Works, Vol XI, 168-169. 4
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press with it.”3 He was considered, by some people in high places, to be a thoughtful man, who operated within the rules and followed his own principles.
Buchanan was elected to the presidency in 1856, and took the office on March 4, 1857. In his nearly fifty years of service, he had achieved much, and felt that his presidency “might rank in history with that of George Washington.”4 Prior to the election, Buchanan had been in Great
Britain in his role as minister, and had avoided confronting the sectional strife that had been going on in the United States between the north and the south. Some felt he was the right man for the job, as he had not been tainted by much of the “mud-slinging.”5 However, to many, despite his victory, he came into office under a cloud of suspicion.
Buchanan held an affinity for the Founding Fathers and their words, and professed a reverence for the Constitution, and followed its intentions precisely. As the southern states moved towards the reality of secession, Buchanan wrote in a letter to George M. Wharton, a lawyer from Philadelphia, that the south was “rapidly losing their respect & attachment for the
Constitution & the Union.”6 The disrespect was disconcerting to Buchanan, as the Constitution had been written by the Founding Fathers, who he venerated. He wrote to Royal Phelps, another lawyer, that “I would sacrifice my own life at any moment to save the Union, if such were the will of God.”7
Yet Buchanan is considered, by historians, to have been an utter failure in holding the nation together. He is remembered by many people to have been one of the worst, if not the worst, president in American history. In 1982, historian Robert K. Murray, with the help of one
3 Elbert B. Smith, The Presidency of James Buchanan (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1975), 11. 4 Phillip Klein, President James Buchanan (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1962), xviii. 5 Smith, 5. 6 James Buchanan to George M. Wharton, December 16, 1860, The Works, Vol. XI, 66. 7 J. Buchanan to Royal Phelps, December 22, 1860, The Works, Vol. XI., 73-74. 5
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press of his doctoral students, Timothy H. Blessing, sent questionnaires out to 2000 people that held
Ph.D. degrees, and asked them to rank all the presidents, based on their level of success. The results of the Murray-Blessing poll determined Buchanan to have been a “failure.”8 His legacy in the annals of United Stated history dwells on his failures, not his successes. A man that had been a prosperous lawyer and a successful politician for fifty years watched it all unravel during his four years as the president.
In 1857, many Americans had been confident and hopeful when Buchanan began his presidency. Yet, by 1861, as his presidency ended, Buchanan was vilified by nearly everyone, including his own party. When and where did this shift begin? This thesis will argue that the press was partly responsible for his decline from the very beginning, due to the types of images that were projected by them, of Buchanan and his policies. The country was divided over his image from the start, and within a short time, more and more people were questioning his leadership abilities. This occurred four years before the end of his term as president.
Buchanan was a northerner from Pennsylvania, yet he was pro-southern in his political viewpoints. The issue of slavery proved to be one of the subjects responsible for Buchanan’s downfall. In a speech given on April 11, 1826, he publicly acknowledged that slavery was a
“Great Political and a great moral evil.”9 Yet he later endorsed the provisions of the Dred Scott decision. By the time he was president, his policies supported the southern plantation owners and the idea of states’ rights, in regards to slavery. Furthermore, he lobbied for the extension of the institution throughout his career.
8 Charles F. Faber and Richard B. Faber, The American Presidents Ranked by Performance (North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company Inc.), 2-3. 9 Buchanan speech, “On the Panama Mission,” The Works, Vol. I, 202. 6
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Some scholars have accused Buchanan of “sitting on the fence,” or not choosing one side or the other, and being indecisive. They feel this defines his lack of leadership abilities. This shortfall, according to them, comes keenly into focus when one examines his actions regarding slavery. In fact, this thesis will argue that he was quite decisive regarding his slavery policies, and operated with a certainty of purpose, and it was that certainty which turned the press against him almost immediately.
Over time, Buchanan supported the expansion of slavery each time the opportunity presented itself. He became zealous in his pro-slavery approach, but failed to consider the anti- slavery point of view, that was in opposition to his, that many of the citizens of the United States had. Buchanan biographer Elbert B. Smith suggests that Buchanan was hampered by his
“southern extremism,” as his unbridled support for their issues seemed to indicate.10 Jean Baker, also a Buchanan biographer, asserts his inclination toward the south “bordered on disloyalty in an officer pledged to defend all the United States.”11 According to historian Kenneth Stampp, there was a practical side to his interest in southern affairs also, as roughly two-thirds of the electoral votes that elected Buchanan were cast in the south.12 He was popular there due to his pro-slavery stance.
Much has been written on Buchanan and his policies. But there has not been a study that has incorporated the press’s reaction to his presidency. This is an important aspect, as newspapers, which were highly partisan at the time, were the source where the general public received their information, and the opinions of the journalists did much to influence the readers
10 Smith, 84-85. 11 Jean H. Baker, James Buchanan (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004),, 141. 12 Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857 (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), 125. 7
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press one way or the other. Readers, during the pre-Civil War era, were greatly influenced by the political persuasion of the newspaper itself, and these papers did much to build public opinion.13
While some scholarship suggests that Buchanan did the best he could in a dire situation, most claim he bore a good share of the blame for the Civil War, due to his pro-southern views, and his indecisiveness. This idea has persisted over time and has become the general consensus of his actions as the president. However, Buchanan was very decisive, and used his interpretation of the Constitution as his guide.
After his presidency concluded, Buchanan wrote an autobiography, entitled Mr.
Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of Rebellion, in 1866.14 This was a complete defense of his actions prior to the Civil War, and a justification of his policies as the president. Essentially, he wrote it to clear his name, which had gained a negative connotation after his presidency, and the war. The book blamed everyone else for the Civil War, especially northern abolitionists, but refused to take any responsibility for the coming of the conflict.
Buchanan sought to secure his place in history, so much so, that he lobbied, after his presidency, to secure a writer to pen a biography of his life, assumedly to ensure he would receive a second positive representation of his career. His efforts failed, however, so the first biography written about him appeared after his death. Yet there was still an effort by his surviving family, to assure that the biography was written to favor Buchanan. George Ticknor
Curtis was ultimately hired by the family to write it, and he published the two-volume Life of
James Buchanan Fifteenth President of the United States in 1883. Curtis explained to the family
13 Menahem Blondheim, News over the Wires: The Telegraph and the Flow of Public Information in America, 1844-1897 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1994), 3. 14 James Buchanan, Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion (New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company, 1866). Buchanan wrote this book in the third person, referring to himself not as I, but as Mr. Buchanan. 8
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press that he would write the book in the direction the evidence took him (the family had turned over the complete collection of Buchanan’s letters and speeches to him). This biography proved to be positive, claiming “that injustice had been done to Buchanan’s reputation.”15 This, coupled with his autobiography, summed up the scholarship that was devoted to him for almost fifty years, following the Civil War. But, he did receive some mention as to his failed leadership in the voluminous scholarship on the Civil War that appeared during this period.
In the pre-World War II era (1920s-1940s), those historians who wrote specifically on
Buchanan, continued to portray him as blameless for the Civil War, and as a man who had done his best to avoid the conflict. In 1926, Philip Auchampaugh claimed Buchanan was sincere and noble in his attempt to keep the Union together, considering the hostility between north and south.16 Auchampaugh portrayed him as pro-southern, at a time when it was popular to bemoan the idea of the “Lost Cause,” and represent the south as a noble society where whites and slaves had been generally happy, and peacefully co-existed with each other. From my perspective,
Buchanan’s pro-southern viewpoints can, again, be traced to his admiration of the Founding
Fathers, who owned and defended slavery.17
After World War II, historians began to criticize Buchanan. Roy Nichols wrote The
Disruption of American Democracy, a work that is considered to be the most detailed work on
Buchanan.18 Nichols, and subsequent histories by Kenneth Stampp and Michael Holt, all agreed that Buchanan’s age had much to do with his inabilities to manage the country as the strife between north and south grew. Nichols argued that Buchanan was also weakened by bad health,
15 Baker, 146. 16 Philip Gerald Auchampaugh. James Buchanan and His Cabinet on the Eve of Secession (Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Press, Inc. 1926), 197. 17 Donald V. Weatherman, “James Buchanan on Slavery and Secession”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1985),, 797. 18 John W. Quist and Michael J. Birkner, eds., James Buchanan and the Coming of the Civil War (Gainesville, FL, University Press of Florida, 2013), 5. 9
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press and this contributed to what he identified as the president’s natural indecisiveness.19 In 1975,
Elbert B.Smith wrote The Presidency of James Buchanan. He felt Buchanan’s missteps stemmed from his pro-southern views, and that Buchanan was hesitant to step in and confine or hinder the south’s efforts, especially regarding secession. Smith argued that Buchanan’s “vigorous political policies” split the Democratic Party, resulting in Lincoln being elected, which was the spark that lit the secession movement.20 In 1962, Philip Klein, in his book President James Buchanan, returned to the earlier notion that Buchanan was a peacemaker who faced insurmountable obstacles, and the book was mainly a defense of his actions. Klein felt Buchanan’s efforts in directing a country that was flirting with a civil war were honorable.21 However, the consensus of the post World War II scholarship on Buchanan (with the exception of Klein) was that he was mostly a blunderer, and he was blamed for the onset of the war.
For over forty years, scholars were again silent regarding Buchanan, as there was little interest in his life or career. The overall opinion of him was that he had been an inept president.
In 2004, Jean H. Baker wrote James Buchanan, which was a return to the idea that his pro- southern viewpoints impeded him, as well as the numerous mistakes he made at crucial moments.22 In 2013, inspired by a 2008 conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, regarding
Buchanan and his legacy, a book entitled James Buchanan and the Coming of the Civil War was published. The book is a collection of eight essays that sample writings of modern scholars of
Buchanan, including the aforementioned Jean H. Baker. These essays look at many facets of
Buchanan’s character, and some offer a defense for his actions, although their defenses seem perfunctory. Most of the essays are critical of him, especially citing his seeming indecisiveness at
19 Roy Franklin Nichols, The Disruption of American Democracy (New York, NY: The MacMillan Company. 1948) 76-78. 20 Smith, x. 21 Klein, 13. 22 Baker, 149-150. 10
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press crucial moments. The first four essays examine Buchanan’s first three years as president, and it is here that some positive appraisals are found, such as John M. Belohlavek’s assertion that
Buchanan had accomplished much, including his role in gaining land that provided opportunities for American farmers and merchants. The last four essays deal with secession and the undoing of
Buchanan’s administration, as the country divided into two separate sections. These essays are mostly critical of his actions during the last year of his presidency. Daniel W. Crofts surmises
Buchanan was “an inept chief who dithered ineffectually while blindly allowing disloyal underlings to betray his trust and imperil the very integrity of the nation.” 23
This thesis will not dispute current assessments of Buchanan as too pro-slavery to be a unifying president during a time of increasing conflict. But it will also demonstrate how, from the beginning, the nation’s newspapers—even those from the south-- treated him with contempt from the beginning, accentuating his flaws and launching his administration on a disastrous course. Buchanan was ardent regarding the expansion of slavery. In March of 1860, a
Pennsylvania newspaper illustrated this idea: “Mr. Buchanan’s slavery policy…will undoubtedly be continued. The Democratic Party has become the champion of slavery extension, and from this position it will never retreat, for the South has it tied hand and foot, and can and does move it proper as she sees fit.”24
This study will examine how his viewpoints, particularly on slavery, were translated by the antebellum press, as his presidency began. The press, depending on their political point of view, responded to Buchanan’s pro-slavery position in their newspapers. Each projected a specific image of him. The northern Democrats, Buchanan’s own party, rather half-heartedly,
23 Quist; regarding Belohlavek, in his essay In Defense of Doughboy Diplomacy (chapter 4), 128; regarding Crofts, in his essay Joseph Holt, James Buchanan, and the Secession Crisis (chapter 8), 208. 24 “Democratic Candidate for Governor, and the Democratic Jugglers,” The Jeffersonian, Stroudsburg, PA, March 8, 1860, http://www.newspapers.com/image/72160400 11
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press portrayed him as a great statesman, and the person that would guide them through the division between north and south that was caused by slavery. The southern press aligned with that on some level, but did not fully trust him, as he was a northerner, which caused many to be suspicious of him. Conversely, the Republican press projected an image of Buchanan as a dishonest and corrupt leader. The black and abolitionist presses mostly aligned with the
Republicans, but were specifically focused on slavery, and were more fervent in their responses to that issue. Thus, from every perspective, even with the press from within his own party,
Buchanan was initially met with indifference or lack of respect.
This study will focus on the beginning of Buchanan’s presidency, in 1857. It will cover his inauguration, on March 4, 1857, and the Dred Scott decision, and the response of the different presses to those events. The papers that will be examined are the Washington Daily
Union, the New York Tribune, the New York Herald, the Chicago Daily Tribune, the Charleston
Mercury, the Alexandria Gazette, the Alleghenian, the Liberator, the American Advocate, the
Anti-Slavery Bugle, the Columbian Centinel, the Daily Advocate, the Jeffersonian, the Nashville
Union and American, the National Era, the National Intelligencer, the New York Times, the
Richmond Dispatch, and the Washington Evening Star. The inauguration and Dred Scott are two events that are intertwined, due to their nearly simultaneous occurrence. From the very beginning, there were concerns in most of the American press about his leadership, and these events offer evidence that confirms this.
There has not been a study of Buchanan and his relationship with the press. Others have written books regarding the antebellum press, but mention very little about Buchanan. In 2000,
David B Sachsman, S. Kittrell Rushing, and Debra Reddin Van Tuyll compiled a list of essays entitled The Civil War and the Press, that examined the press during the Civil War, but much of
12
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press it looks at the antebellum era leading up to the war; it is a collection of essays from various historians that discusses three areas regarding the nineteenth century press; the antebellum era, the Civil War, and Reconstruction.25 Buchanan is only mentioned four times in the index, and none of these entries relate to his interaction with the press. In 2004, Lorman A. Ratner wrote
Fanatics and Fire-eaters: Newspapers and the Coming of the Civil War, which examines the press prior to the Civil War, and looks at the discourse between north and south; Buchanan is only mentioned four times in the index, and each entry exclusively deals with his association with the Lecompton constitution in Kansas. In 2014, Harold Holzer wrote Lincoln and the Power of the Press, which is a study of Lincoln’s manipulations of the press during the Civil War.
Although Buchanan’s presidency had finished by that time, one would think the president that preceded Lincoln would get fair mention, at least in an effort to set the stage, but Buchanan has only six entries in the index.
This trend continues when looking at general antebellum scholarship that does not specifically deal with the press. In 1978, Michael Holt wrote The Political Crisis of the 1850s;
Buchanan has six entries in the index. In 1990, William W. Freehling wrote The Road to
Disunion; Buchanan had four entries in the index. In 2003, David Copeland wrote The
Antebellum Era: Primary Documents of Events from 1820-1860; Buchanan had only two entries, and one of them was a mention in a timeline when he was elected president in 1857. It would seem that some scholars view Buchanan as nearly invisible, as he is often left out of the record of antebellum America, and the events that lead up to the Civil War. He is not remembered fondly nor investigated thoroughly by historians. However, Buchanan’s four years as president had a
25 Sachsman, David B., Rushing, S. Kittrel, Van Tuyll, Debra Reddin, eds, The Civil War and the Press (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. 2000), xiii.
13
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press plethora of events that shaped the end of the decade of the 1850s, as well as helped widen the divide between north and south.
This thesis consists of an introduction, two chapters, and a conclusion. Chapter One will be a short biography of Buchanan, giving an overview of his life story, focusing on his stance on slavery, and how he evolved to have pro-slavery opinions. The chapter will include an accusation from the black press, in an article from July 24, 1856, that Buchanan had, as an 1819 Federalist, been against slavery, but then changed his stance. It will chronicle the rise of his pro-slavery stance, as he transitioned from his previous anti-slavery position, while his political career unfolded. It will also trace his business and political career, and how both of these were components of his rise to the presidency.
Chapter Two is an overview of the history of the American press, and the role it played in antebellum politics. It will include a discussion regarding Buchanan’s relationship with the press, and the establishment of his own newspaper, which was manipulated by himself and the
Democratic Party to ensure their policies were being presented to the public the way they intended them to be. This chapter will look at two events, Buchanan’s inauguration and the Dred
Scott decision, and measure the response of the different newspapers and editors to Buchanan and his actions. The images explored, associated with these two events, will prove that the different presses had concerns about Buchanan and his leadership abilities as his administration began. It will also argue that early on, Buchanan’s actions were portrayed negatively within a substantial share of American press outlets.
This thesis is a hybrid thesis and includes a digital component. The digital project is entitled President James Buchanan and the Antebellum Press, and functions as a website on resources on James Buchanan.
14
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
The address for this site is http://fturner.csusmhistorydepartment.com/cms/admin/
15
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Chapter One James Buchanan and Slavery
In 1856, James Buchanan ran for the presidency of the United States. He was a
Democrat, and a pro-slavery candidate, as opposed to the man he was running against, John C.
Fremont, who represented the newly formed, and anti-slavery Republican Party. Buchanan was a northerner, yet he openly lobbied for the expansion of slavery, despite the momentum gained by the abolitionist movement in the 1850s, whose sole intent was to prohibit the practice in the
United States. According to his biographer, Jean Baker, Buchanan was drawn to southerners. He admired the south in many ways; he was not reticent when it came to singing their praises. He was attracted to their lifestyle, or at least his perception of it, and their social hierarchy and code of honor: “He tried so hard to please [southerners] . . . whose personal affection he craved.”26
Buchanan followed a path that led him from being an anti-slavery Federalist to a pro- slavery Democrat. He was influenced by the events of his time, such as Manifest Destiny and westward expansion, as well as some powerful personalities that he came into contact with, such as Andrew Jackson and James Polk. These influences, over time, caused him to change his position regarding slavery, and he transitioned from an anti-slavery stance, to a person that, by the time he became president, was quite vocal in his zealous support for the institution.
Buchanan’s successful bid for the presidency meant that he entered the office at a very difficult time in United States history, due to the uncertainty and animosity between north and south. Yet his progression of his political views rendered him singularly unequipped to compromise on the key issue of slavery.
26Baker, 2.
16
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
To better understand the man, it is necessary to explore an overview of Buchanan’s early life, and a look at the progression of his political career, and the development of his point of view regarding slavery. By the time of his presidency, he was a solid Democrat and advocated for the extension of slavery.
Buchanan was the last president born in the eighteenth century. He was born in Cove
Gap, Pennsylvania, in 1791. It was a rural area on the frontier of white settlement, and far from any commercial center, but it was a popular stop for travelers from the east on their way to
Pittsburgh. Although he was born in a log cabin, Buchanan’s life transitioned into a life of privilege and opportunity as his father’s fortunes improved. James Buchanan Sr. was hard- working and self-made, and proved to be a shrewd business man. He purchased the trading post at Cove Gap, after the previous owner had failed, and due to his acumen, it became quite profitable for him.27
In 1796, the Buchanan’s moved to a farm in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, to remove their growing family from the blue-collar atmosphere at Cove Gap. After a few years, they upgraded once again, and built a house in the center of Mercersburg, where their lives became more
“genteel and orderly.” This move was reportedly inspired by Buchanan’s mother, who desired her family to be removed from the rough frontier.28 Buchanan worked in his father’s store, and learned the challenges of business, such as accounting and organization. He became passionate about neatness, and accuracy. He loved mathematics and working precisely with figures. He became fastidious, and detail oriented, and operated “by the book” in matters of business. These would be features he would continue to practice later in his life, as a lawyer and a politician.29
27 Klein, 3-4. 28 Baker, 12. 29 Klein, regarding genteel and orderly, 4; regarding features, 6. 17
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
According to historian Philip Klein, Buchanan idolized his father, although they had a business-like relationship, devoid of playtime and accolades. He received criticism instead of praise, and was not commended for the chores and tasks he did well. He longed for recognition, but he learned from his father, that success in business was the result of meticulous attention to detail. These would become attributes that would serve him well as he built his professional, and political, career.30
In 1807, Buchanan entered Dickinson College to study the law, which seemed the perfect choice for a young man who was charmed by numbers and details. He did well at the college, and was even considered to be brilliant, but he was also regarded as arrogant and objectionable.
He was discharged from the school for bad contact, but due to the help of a minister, he was permitted to stay. However, after being disallowed certain honors he felt he had earned upon graduation, Buchanan turned his back on his alma mater, and left the college in disgust.31
His father used his influence to secure his son a position with the renowned attorney
James Hopkins, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who acted as his preceptor.32 After he finished reading law with Hopkins, Buchanan decided to stay in Lancaster, which during this time was the capitol of Pennsylvania, as he felt there were opportunities there.33
Initially, his legal career consisted of the cases associated with land his father owned in
Hardin County, Kentucky. James Buchanan Sr. had purchased 10,000 acres there, but there were disagreements regarding land titles, so his son spent four months there settling it.34 Based on a
30 Ibid., 6. 31 Birkner, Michael J., ed., James Buchanan and the Political Crisis of the 1850s (Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1996), 19-20. 32 W.U. Hensel and C.L. Miller, “James Buchanan as a Lawyer,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, vol. 60, no. 8 (May, 1912), 547. 33 Klein, 14-15. 34 “A young lawyer named James Buchanan in Hardin County, KY,” http://www.hardinkyhistory.org/JAMESBUCHANAN.pdf 18
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press recommendation from Hopkins, Buchanan became a district attorney of Lancaster County.
Following that position, Buchanan began a private practice that grew quite large and profitable, and he established a positive reputation for himself in Lancaster.35 In 1814, as a Federalist, he was elected to the Pennsylvania State Legislature, and felt his political career would be advantageous to his law practice.36
He became well known, at the age of only twenty-four, for his successful defense of
Judge Walter Franklin, in three cases of impeachment, between 1814 and 1818, that all ended in acquittal. The Democrats had been impeaching Federalist judges to remove them, but Buchanan, in Franklin’s case, successfully argued that it was unconstitutional to impeach a judge simply because the Democrats disagreed with his rulings. At this time, Buchanan was still a member of the Federalist Party. The Franklin cases did much to further his reputation as a prominent attorney, and resulted in gaining him many local clients, which expanded his legal practice, and made him quite wealthy.37 The cases also marked him locally as a Federalist.
Buchanan’s success as a lawyer led to his election to the House of Representatives, as a
Federalist, in 1820. He became well known for his strong voice and his abilities to debate. In
1819, the Federalist Party supported legislation that denounced the spread of slavery into new territories or states that the United States might acquire in the future. Buchanan supported this stance, and opposed the expansion of the institution into the territories. He was an integral part of the development of this Federalist legislation. He was part of a committee, including his former preceptor James Hopkins, and William Jenkins (another Lancaster lawyer and the man who built
35 Hensel, 551. 36 Dan Monroe and Bruce Tap, Shapers of the Great Debate of the Civil War: A Biographical Dictionary (Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 2005), 2014. 37 Ibid. 19
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Buchanan’s Wheatland estate) whose purpose was to lobby the House to thwart the expansion of slavery into Western lands.38
However, by 1824, Buchanan had switched parties and became a Democrat.39 He was enamored with the politics, and personality, of the Democrat Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, whom he supported in the elections of 1824, 1828, and 1832. Jackson was a slaveholder and southerner, and despised the abolitionist movement that was developing in the north. After
Jackson lost his election in 1824, Buchanan became so close to him that he offered consolation and reaffirmed his faith in the Tennessean in the future: “I most sincerely and fervently trust that the Almighty will preserve your health until the period shall again arrive when the sovereign people shall have the power of electing a president.”40 He was attracted to men like Jackson, as well as his beliefs and politics, because he was bold and defiant, and embodied what many in the era attributed as the characteristics of the south. Buchanan began cultivating friendships with southerners, to the point that, by the time he was elected president, his friends and entire cabinet were from the south. His relationship with Jackson sealed his conversion from the Federalist
Party to the Democratic Party. He continued to drift towards southerners, and away from northerners, whom he felt were extremists regarding abolition, and too radical in their approach for his punctilious taste. He felt southerners were “more congenial both socially and ideologically.”41
According to Smith, the Democrats questioned the sincerity of his conversion, but
Buchanan countered by earnestly supporting “Jacksonian laissez-faire agrarian economics.”
38 Klein, 30. 39 Baker, 23. 40 Buchanan to Andrew Jackson, Mary 29, 1825, The Works, Vol. I, 139. 41 Baker, 25. 20
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Buchanan backed Jackson’s policies with verve, and even modeled his Wheatland estate on the characteristics of southern “rural values and principles.”42
Baker agrees Buchanan changed his political allegiance in 1824. He became dedicated to
Jackson and his policies, including his pro-slavery viewpoint. And his transformation was complete: “for the rest of his life, James Buchanan was an unwavering Democrat.43 Klein also asserts the change in parties happened in 1824, when Buchanan, prior to the presidential election of 1824, shifted his support away from John C. Calhoun, a Democrat from South Carolina, to
Jackson.44
A major part of his transformation was the reversal of his attitudes towards slavery, as he became a proponent of the institution. One of the reasons Buchanan might have been so easily converted was because he did have some personal experience with slavery, although he was from
Pennsylvania. His father, James Buchanan Sr., apparently had owned a slave, or at least had been legally responsible for a woman named Hannah, when Buchanan was a young boy. She had been a fixture in Buchanan’s early life, and had been an integral part of his child rearing. In 1820, when he was twenty-seven, his father sent Hannah to live with the Governor of Pennsylvania,
William Findlay, to be his servant. But his son remained concerned about her well-being throughout the duration of her life, and he made it a point to stop in and visit with her when he was in Mercersburg.45
By 1834, Buchanan was an established politician, having been a member of the House of
Representatives from Pennsylvania for ten years, as well as a Minister to Russia (appointed by
Jackson) between 1832 and 1833. Like most politicians, he was aware that his character and
42 Smith, 14. 43 Baker, 23. 44 Klein, 49. 45 Klein, 36. 21
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press behaviors were now on the public stage, and he was careful not to damage his well fought for reputation. Buchanan had to walk a line between support for slavery on the national level to curry favor with politicians like Jackson while maintaining support at home in a state where slavery had been outlawed. So he was appalled to learn, while on a visit to Mercersburg, that his sister and her husband owned two slaves--a twenty-two year old woman named Daphne Cook, and her five-year old daughter, Ann. He realized that this could be political suicide if the northern voting public found out that his relatives were slave-owners. His solution was to purchase the two slave women, and convert them to indentured servants. The adult woman was required to serve a seven year term, and when that was complete, she was freed. The child, however, was to remain indentured until her twenty-eighth birthday, a period of twenty-three years.46 In this way he felt he could project a public image that neither approved of nor supported slavery. The Cooks would go to work for Buchanan at his Wheatland estate.
Buchanan did have the need of a housekeeper, because he was unmarried. In the nineteenth century, a wife would manage the household for a man who was in the public eye.
But Buchanan would be a bachelor his entire life (and to date has been the only bachelor president in American history). While he had been engaged in 1819 to Anne Coleman, that relationship ended tragically, when after the couple broke up, Coleman reportedly died from
“hysterics.”47 He swore, to honor Anne’s memory, he would not court another woman.48
Reportedly, he made up for his grief by pouring himself into his work. Buchanan relied on his training as a lawyer, and turned to the American Constitution as his solace, and as his guiding
46 Ibid., 100. 47 Philip Shriver Klein, “James Buchanan and Anne Coleman,” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid- Atlantic Studies, vol. 21, #1, (June 1954), 1-20. 48 Baker, 21. 22
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press force.49 He continued the meticulous approach he had learned working with his father, which was heightened by his legal career.50 He was precise and uncompromising: “I acknowledge no master but the law.”51 Baker felt Buchanan’s “habits of orderly thinking and dependence on precedent significantly influenced his political principles and actions.”52
It has been suggested, by some scholars, that Buchanan was a homosexual, and this may account for his lack of relationships with females. For ten years, between 1834 and 1844,
Buchanan shared a house with William R. King, a slaveholder and senator from Alabama, and the future Vice President of Franklin Pierce. Another senator referred to them as “Buchanan and his wife.”53 Around Washington D.C., they were referred to as “the Siamese twins.”54 Andrew
Jackson referred to Buchanan as “Aunt Nancy,” a not so guarded insult to his masculinity.55
King was considered a dandy, and was known as “Aunt Fancy” in the capitol.56 When King was appointed to become the Minister to France, in 1844, Buchanan lamented his leaving, and the interruption of their relationship. He wrote to a friend:
I am now 'solitary and alone,' having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.57
49 Ibid., 22. 50 Smith, 13. 51 Klein, 305. 52 Baker, 14. 53 Ibid. 54 Klein, 111. 55 Baker, 25. 56 Ibid. 57 George Ticknor Curtis, Life of James Buchanan: Fifteenth President of the United States. Volume 1. (London, England: Forgotten Books, 2012, reprinted from 1883), 519. This is a letter written by Buchanan to Mrs. Cornelius Roosevelt, on May 13, 1844. It can also be found in John Bassett Moore’s The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume VI (Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910), on page 3. 23
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Whether or not Buchanan and King had a sexual relationship, they were certainly close, and they remained so until King’s death in 1853. The important aspect of their relationship was that King was a slave owning southerner, giving Buchanan direct access to the world of slave-holders. It could be speculated that King was an influence in Buchanan changing his stance on slavery. He owned a large plantation that included slaves in Alabama. He was an active supporter of Jackson and his policies, and had used his influence to diminish northern senators from submitting anti- slavery petitions, in an effort to reduce the increasing northern pressure on the south. He believed the Constitution protected owners and their slave properties.58
In 1845, Buchanan was appointed to the position of Secretary of State by the newly elected president, James Polk, who was pro-expansion. Buchanan was influenced by Polk, and became enthralled with the opening of the West, as an opportunity to expand, as well as new lands to be used for slavery.59 Westward expansion brought thousands of American settlers across the North American continent from the east. An idea formed that came to be known as
Manifest Destiny, whose base concept was the assumption that God gave the right to white
Christians to conquer the land, and push any “savages” aside to accomplish that end goal. They intended to make the land their own. This concept became the backbone of the westward expansion movement.60 Buchanan, and expansionists, embraced this ideology, as well as the idea that this movement would benefit only white people.
In 1844, during a speech, Buchanan discussed expansion, across the vast continent that would be managed by white supremacy:
58 United States Senate, William Rufus King, 13th Vice President (1853), http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_William_R_King.htm 59 Baker, 40. 60 Frederick Moore Binder, James Buchanan and the American Empire (Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1994), 51. 24
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Providence has given to the American people a great and glorious mission to perform, even that of extending the blessings of Christianity and of civil and religious liberty over the whole North American continent…I believe an American citizen will, if possible, more ardently love his country, and be more proud of its power and its glory, when it shall be stretched out from sea to sea, than when it was confined to a narrow strip between the Atlantic and the Alleghanies [sic]…What, sir! Prevent the American people from crossing the Rocky mountains? You might as well command Niagara not to flow. We must fulfil [sic] our destiny.61
Buchanan was excited about a future that would be born of expansion, and embraced the concept that God had created a direction for the white settlers to follow. He believed in the divine nature of Manifest Destiny, and imagined the United States stretching across the entire continent, populated by millions of people, as a result of the westward expansion movement.
The combination of his support of Jackson, Polk’s influence regarding expansion, and his relationship with King, led Buchanan to become a Democrat and change his views on slavery, from his 1819 anti-slavery stance. But even as early as 1826, his posture had changed considerably, as noted in a speech he gave to the House on April 1st:
I believe it to be a great political and a great moral evil. I thank God, my lot has been cast in a State where it does not exist. But, while I entertain these opinions, I know it is an evil at present without a remedy. It has been a curse entailed upon us by that nation which now makes it a subject of reproach to our institutions. It is, however, one of those moral evils, from which it is impossible for us to escape, without the introduction of evils infinitely greater.62
Clearly he was not endorsing slavery here, but his stance had softened, to the point that he claimed that although morally wrong, there was no solution to it, so he offered no resistance to the continuation of it. He continued to drift towards Southerners, and away from Northerners,
61 Buchanan, “Speech on the Oregon Question,” March 12, 1844, The Works, Vol. V, 477. 62 Buchanan speech, “On the Panama Mission”, April 11, 1826, The Works, Vol I, 202. 25
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press whom he felt were extremists regarding abolition, and too radical in their approach for his punctilious taste. He felt southerners were “more congenial both socially and ideologically.”63
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was initiated just prior to Buchanan’s entrance into
Washington D.C. politics, which occurred in 1821, when he was elected to the House of
Representatives for the state of Pennsylvania. The Compromise created a line of latitude, located at 36°30′, across the territories that were part of the United States at that time. The Compromise declared that slavery was only legal below that line. It became the battle-line between northern abolitionists and the pro-slavery south.64
By 1836, Buchanan blamed the abolitionists for the conflicts regarding slavery. Focusing on the fear of slave insurrections, he embraced and extended white stereotypes of the dangerous
African American male. “Many a mother clasps her infant to her bosom, when she retires to rest, under dreadful apprehensions that she may be aroused from her slumbers by the savage yells of the slaves by whom she is surrounded,” Buchanan wrote indicating the depth of his racial prejudices so common to his era. Such revolts, he insisted, were the fault of “a number of fanatics, led on by foreign incendiaries” who had “been scattering ‘arrows, firebrands, and death’ throughout the southern States.” In Buchanan’s opinion, abolitionist activities, especially their
“publications,” were to blame for “dissatisfaction and revolt among the slaves . . . [which] incite their wild passions to a vengeance.” Like other whites, especially those of the south, Buchanan argued that people of African heritage were less than human, they were bestial. Although he conceded that for abolitionists “their motivations might be honest,” still he believed that “their zeal is without knowledge.” While Buchanan had not completely repudiated anti-slavery, he
63 Baker, 25. 64 Michael E Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. 1978), 145-146. 26
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press viewed abolitionists as naïve and their rhetoric dangerous. It indicated that he was increasingly moving toward the position of southern Democrats in his view of slavery.65
By 1845, when Buchanan became the Secretary of State in James Polk’s administration, he relied on the Compromise of 1820 as the guidepost for the resolution of the issue of slavery.
Like others, he felt the Compromise had solved the slavery problem once and for all, since north of the line and to the west of Missouri, the land would not support the kinds of crops requiring slave labor and the constitutions of African peoples were intolerant of the climate.66 Also in
1845, Buchanan condoned the addition of Texas to the Union, and was happy to point out that the Missouri Compromise applied to that state also, which in turn resulted in a very large state that would allow slavery. In a speech delivered to the Senate, on February 4, 1845, he extolled the Constitution as the guideline for the continuation of slavery, claiming the southern states had a right to own property. He then reverted to his “fence-sitter” position, when he declared his abhorrence towards the practice: “I need not say that I never owned a slave, and I know that I never shall own one. I am not friendly to slavery in the abstract, and I look to Texas as the probable means of relieving the Union of slavery at some distant day.67
Perhaps Buchanan could justify to the general public, and himself, that he never owned a slave, yet there is evidence of his experiences with slavery previously mentioned, with Hannah, and Daphne and Ann Cook. It could be argued that he did not own Hannah himself, his father did. And regarding the Cooks, they were indentured to him, and were not in bondage for life as a slave would be. Buchanan had certainly purchased them, and owned them until he converted their condition to indentured servitude, so a period of ownership was created. Regardless,
65 Buchanan, “Remarks on Slavery in the District of Columbia,” January 7 and 11, 1836, The Works, Vol. II, 452-453. 66 Curtis, Vol. I, 580. 67 Buchanan speech, On the Annexation of Texas, February 14, 1845, The Works, Vol. VI, 109. 27
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Buchanan had certainly had experiences with slavery, but he chose not to share this information in his speech, and in fact left any notion of it out of his delivery.
In 1847, he lobbied to have the Missouri Compromise line extended across the entire continent, to the Pacific Ocean, as he anticipated the United States gaining the Mexican Cession lands (which it did as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848).68 Buchanan expressed his desire to annex California; “I would acquire the whole of upper & lower California if I could.” He knew the acquisition “would raise a terrible excitement on the question of slavery.”
But Buchanan believed that slavery would not be a problem in California, due to the fact that the land would not support many of the crops traditionally farmed under slave labor, so “slavery in that region south of 36° 30' can never become a question of any real importance from the character of the Country.” He was in favor of the annexation, and felt it was “the safest mode of extending the boundaries of our Republic.” The issue of California demonstrated Buchanan’s support of expansion, while he dismissed any potential problems arising over slavery.69
By 1850, shortly after his position as Polk’s Secretary of State had ended, the
Compromise of 1850 nullified the Missouri Compromise. It had remained intact for thirty years, but after the nullification, slavery still remained a contentious subject. The issue was whether or not to allow the practice in these new lands, as each territory became a state. These debates again brought north and south to a combative stand-off, and the ill-feelings between the two differing areas came to the forefront again. The Compromise was a result of the acquisition of the
Mexican Cession lands, after the Mexican-American War, and the political disputes that were its result.
68 Baker, 52. 69 Letter from Buchanan to General Shields, April 23, 1847, The Works, Vol. VII, 286.
28
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
The Compromise allowed California to be admitted into the Union as a free state, north and south, as that was the preference of the people that lived there. The Fugitive Slave Law of
1793 was buttressed, and required that northern officials and citizens must attempt to return runaway slaves to their owners. The slave trade was abolished in Washington D.C., although the owning of slaves was permitted. New Mexico and Utah were organized into territories that allowed for the slavery question to be answered by the people that lived there.70
Both north and south received concessions in the Compromise, and it was felt by many that the inevitable conflict was once again avoided. There were two issues that Buchanan felt were needed to maintain peace and order throughout the Union. First, he now argued directly that the abolitionists of the north needed to be silenced, because they incited emotional responses from the south. According to Buchanan, “the honor of the South has been saved by the
Compromise [of 1850]. . . .The receding storm in the South still continues to dash with violence, but it will gradually subside, should agitation cease in the North.” By 1850, Buchanan announced the abolitionists needed to stop instigating slave revolts, and leave the south alone to manage its affairs: “All that is necessary for us to do is to execute the Fugitive Slave Law, and to let the Southern people alone, suffering them to manage their own domestic concerns in their own way.”71 He believed the solution to be simple. If the north would let the south be, everything would be solved. He felt if the north would assist the south with their problems that occurred with slavery, such as respectfully returning runaway slaves, the issues would be solved.
The second item of interest for Buchanan was strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law of
1793. Buchanan felt this was a key issue between the two factions. He wanted the north to abide
70 David A. Copeland, The Antebellum Era: Primary Documents From 1820 to 1860 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003), 325-326. 71 Buchanan, letter to a public meeting, November 19, 1850, The Works, Vol. VIII, 396. 29
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
by the law, and aid the southern slave owners in recouping their property. Buchanan voiced his
opinion about the law:
Is it possible for a moment to believe that the slave States would have formed a Union with the free States, if under it their slaves by simply escaping across the boundary which separates them would acquire all the rights of freemen? This would have been to offer an irresistible temptation to all the slaves of the South to precipitate themselves upon the north. The Federal Constitution, therefore, recognizes in the clearest and most emphatic terms the property in slaves, and protects this property by prohibiting any State into which a slave might escape from discharging him from slavery, and by requiring that he shall be delivered up to his master.72
This statement spoke volumes regarding Buchanan’s feelings about slaves. Clearly, he felt they
were rightfully described as “property,” and hence, if they ran away and were captured, the
Constitution dictated that they should be returned to their owner.
Buchanan had felt the institution of slavery was “grandfathered” into American society
because it existed before the republic was established and the Constitution was written. As well,
he argued it was an issue for the states since the Constitution did not merely leave it there, but it
expressly guaranteed to the slave-holding states their property in slaves, and the exclusive
dominion over the question of slavery within their respective borders.73
Buchanan’s conversion to pro-slavery was complete, and he fully supported the newly revised Fugitive Slave Law that required all citizens of the north to assist masters in reclaiming their runaway slave(s). Buchanan felt it was a simple solution, and the unfavorable conditions in the country would diminish if the Fugitive Slave Law was observed by the north. He felt this would allow the southern masters to relax on their discipline with the slaves, as the tension and concern they felt about losing their property would subside. Buchanan believed if the south truly
72 Ibid. 73 Buchanan, remarks on the abolition of slavery, August 18, 1838, The Works, Vol. IV, 24. 30
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press believed the north would aid in the return of their runaway slaves, they would be content with the arrangement.74
Despite Buchanan’s hopes, the Compromise of 1850 did not end the questions
regarding slavery. As the Mexican Cession lands were divided into territories, the issue of
slavery continued to create bitter feelings between northerners and southerners. The
Compromises of 1820 and 1850 had been successful in deferring a militant conflict between
north and south, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, changed this scenario. The Act
effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and implemented rival Democrat
Stephen Douglas’ popular sovereignty, which granted the citizens of each territory the right to
vote regarding whether it would be slave or free. As a result, both pro-slavery and abolitionist
forces infiltrated Kansas to bolster the vote, and this led to guerilla warfare between the two
factions. The territory of Kansas became known as “Bleeding Kansas.” Nationally, the act
became a divisive instrument that had a negative effect on the existing Whig and Democratic
parties and split them, and out of the divide came a new party, which became known as the
Republican Party.75 This essentially created a Republican north versus a Democratic south, and
both sides began to ready itself for a possible confrontation. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was one
more step towards a civil war in America.
In 1854, while the Kansas situation worsened, Buchanan, appointed by President
Franklin Pierce, was serving as Ambassador to the United Kingdom. While serving in Great
Britain, Buchanan became involved in a scheme that would mark him forever with controversy.
With the help of two other American Ministers to European countries, Buchanan formulated a
plan for the United States to focus on acquiring Cuba, whether by purchase at any cost, or even
74 Buchanan, “Letter to a Public Meeting,” November 19, 1850, The Works, Vol. 8, 403. 75 Birkner, 38. 31
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press force. The three ministers met secretly in Ostend, Belgium, and their collaborative work became known as the Ostend Manifesto. Buchanan and his colleagues felt Cuba was part of the geography of the United States, and was essential to American defense due to its proximity to the mainland, as well as the mouth of the Mississippi River. They also believed that America could not be properly defended as long as Cuba was in the hands of another country, and that it was imperative that this condition be changed, they insisted, for national security.76 Buchanan felt that Spain would agree to sell the island, because of the uncertainty of their economy at that time, as they needed funds to pay off their creditors.77 Spain had been considering emancipation for its slaves, and Buchanan and southern slave owners were worried that this would impact
American slavery, and lead to a slave revolt, which had been an ongoing fear in the south, both in areas where the population was large or small.78 The memory of the successful revolution by slaves that had occurred in Haiti in 1804 was still fresh in their minds, and they greatly feared the same happening in America.79
But there was more to it than just American security. Buchanan saw Cuba as the potential jewel of the south, and a slave republic. There were sugar plantations already in place, as well as thousands of seasoned slaves to do the labor. Cuba was indeed an economic opportunity that he felt America needed. The Manifesto was another example of Buchanan’s persistent theme of combining slavery with expansion, and was an integral part of his vision of
Manifest Destiny.80
The Ostend Manifesto was leaked by one of the ambassadors, and the American public reacted with hostility towards it. Some of the American press was contemptuous towards the
76 Buchanan, letter to Secretary of State William L. Marcy, October 18, 1854, The Works, Vol. IX, 261. 77 Baker, 64. 78 Klein, 240. 79 Binder, 202. 80 Baker, 108. 32
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press ideas put forth in the Manifesto. The British press felt the ambassadors were “dishonorable and conspiratorial.” The Manifesto was regarded, by many, as nothing more than a vehicle to get
Buchanan elected in 1856, as the acquisition of yet more territory for the U.S., Buchanan believed, would boost his image in the public. Some argued he was too old to be the president, and that he had simply been a pawn in the whole affair, which appeared corrupt. The Cummings
Evening Bulletin, of Philadelphia, “advised him to retire and to live a life of penitence and atonement.”81 The New York Herald called “the three diplomats ‘the three filibusters’ who coldly said to Spain, ‘Your money or your life.”’82 The end result of the Ostend Manifesto was the disastrous loss of credibility for Franklin Pierce’s administration, and the faux pas followed
Buchanan for the rest of his career. Although it did not have enough of an effect for him to lose the election of 1856, it created an air of distrust about him. The Republican press would continue to pursue Buchanan and his association with corruption, and deceit. Horace Greeley claimed
Buchanan was “insane” in a Tribune headline.83 According to Nichols, the motivation behind
Buchanan’s corruption was to promote the policies of his administration and to gain party power.84 But Baker asserts it was also to secure his place in history.85
Still, as Buchanan stood at the doorstep of the presidency, he could look back at a solid political resume, which included terms as a House Representative, Senator, Secretary of State, and Ambassador to two foreign countries. He had been out of the country for his diplomatic duties in the United Kingdom when much of the sectional strife between north and south had grown more acute, so he appeared untainted, and perhaps the perfect choice for president. But he already had a mixed image in the press. The Democratic press endorsed him and his policies. But
81 Binder, 214-215. 82 Ibid., 216. 83 Smith, 176. 84 Nichols, 331. 85 Baker, 114. 33
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press his change of parties and his stance on slavery, and the Ostend Manifesto, had created an air of suspicion and distrust about him in the southern press. The Republican press saw him as dishonest and a pawn for the south.
Buchanan had travelled a long road in his transition from anti-slavery to pro-slavery.
Each major step in United States policy, such as both compromises (1820 and 1850) and the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, led him towards a more pro-slavery stance. Throughout his pre- presidential career, as his conversion from an anti-slavery Federalist to a pro-slavery Democrat developed, Buchanan promoted westward expansion, and advocated for the extension of the institution of slavery. This would be the profile he presented to the public as he campaigned in
1856 for the presidency of the United States.
34
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Chapter Two
Buchanan and the 1850’s Press
The press was an important tool of communication in the mid-nineteenth century.
Outside of speeches and “word of mouth,” it was a popular method for American citizens to learn the news of the day. It became an integral component of political campaigns, and one that candidates wanted to control and take advantage of. It was obvious, early on in the history of the press, that the candidate that could manipulate it the best had an advantage over their opponents.
In 1799, Judge Alexander Addison said “give to any set of men the command of the press, and you give them the command of the country, for you give them the command of public opinion, which commands everything.”86
The American press had been evolving since its inception during the colonial era. Its early history was mostly shaped by Benjamin Franklin. As the British suppressed politics in the press, the colonial newspapers were mostly used for commercial purposes. After independence from England, the newspapers still were not overtly political, until the first-party system arose.
This was born out of the differences between Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists and
Thomas Jefferson of the Democrat-Republicans. The press, at this time, became attached to party politics, and this increased with the disparagement between Jefferson and John Adams. As a party system arose in the early nineteenth century, so did a partisan press and the ability for editors to shape public opinion.87
86 Hannah Barker and Simon Burrows, eds., Press and the Public Sphere in Europe and America: 1760- 1840 (Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 140. Originally printed in the Boston paper The Columbian Centinel in 1799. 87 Lorman A. Ratner, Fanatics and Fire-Eaters: Newspapers and the Coming of the Civil War (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. 2004), 19. 35
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
By the nineteenth century, reading newspapers were considered an essential part of being
“civilized,” and editors began to realize their role as the deliverers of this highly sought after information.88 At first, only the upper classes were reading the newspapers because of their prohibitive cost. However, with the introduction of the penny press in 1830, the news became available to almost everyone who was literate, regardless of social or racial identity. It was popular to read the newspaper aloud to groups of people, allowing the illiterate to learn the news of the day. The general public had never had access to so much information, and astute politicians realized this information could result in votes. Alexis de Tocqueville claimed the
American press “causes political life to circulate through all parts of that vast country….It rallies the interests of the community around certain principles and draws up every creed of every party.”89 Suddenly, mostly because President Andrew Jackson ended property requirements for enfranchisement, the common man became a target of vote gathering, and the newspapers became more of a medium for politics, as the political tensions escalated with the popularity of the newspaper.90
By 1857, when James Buchanan took office, the political landscape in America had changed considerably from the early eighteenth century. The technology of the time, such as the telegraph and the print media, made speeches a less popular method for politicians to spread their ideas. The Whig party had been an influential force in politics, and had been known for their successful orators, such as William Henry Harrison and Daniel Webster, but the authority of oratory was diminished as the general public turned to the written word as their source for
88 Michael Schudson, The Power of News (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 48. 89 Copeland, 1. 90 Schudson, 194-195.
36
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press information.91 Buchanan, as his career unfolded, participated in stump speeches and public debates, but he preferred to write letters that could be published in newspapers, as opposed to the spoken word.92
Newspapers played an increasing role in the practice of politics. Politicians would use specific papers, referred to as “organs,” to espouse their views, ensure themselves an audience, and to gain votes.93 These newspapers were competitive and combative, as each would try to outdo the other with their editorials. The papers became a battlefield for words and information, all designed to acquire votes from the general public. The editors would respond to each other, essentially arguing through the newspapers. The press was not the voice of the people; it was the voice the editors of these newspapers wanted the American general public to hear.94
The times during which Buchanan came to power were transitional in the American party system. The Whigs ultimately deteriorated due to the split that occurred amongst them regarding the Compromise of 1850, and their differing reactions to the subject of slavery in general.95 The
Democratic Party would also split for the same reason, with factions in the north and the south.96
The new Republican Party was formed from the split of both the Whigs and the
Democrats. Also emerging from this split were the “Know-Nothings,” who stood for anti- immigration, and the “Free-Soilers,” who were in opposition to the expansion of slavery. Many of the northern, anti-slavery Whigs joined the new Republican Party, and the pro-slavery Whigs, generally in the south, joined the southern Democrats. Pro-slavery northerners, known as
“doughfaces,” remained in the Democratic Party. Buchanan was a doughface, and by the time of
91 Daniel Walker Howe, The Political Culture of the American Whigs (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 27. 92 Baker, 52. 93 Howe, 6. 94 Matthew Goodman, The Sun and the Moon (New York: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, 2008), 20. 95 Howe, 247. 96 Baker, 118. 37
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press his inauguration, the United States political landscape was increasingly dominated by a northern
Republican Party and a southern Democratic party. This also resulted in a split in the American press, as each newspaper supported a particular party, and promoted specific politics and agendas. The politicians developed a system that would reward editors for printing positive articles about their party and candidates.97
In the antebellum era, “patronage” was a system that was in place amongst the different presses. Editors of specific newspapers would be rewarded lucrative printing contracts from the government, and even political office, if they published articles that were advantageous to a specific party’s issues and candidates. Some editors became very wealthy from this practice, and would print anything to keep the contracts coming.98
The official “organ” of the Democratic Party in Washington D.C. was the Washington
Union. This newspaper had also been in place as Franklin Pierce’s publication prior to
Buchanan’s administration. Between 1845 and 1857 the paper was known as the Washington
Daily Union and, during Buchanan’s presidency, the name was changed to simply the
Washington Union.
Buchanan, immediately upon his inauguration in March of 1857, positioned himself in the press to project a positive image of himself, especially through the Daily Union. He realized the importance of the press, from his years of being a politician. His makeover of the Daily
Union, and the effort he put into it, confirmed how significant it was to him. He realized his paper was not as popular as the New York Tribune, a publication of the rival Republicans. But nevertheless, he still went to great lengths to reconstruct the Daily Union into a vehicle that portrayed him as a confident leader and a place where he could share his views and opinions, as
97 Sachsman, 22-23. 98 Goodman, 30. 38
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press well as receive supportive words from the paper, and its editor. A major part of accomplishing this task was to determine which influential people he would put in place at the Daily Union, who would ultimately receive the lucrative patronage from the federal government and his administration.99
One of the leading candidates for the editorship of the Daily Union was John W. Forney, an influential journalist who had been a supporter of Buchanan during the election of 1856. He was instrumental in getting the vote in 1856 for Buchanan in his home state of Pennsylvania.
Forney had been the editor of the Pennsylvanian of Philadelphia, and used his influence to promote Buchanan, and leverage public opinion for people to vote for him. He flooded the state with pamphlets that supported Buchanan, and registered immigrants to vote Democrat that had become newly sworn in citizens.100
Forney expected complete editorial control of the Daily Union, as well as the profitable printing contracts. But Buchanan chose to garner the control of the paper for himself, which lost him the service of Forney. Part of the problem with Forney, from Buchanan’s point of view, was he was not popular with southern politicians, as they did not want a northerner to be heading up a main mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Buchanan turned his back on his friend, and instead offered him a minor government post, which he refused.101 Forney was crestfallen from the treatment he received from a person he considered more than a friend: “Mr. Buchanan was to me for half my life…an idol—not a man; a God.--not a fellow being. I am now utterly disenchanted
--…and I am punished for my romantic, devoted, and single-hearted zeal.102
99 Nichols, 74. 100 Nichols, 47. 101 Ibid., 86. 102 Ibid., 86. Original source (used by Nichols): Forney to Mrs. Plitt, Mar. 5, 1857, Forney-Plitt photostats through the courtesy of David Rankin Barbee. 39
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Forney, to Buchanan’s consternation and perhaps in retaliation, established the Press, in
Philadelphia. Rumors circulated that the Press would support Buchanan’s fellow Democrat and political rival, Stephen Douglas. Buchanan would later try to bribe Forney with an $80,000 printing contract to publish supporting commentary on his administration. Forney refused, and broke from Buchanan completely. The Press, while considered a Democratic paper, became a popular newspaper, and one that even Republicans read.103
One of the issues facing Buchanan and his position in the press was the rising popularity of Republican newspapers, such as the New York Tribune and the Chicago Press and Tribune, which served bigger cities than Washington D.C., and had a wider circulation than the Daily
Union. This made it more difficult for Buchanan, as well as the Democratic Party, to sway public opinion using the Washington Daily Union, as it could not compete with these larger entities.104
It was important, from Buchanan’s perspective, to adjust the Daily Union so it was in better position to persuade public opinion.
In 1857, when Buchanan entered the presidency, Cornelius Wendell was the editor of the
Union. He had become quite wealthy from the patronage that was paid to him for his agreeable editorials and articles that endorsed the Democratic Party. In fact, Wendell had made $2,000,000 in six years.105 He was known as a successful and creative businessman, and to ensure he was awarded the lucrative contracts, Wendell did the printing of the government documents for two-
103 Birkner, regarding support for Buchanan, 69; regarding Forney’s break with Buchanan, 75-76; regarding Buchanan’s bribe, 80-81. 104 Ibid., 76-77. 105 Nichols, 246. 40
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press thirds of the cost charged by his competitors.106 Interestingly, he was also a Republican, but published positive coverage about Democrats.107
Buchanan was a seasoned politician when he took the oath to become the president of the
United States, in 1857. He knew very well the importance of positioning himself with the press.
And with the advent of the telegram, as well as the popularity of the print media, he learned early on that not only was the news travelling faster than it ever had, it was also being embellished and manipulated by this new technology. One contemporary source remarked:
The public mind throughout the interior is kept in a constant state of excitement by what are called “telegrams.” They are short and spicy, and can easily be inserted in the country journals. In the city journals they can be contradicted the next day; but the case is different throughout the country.108
Politicians were not above the fray when it came to this type of manipulation and exaggeration.
The press was, in essence, a battlefield for politicians to clash with their rivals, as well as present their own ideas and politics, and to persuade its readers to agree with their viewpoints.
Buchanan’s Inauguration
Buchanan delivered his inaugural speech on March 4, 1857. He surprisingly spoke of the unimportance of the issue of slavery, which had been the source of sectional strife between north and south for decades:
This is [the expansion of slavery], happily, a matter of but little practical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be.109
106 Culver S. Smith, The Press, Politics, and Patronage (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1977), 218. 107 Stampp, 75. 108 Maury Klein, The Flowering of the Third America: The Making of an Organizational Society, 1850- 1920 (Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 1993), 24. 109 “Inaugural Address,” The National Era, Washington D.C., March 5, 1857. 41
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
The comment that slavery was “happily, a matter of but little practical importance,” was a bit remarkable considering the times, and did not set well with the Republican, black, and abolitionist presses, who were decidedly anti-Buchanan. From the very beginning of his presidency, most of the press was either lukewarm or outright critical of Buchanan. Only a very few northern Democratic newspapers offered commentary that reflected complete confidence.
The northern Democratic newspapers supported Buchanan, and projected an image of him as someone who would govern without disruption. The Washington Daily Union, his organ, proclaimed the country was safe, and in good hands, and the future was bright; in fact, seemingly, there was little to worry about. They expressed confidence in him, and his abilities to lead the country: “Under the leadership of James Buchanan whose services have made up a prominent part in his country’s history, we have no fear but that the American Union will advance as much in the next four years as it has in the last four years.” Given that the Daily
Union was his organ, this lack of enthusiasm is notable. Certainly, the Daily Union supported
Buchanan, and portrayed him as “a man of brilliant talents and unquestioned character, worthy of any office in the gift of the American people.” 110 This suggested the general public should feel safe, as the great statesman, with the experience of a long political career, was in the leadership role.
The New York Herald was published and edited by James Gordon Bennett, who was an independent with southern leanings. Bennett had originally backed Fremont in the election, but
Buchanan wrote him conciliatory letters, and Bennett acquiesced. He had changed his stance, but the Herald was generally considered a pro-southern and pro-slavery newspaper, so it was not
110 “Reception of the News of the Election of Buchanan and Breckinridge,” Washington Daily Union, Washington D.C., March 4, 1857, pg. 2. 42
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press inconsistent to support Buchanan.111 The Herald published the minutes of the Democratic
Republican General Committee which praised the election of Buchanan as “the consummation of the triumph of the constitution and the Union over factions and fanaticism.” The newspaper also projected the image of Buchanan as the great statesman who was in complete command, and
“encouraged by the great victory resulting in the inauguration of James Buchanan, this day present[s] an unbroken front.”112
The Washington City Evening Star was also a Democratic publication, and pro-
Buchanan. They also praised him: “[We are] Fortunate in the country, indeed, in having at the head of its affairs in this crisis, a Chief Magistrate and Administration determined, in this connection, simply to enforce and protect that principle.”113 The crisis they were referring to was the sectional tensions between north and south, and the principle was the protection of the Union.
The Evening Star concurred with the Daily Union, and likewise projected an image of Buchanan as firmly in charge, and the great statesman and leader, who would resolve the issues of sectional tension. The northern Democratic press, in general, was pleased with the new president. Their articles reflected a positive image of Buchanan; the Constitutionalist, and a confident leader that could be trusted.
The point of view of the southern presses was similar to that of the Northern
Democrats, but there was an indication that some were uncertain of him because he was a northerner. On the one hand, they felt they were fortunate to gain a pro-slavery president, and they were pleased to hear Buchanan’s opinion about slavery paralleled theirs, in his inauguration speech. The Alexandra Gazette commented that Congress could not “legislate slavery into any
111 Nichols, 59. 112 “City Politics,” The New York Herald, March 5, 1857, pg. 8. 113 The Washington City Evening Star, March 28, 1857, pg. 2. 43
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Territory or State nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of
the United States.114 Buchanan’s opinion was congruent to the south’s idea of states’ rights. He
also endorsed his rival Douglas’ idea of popular sovereignty. The south simply wanted to be left
alone, and let the people decide what their institutions would be. They were also pleased with
Buchanan’s admonishment of the North, in his address, regarding agitating the slave issue. The
American Advocate of Kinston, North Carolina observed that “the rebuke he administers to the
agitators of this slavery question is one richly deserved….They have lived, grown, and fattened
on it….Mr. Buchanan’s lecture to them on this subject, we hope, will have a good effect on
them.115 Many, in the southern press felt the new president was sympathetic to their concerns.
On the other hand, unlike the northern Democrats, some southern editors created an image that conveyed suspicions of him. They did not necessarily feel that he had the leadership skills necessary to battle against the deepening divide between north and south. They were willing to accept him as the president, but were skeptical from the start. The Charleston Mercury published an article that was cautious, yet hopeful. They took a “let’s wait and see” attitude: “The
Washington Union appears to think that the election of Mr. Buchanan…have, in a manner, bound over all political parties to keep the peace, and have ensured the quiet of the confederacy
[America] for an indefinite time to come. We need not say that we do not fully share in those pleasurable anticipations.116 But, they did not agree that all was well. They were not willing to praise him like the northern Democrats had done, because they were at least slightly suspicious of him. But they also did not outright reject him, and were willing to give him a chance.
114 “Inaugural Address,” Alexandria Gazette, Alexandria, Virginia, March 6, 1857, pg.2. 115 “Mr. Buchanan’s Inaugural,” American Advocate, Kinston, North Carolina, March 12, 1857, pg. 2. 116 “The Political Prospects,” Charleston Mercury, Charleston, SC, March 14, 1857, Vol. XLVIII, issue 9873, pg. 2. 44
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
The Charleston Mercury also published a letter from Preston Brooks, a South Carolina
Congressman famous for his bloody attack with a cane on abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner of
Massachusetts in the Senate chambers on May 22, 1856. Brooks was an ardent proponent of
slavery, and a martyr to the pro-slavery cause, based on the celebrity he had gained in the south
after his attack on Sumner. He chose to accept Buchanan, albeit with some misgivings:
I shall support Mr. Buchanan, but with the feeling that his election will but retard the coming issue, and not prevent it. Though I would much prefer to have the sectional issue sternly made, yet I am unwilling to do evil that good may come of it, and therefore will cooperate with my Democratic friends, who see—discern hope, when I do not.117
Brooks’ letter, published in a southern newspaper, contributed to the suspicious image of
Buchanan, as well as a lack of confidence in him. He pledged to cooperate, but he exhibited a
concern that Buchanan did not have the leadership abilities needed to overcome the divisions
between north and south.
The Richmond Dispatch, located close to the nation’s capital, also favored a neutral approach in reporting the event:
The Inaugural speaks of the importance of the restoration of harmony among the people of the several States, to the preservation of our free institutions. It alludes to the ensuing political contest. He approves the Kansas-Nebraska act-- He thinks the surplus in the treasury should be appropriated to national objects, and no more revenue collected than an economical administration requires. He considers a modification of the tariff necessary. He deprecates the evils of disunion. He is in favor of reserving the public lands for actual settlers, both native and foreign. The rights of the States should be respected.118
The Dispatch reported just the facts, and simply went down the list of his positions on the
challenges facing the new president. There was no emotional commentary either for or against
117 “Editors, Charleston Mercury,” Charleston Mercury, Charleston, SC, March 24, 1857, vol. VLVIII, issue 9881, pg.2. 118 “The Inauguration; Scenes Attending It; Mr. Buchanan’s Inaugural, &c.,” Richmond Dispatch, March 5, 1857, pg. 2. 45
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Buchanan. However, their lack of overt praise revealed their lack of enthusiasm and indicated they were uncertain if he was a president that they could benefit from.
The Nashville Union and American, of Tennessee, was a mid-southern state, so their pro-slavery stance was not as pronounced as the states in the deep south: “We trust that his administration may be less trying than his immediate predecessors, and no less grand and patriotic in the principles which it is based.119 This article provided some acclaim, but on the other hand, not exactly an endorsement. Although, they appeared to support Buchanan more than they had Pierce, they remained cautious about the incoming president.
The southern press, generally, reacted with uncertainty to the inauguration, and
Buchanan’s speech, depending on their proximity to the Mason-Dixon line. They were uncertain of him, due to the fact that he was a northerner. His pro-slavery stance gave him an opportunity with them, but the reviews were mixed. A low profile was their most prudent approach, to not stir emotions any further. They had gained a president that possibly had their best interests in mind, so they chose not to be contentious. But they were suspicious of him from the beginning.
The southern press was not completely in unison with the northern Democrats in their support of Buchanan, and they remained guarded. The image of Buchanan that was portrayed was an uncertainty of his abilities to overcome the sectional crisis, and especially overcome it in their favor. They were pleased to have another pro-southern president (succeeding Pierce), but the fact remained he was from the north, so the southern press remained leery of him.
The Republican press did not support Buchanan, and they projected an image of him as ineffectual, and a man past his prime (Buchanan was the last president born in the eighteenth century). They felt he was dishonest, and not qualified for the job. They were anti-slavery, in
119 “The Change of Presidents,” The Nashville Union and American, March 5, 1857. 46
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press opposition to Buchanan’s pro-slavery views. The image they projected was in direct opposition of the northern Democratic papers guided by Buchanan, who cast him as the great statesman, or the south, which had some misgivings but grudgingly accepted him.
Horace Greeley was the editor of the New York Tribune, a large and influential newspaper and Republican in its politics. He was an abolitionist, and an expansionist, and was responsible for the slogan “Go west young man!” From the very beginning, Greeley and
Buchanan would have a contentious relationship. The Tribune immediately questioned his commitment and trustworthiness, by responding to Buchanan’s comment in his inaugural that he would serve only one term: “We do not feel so sure, however, that a President who declines reelection can have no inducement to go astray. We fear this is the case with our new
President.”120
Greeley portrayed Buchanan as a untrustworthy man who, since he did not intend to run for re-election, would conduct the Presidency for his own selfish ends and without thought to public opinion. He condemned Buchanan for his “unsound principles” and his pro-slavery approach. He was disappointed that the country had elected Buchanan, as opposed to the anti- slavery Republican Fremont. He responded to Buchanan’s remark in his inaugural speech declaring the slavery problem as unimportant:
The innocence with which our new Chief Magistrate felicitates himself on the prospect of a speedy end of all agitation respecting Slavery, is refreshing….Let us watch and wait. But let us whisper in your ear, Mr. President, that true Peace follows Justice, and cannot be secured by the most elaborate varnishes of legalized Wrong.121
Greeley rejected Buchanan’s suggestion that the slavery issue was over. He was angry at the events that had taken place that tipped the scales of the balance of power towards a pro-slavery
120 “Mr. Buchanan, Inauguration, New York Tribune, March 5, 1857, vol. XVI, issue 4953, pg. 4. 121 Ibid. 47
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press government, such as the reversal of the Missouri Compromise, fraudulent elections and murder.
He continued to speak out against slavery, in opposition to Buchanan, and claimed a true justice, emancipation, would be the only way for the country to secure a lasting peace.
Greeley responded to Buchanan’s trivialization of the subject of slavery, with an article that spoke of the undemocratic aspect of slavery, and asked the question, “Shall … the People … be slaves or freeman? Who are interested in this issue if not those who it is proposed to hold in bondage?” The editor continued to speak for the oppressed African-Americans, who had no say regarding their position as slaves, “It is democratic, we are told, to let the people decide for themselves; but the Blacks are not allowed to open their mouths on the vital question of their own freedom or slavery!”122
Greeley called for the implementation of democracy that allowed for people to decide for themselves what their lot in life would be. His article was written on March 5, 1857, the day after Buchanan’s inauguration. His comment was a direct rejection of Buchanan’s stance.
Slavery was no trivial political issue in his mind, unlike Buchanan, who argued that the
Constitution protected the institution. Greeley insisted that slavery went against the values of
America. He was defiant in his position, and challenged Buchanan’s pro-slavery stance directly, further implying that he was ineffectual, a relic from the past, and a slaver, who was not in tune with the voice of the people, specifically northern people. Greeley pointed out that Buchanan, who celebrated Democratic principles and the right of the people to decide, was a hypocrite. In his mind, the issue of slavery had not yet been decided.
122 Ibid. 48
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
The Chicago Daily Tribune was the official organ of the Republican Party in Chicago, and they also voiced immediate concerns regarding Buchanan as the new president. On March 5,
1857, the day after his inauguration speech, they remarked:
Knowing our President-elect as we do—knowing all the details of his career— how servile and pliant he has been, how subservient to Southern dictation, and how violent in his opposition to Northern men and measures—we cannot look forward with confidence to such an administration as the times demand.123
The Chicago Daily Tribune voiced their concern over the fact the new president was nothing more than a pawn for the south. Buchanan’s ties to the south were in direct opposition to their interests. As a northern paper, they were not pleased to see a man take office that was so averse to their issues. They projected a complete lack of confidence in Buchanan, paralleling their stance with Greeley and the New York Tribune.
In all practicality, the Republican press was not in support of Buchanan. He was presented as an ineffectual leader. They focused on his pro-slavery stance, and projected an image of him as a defender of slavery. He was in support of the issues of the south. They depicted Buchanan as a heartless person with no compassion for African-Americans, and they did not have confidence in him.
The black and abolitionist presses had a similar point of view about Buchanan as the
Republicans, although they were far more focused on his stance regarding slavery. In 1856, when Buchanan had been a candidate for president, the National Era had protested his switching sides, so long ago, from being a critic of slavery to a supporter of the institution. Even though it had happened years before, the abolitionist press remained incensed at his change of parties and reversal of his stance on slavery. They felt he had been dishonest to the American people. They referred to the earlier resolutions Buchanan had signed protesting slavery and argued that the
123 “The New National Administration,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Chicago, IL, March 5, 1857, pg.2. 49
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Constitution had not been crafted to protect the institution. The National Era called for “the people of Pennsylvania to stand by the resolutions, and repudiate their author [Buchanan], who has shamefully abandoned them.”124
The image of Buchanan portrayed by the black and abolitionist presses differed from the northern Democrats and the south. The image projected was similar to the Republicans over the issue of slavery. They depicted him as dishonest and immoral and condemned his shift from a Federalist, and an opponent of slavery, to a Democrat, and a protector of slavery.
The black and abolitionist presses were closely aligned with the Republican press with their convictions. They were pro-Republican in their politics, but they were more vehement about the issue of slavery. The election of James Buchanan angered blacks and abolitionists, as he was a pro-southern and pro-slavery politician. They recognized that the new president did not recognize their issues. The National Era had voiced its opinion of Buchanan while he was a candidate during the election of 1856: “The good old Simeon of the negro-driving Democracy, if he can carry Slavery to Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, and California, and then prevent
Emancipation in Cuba by annexing it to the United States, will be willing to part in peace! And this is the candidate of the "Democracy!"125 From their perspective, Buchanan intended to expand the institution. The new president’s direction conflicted with their interests, and there was genuine concern over what the future would hold for African-Americans in the United
States.
The Liberator was a Boston newspaper published by the avid abolitionist William Lloyd
Garrison. He felt Buchanan would not be an independent leader because he would do the bidding of the south, and that he was actually more conservative on the question of slavery than some: “It
124 Ibid. 125 “Mr. Buchanan’s Nunca Dimittas,” The National Era, Washington D.C., August 21, 1856. 50
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press will be seen that Buchanan is truer to slavery and its despotic demands than several leading southern Senators, among them Clay, Benton, Crittenden, Leigh, of Virginia, Goldsborough, and
Kent, of Maryland.”126 Garrison compared Buchanan, a northerner, with staunch southern senators, all of whom were devout slave-owners but, in the Liberator’s opinion, actually more compromising than Buchanan.
Each of the presses, at the time of Buchanan’s inauguration, projected their own images of Buchanan, but it is especially significant that those who should have registered enthusiastic support were nonetheless reserved. The northern Democratic press did consider him a solid leader with the skills to maneuver the country through its challenges, especially regarding the slavery issue. But they were not rapturous in their praise. The southern press did not even completely agree with the assessment of his competence, and even articulated an underlying suspicion of him.
Meanwhile, the Republican, black, and abolitionist press were not pleased with
Buchanan as president, and did not agree with his point of view. They painted him as an inhumane pro-slaver, and an ineffectual leader. As Buchanan’s administration began, these images and interpretations began to take hold with the people of the general public in America, and they developed their own vision of him, based on what the presses were telling them. At the beginning of his term, the images projected in the press were mixed, but none were extraordinary, even the south was critical of him.
Dred Scott
When, during his inaugural speech, Buchanan remarked that the issue of slavery was
“happily, a matter of but little practical importance,” he was referring to the then pending
126 William Lloyd Garrison, “Buchanan and Slavery,” The Liberator, Boston, MA., September 19, 1856. 51
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press decision by the Supreme Court regarding the case of Dred Scott. The fact he made his comment on March 4, 1857, two days before the court decided on March 6, implied he may have known the outcome of the case, prior to its announcement. The question was raised as to how he received his information. This would become an incident in Buchanan’s presidency that resulted in the press questioning his leadership and his tactics. It would not be the last, and these questions would continue unabated until the end of his term.
The story of Dred Scott began in 1846, when Scott, a slave living in Missouri, sued for his freedom, in the Missouri State Court. He contended that due to a period of time that he, and his family, lived with his master in Wisconsin, a state where slavery had been outlawed, he should be awarded his freedom. The State Court did not rule in his favor, so Scott sued his new owner, John A. Sanford, in Federal Court. The case Dred Scott v. John A. Sandford (Sanford’s name had been misspelled) eventually reached the Supreme Court. The court chose to use the case as a vehicle to issue a stronger, broader decision, which sent shock waves through the nation.
The Supreme Court ruled that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and had no right to sue in any court. The court also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, because it violated the property rights of the slave owners. Slaves were considered to be property, and an owner had the right to take his property anywhere he chose.127
Congress had no right to regulate slavery in the territories, and slaves had no right to protest through the justice system since they were property not citizens. Scott lost the case, and remained a slave.128
127 Holt, 201-202. 128 Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute [LII], Fifth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment 52
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
The Dred Scott decision worsened the relations between north and south. The ruling claimed that a runaway slave was property, and should be returned to its rightful owner, similar to the return of a stolen wagon, or a horse, if found. Although the decision was not handed down until two days after Buchanan’s inaugural, he spoke of it in his speech, and perhaps implied that it had already been decided, which led many people to question his ethics, as it seemed possible that he received his information through a leak. Actually, Buchanan had learned of the outcome through a private meeting with Supreme Court Justice Robert C. Grier, a fellow Pennsylvanian.
Further, he had a hand in lobbying for the decision with a letter sent to Grier that urged the judge to vote against Scott in the case. Grier responded positively to Buchanan.129 In a letter, Grier assured him of the outcome:
The opinions will not be delivered before Friday the 6th of March. We will not let any others of our brethren know any thing [sic] about the cause of our anxiety to produce this result, and though contrary to our usual practice, we have thought due to you to state to you in candor & confidence the real state of the matter.130
It appeared Grier acquiesced to Buchanan’s wishes, and voted against Scott in the case.
Buchanan had taken a bold step to ensure that the ruling would resolve the issue of slavery, and
African-Americans, in the United States, as he entered the office. One of his first acts as president was a strong pro-slavery move.
When Buchanan gave his inaugural speech, he confidently spoke of the problems with slavery as if they were over. To consider the issue regarding the expansion of slavery “a matter of but little practical importance” was somewhat brazen or extremely hopeful at best, but he already knew what the Supreme Court’s decision would be, so he was flushed with confidence.
The ruling aligned with his beliefs and it was based on the conservative court’s interpretation of
129 Nichols, 65. 130 Letter from Robert C. Grier to Buchanan, The Works, Vol. X, February 23, 1857, 106. 53
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press the Constitution. It was made in a court of law, which satisfied Buchanan, as he held a reliance on the law; the decision would be final. At the end of his speech, Buchanan was content to believe the slavery question had solved itself, right as his presidency began.131
But, the response of the press to his speech, in many cases, was quite negative. The situation regarding slavery had long been burning in Kansas, and the Dred Scott decision permitted slavery to be practiced anywhere in the country, including in the territories. While this certainly appeased the south, it enflamed the north.
Buchanan naively believed he had helped set the stage for his presidency, and the battles regarding slavery that had taken place over more than a two hundred year period were over, and his administration would have no obstacles regarding that subject. Going forward, he believed his administration “might rank with that of George Washington,” and “he would achieve his goals and…return to Wheatland a national hero.”132
The New York Herald, a Northern Democratic paper welcomed the Dred Scott decision. They felt the decision was “the new corner stone of slave expansion, something almost equal to a palladium of liberty.”133 Their pro-slavery stance was greatly supported by the court’s decision. Some of the Democrats felt a new direction had begun in the country, and it would include the expansion of slavery.
The Washington Daily Union, Buchanan’s organ, reflected his stance:
[Any] attempt on the part of the black press to use the late decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case as the agitating medium to goad the weak, ignorant, and fanatical into a second crusade against the Union, the constitution,
131 Birkner, 116. 132 Klein, xviii, Baker, 149. 133 “The Decision in the Dred Scott Case,” New York Herald, March 9, 1857, pg. 4. 54
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
and the equality of the States, its efforts thus far have not been attended with even mischievous consequences.134
The Daily Union proclaimed the issue of slavery had been decided, and that there could be no further debate, as the Supreme Court had made their ruling. It indicated that the root of at least some of the tensions over slavery rested with the “black press,” which included the abolitionists and some Republicans. This was consistent with Buchanan’s attempts to blame abolitionists with the national divisions over the issue. Buchanan declared the slavery problem was forever resolved. This was an attempt to put the president in an advantageous position as he began his term. The Daily Union projected Buchanan as the great statesman, and called for the country to support him:
If we withhold from Mr. Buchanan—after such an expression of his sentiments [in his inaugural speech] our support, what encouragement do we offer the statesman from the North to vindicate our rights? The decision of the Supreme Court …in the Dred Scott case establishes our right to enter the Territories with our slave property, and hold it without molestation.135
Buchanan’s organ established itself as extremely pro-slavery, and tied itself to the south, with the comment “our slave property,” aligning themselves with the pro-slavers. This article furthered
Buchanan’s image as a statesman, who was, unlike the readership of the Union, of the north. It functioned to assure southerners that the President, despite his pedigree, was pro-slavery.
The New York Herald agreed with Buchanan’s assertion that the question of slavery had finally been decided, and that it left him in a position to run the country without any obstacles:
The new administration, [are] relieved of…unconstitutional laws and proceedings of the government…on the slavery question…In this respect Mr. Buchanan is particularly fortunate, and his administration will, we dare say, be singularly
134 “Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case,” Washington Daily Union, Washington D.C., March 14, 1857, pg. 3. 135 “Hon.Henry W. Hilliard,” Washington Daily Union, Washington D.C., April 10, 1857, pg. 3. 55
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
satisfactory and successful, for the people are ever loyal to the constitution and the laws.136
The Herald implied the stage was set for a successful presidency for Buchanan, as the question of slavery, especially in the territories, was no longer an issue. The article implied that the
Supreme Court had rendered the question of slavery moot, and therefore the sectional issue was settled.
The Washington Evening Star portrayed Buchanan as a strict Constitutionalist:
Those who really value the Union have no less reason to thank President Buchanan for the boldness with which…he proclaimed in the face of all comers and goers true constitutional doctrines in the main, upon the subject of slavery, than the Supreme Court for giving so emphatic an opinion that his constitutional views in this connection are sound137
The Evening Star suggested that Buchanan’s strict adherence to the Constitution had triumphed.
The article wrapped the issue of slavery up with the hallowed Constitution.
The northern Democratic papers, like the Herald, supported Buchanan’s optimism regarding the outcome of the Dred Scott decision. They argued that the problem of slavery had finally been solved with the Supreme Court’s decision and that the stage was set for the new president to begin his new term, without the controversy of slavery to encumber him.
Initially, the south was elated with the Dred Scott decision. They began to consider a slave code for the new territories; such was their confidence after the ruling.138 The decision was a huge victory for the south, and they knew it, but to react with jubilance would gain them very little, there was no need to raise the tension and make it controversial by gloating.
136 “The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case and Its Tremendous Consequences,” New York Herald, March 13, 1857, pg. 4. 137 “Washington News and Gossip,” Washington Evening Star, Washington D.C., March 10, 1857, pg.2. 138 Smith, 196. 56
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
At first, the newspapers in the south did not link Buchanan and Dred Scott. Perhaps the southern press did not want to tempt fate by taunting the north, especially the Republicans, regarding the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. The Charleston Mercury simply reported on the points of the decision, and neglected to editorialize, although it would seem obvious that they were pleased with the outcome: “Chief Justice Taney, of the Supreme Court, has given the opinion in the Dred Scott case, as follows: That negroes have no rights, as citizens, under the constitution—that the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.”139 However, by March 16, the
Mercury reverted back to its suspicious assessment of Buchanan, and claimed the subject of slavery was not over; in fact, they expected it to get much worse. They rejected those in the south that predicted that Dred Scott would “put an end to the agitation of the slavery question.”
Rather, they pointed out that since “the election of Mr. Buchanan …was to put an end to the dispute, but since November the dispute has waxed warmer and warmer….it will not cool the fiery temper of this zeal to know that slavery has enlisted the bench on its side; it will rather blow it into a stronger and more formidable flame.140 Although the south had benefitted from the decision, they did not believe, as Buchanan had suggested, that the problems with the slavery issue had been resolved. They asserted the issue was not over, and the Supreme Court’s entrance into the fray would only enflame the north.
The Baton Rouge Daily Advocate also disagreed that the Dred Scott decision would end the turbulence regarding slavery: “The editor chuckles over Mr. Buchanan’s refreshing greenness in felicitating himself that slavery agitation is at an end,” implied he did not have the necessary experience to help them with the matter, and that his simple reliance on Dred Scott
139 “Telegraphic Intelligence Three Days Later from Europe New York March 7,” Charleston Mercury, March 9, 1857, vol. XLVIII, issue 9868, pg. 2. 140 “The New Federal Constitution,” Charleston Mercury, March 16, 1857, vol. XLVIII. issue 9874, pg.2. 57
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press revealed his naiveté regarding the deep divisions over slavery.141 Although the Dred Scott decision was a positive event for the south, many southerners did not agree the issues of slavery were over, and thought Buchanan naïve for believing it did.
By March 17th, the Mercury continued to insinuate that Buchanan was not the right man for the south, and warned of a dark future regarding slavery:
We had hoped that the inauguration of Mr. Buchanan would introduce a new and auspicious era; and we have been prepared—we believe a considerable portion of the North are prepared—to support moderated and conciliatory measures emanating from it . But….the…obtrusion of the Supreme Court on the troubled arena of politics, do not auger well for the future.142
Despite the South’s recent victory with the Dred Scott decision, the Mercury felt since the
Supreme Court was now involved with the issue of slavery, the future was foreboding. Although
Buchanan was a pro-slavery president, they did not have complete faith in him as the person that would be able to guide the south safely through the possible approaching storm.
In contrast, the Republican press was angered by the Dred Scott decision, and felt the election of Buchanan, a pro-slavery president, set the stage for it. The legality, and the presumed
Constitutionality of it, was disputed by many people, especially northerners. There were some who firmly believed it was immoral to own people for the purpose of forced servitude. The New
York Tribune accused Buchanan of knowing the outcome of the Scott case prior to the Supreme
Court’s announcement, and attacked Buchanan: “The revolution is accomplished, and Slavery is
“king.” We point to Mr. Buchanan’s Inaugural, and the upcoming decision of the Supreme
Court, as the emphatic coronation of that power.”143 Greeley, and the Tribune, challenged
Buchanan’s character. He felt that the inauguration, coupled with the upcoming Supreme Court
141 “The Inaugural and the New York Press, Daily Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, March 16, 1857, pg. 2. 142 “Agitation of the Slavery Question,” Charleston Mercury, March 17, 1857, vol. XLVIII. issue 9875, pg.2. 143 “The Triumph of Slavery Complete,” New York Tribune, March 9, 1857, vol. XVI, issue 4956, pg. 5. This article was actually written on March 5, 1857, but not published until March 9, 1857. 58
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press decision (which clearly he sensed would go against Scott) put Buchanan in place as the stooge of the Slave Oligarchy which now ruled the country unimpeded.
After the decision was officially announced, the Tribune continued in their protest of
Buchanan insisting that his election was “speedily followed by a still heavier blow at Freedom.”
It linked the court decision with Buchanan directly:
That this movement on the part of these Judges owes its existence entirely to the election of James Buchanan to the Presidency, no sane man can doubt. The timid and trembling that supported Buchanan’s election under the idea of appeasing the South and stopping the Slavery agitation, can see now what they have got.144
The Supreme Court consisted of a majority of southern men, and was a pro-slavery court.
Greeley contended that the Court’s decision hinged on the pro-slavery Buchanan being elected president. He had been an influence on Judge Grier, when he suggested he vote against Scott in the case. Grier did as he was asked, and leaked the decision to Buchanan before it became public knowledge. There was little doubt that Buchanan at least held an influence over the court.145
The black and abolitionist press did not agree with Buchanan’s assumption that the Dred
Scott decision resolved the slavery issue. The decision greatly endangered all of the black community, and it meant that the president upheld a decision that potentially could result in the imposition of slavery on all African American peoples. It was a blow to the abolitionist movement, as well as the black community. The National Era continued with the stance that
Buchanan was a puppet for the south, and the institution of slavery. They felt he defended the
Dred Scott decision:
Mr. Buchanan, our new President, by his Inaugural, stands committed in advance to these opinions of the Court. . . . The Slaveholding Oligarchy have the
144 New York Tribune, March 13, 1857, vol. XVI, issue 4960, pg. 1. 145 Nichols, 66. 59
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Administration, the majority in the Senate and in the House, and the Supreme Court.146
Buchanan’s ability to agree so easily with the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Taney, that slaves were property, angered the black community considerably. The abolitionist newspaper the Anti-Slavery Bugle attacked Buchanan, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision:
This is a fitting introduction to the Administration of Buchanan….Slavery is legal everywhere within the borders of the United States, so far as the Supreme court by its decision can make it so….That is slavery extension with a vengeance….The slaveholders may take their slaves to either State at their pleasure and hold them securely by the forms of law.147
The Bugle responded defiantly to the new president, and the Dred Scott decision. They claimed the decision, coupled with a new pro-slavery president, was a bold victory for the south and the continuation of slavery, as the Supreme Court had just made it legal in the entire country.
The National Era continued the assault on Buchanan and the Supreme Court, and called for people to fight back at the ballot box:
What is left to the People? The Ballot Box! If they would prevent the theory of this Oligarchy - that Slavery is the fundamental law of this Union - from becoming a fact . . . and rally, as one man, at the ballot-box, for the overthrow of the Oligarchy and its allies in the free States.148
The Era claimed the pro-slavers had control of Buchanan’s administration, as well as Congress and the Supreme Court. From their perspective, the only chance the general public had to reverse this monopoly was through the ballot box, with the vote.
The abolitionist press, after the Dred Scott decision, continued to project the image of
Buchanan as a dishonest pro-slaver. His image deteriorated with them as time went by, because
146 “The Supreme Court and Slavery—The Duty Before Us,” The National Era, Washington D.C., March 12, 1857. 147 Anti-Slavery Bugle, Lisbon, OH, March 7, 1857, pg.3. 148 “The Supreme Court and Slavery—The Duty Before Us, The National Era, Washington D.C., March 12, 1857. 60
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press his policies were strictly pro-slavery. Their abolitionist agenda was in direct contrast with
Buchanan’s ideas, and it was unlikely there would be a compromise of any sort between them.
Buchanan continued to be condemned by the black and abolitionist press.
Buchanan’s pro-slavery stance had benefitted from the Supreme Court and their infamous
Dred Scott decision. The National Era quoted the anti-slavery Democrat George S. Hilliard, of
Boston, in an article that suggested, towards the end of 1857, that Americans were ready to let the issue of slavery rest:
The Pro-Slavery feeling of the South and the Anti-Slavery feeling of the North have died out: there will be no more Slavery discussion or agitation. The Slave Power wants no more slave territory, and the Free Power is perfectly indifferent as to whether it does nor not.149
The Era disagreed, and stated that slavery was still the most important issue in the country, and looked to a future that would allow them to accomplish their true mission: “We trust Black
Republicanism will have enough strength in the next Congress to put its heel on statesmanship as this.”150 The Era predicted that Dred Scott would not put the issue to rest and that Buchanan and his allies would face opposition soon. The article continued with Hilliard, and his idea that it was time to get on with the business at hand, and deal with the other issues facing the country:
There will be no room for Slavery discussion hereafter. People are thinking of something more important . . . . old-fashioned Democratic measures of course, must now be the policy of Mr. Buchanan’s high-toned, conservative, national Administration!151
Hilliard suggested that it was time for the country to move on, and deal with the other more important pressing issues, and let the subject of slavery be, as it had at last been decided.
149 “The New York Herald is discussing of the collapse of Black Republicanism,” The National Era, Washington D.C., October 22, 1857. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 61
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Buchanan looked forward to the machinations of the government, with himself at the helm, operating smoothly in the future. But it seemed clear to many people, that the future was foreboding. Although he felt the issues had been solved at the beginning of his administration, they were not. His actions fed the press with good material, and in the end, his problem was his determination to support the south, which alienated the north. He operated without thought to how the south wanted to be supported or the complexities of the situation. His decisiveness and determination to uphold Dred Scott got him in trouble with both north and south.
Each of the presses had constructed unique images of Buchanan. Of course they differed from each other depending on their political persuasion. The northern Democrats portrayed him as a competent leader and the right man to move the country forward. At least some in the southern press were uncertain of Buchanan, and they grew unsure shortly after he took office.
The Republicans regarded him as dishonest and not qualified for the job; even before his administration began. The black and abolitionist press concurred with this assessment, remembering how Buchanan had done an about-face regarding slavery, transitioning from his anti-slavery Federalist days to a pro slavery Democrat. They also projected an image of
Buchanan of dishonest. The abolitionists, African Americans, and Republicans all agreed he was controlled by the slave power.
These different images, which were generally negative, prevailed as Buchanan began his presidency, and resulted in the American public being divided about him from the beginning of his administration.
62
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Conclusion
Buchanan’s concerns about the press, and the power they held to sway public opinion about him and his policies worried him as his administration began. He immediately began to overhaul the Democratic Party’s organ, the Washington Daily Union. Cornelius Wendell was the editor of the paper when Buchanan began his presidency in March of 1857. But in April 1857, a former Virginia Representative, William A. Harris, bought the entire newspaper, including
Wendell’s shares.152 The name of the paper was shortened to the Washington Union. The idea was for Harris to gain the election from Congress for the printing contracts (which he did), and
Wendell would do the actual printing. This arrangement lasted for a year, but then Harris tired of it, returning all the notes to Wendell, who returned as the publisher of the Union on March 16,
1858.153
But by early 1859, profits were diminishing and Wendell wanted out. He turned the newspaper over to George Bowman, the superintendent of public printing. Wendell was retained as the printer, but it cost him $20,000 per year for the privilege. On April 13, 1859, the paper was renamed the Washington Constitution, and Bowman installed William Browne as editor.154
The Constitution would not survive the duration of Buchanan’s term. As the southern states moved towards secession, Browne, and the Constitution, supported the idea. This angered
Buchanan and he withdrew all contracts and patronage, although the publisher had paid for the privilege. Simultaneously, Congress ended the contracting system for public printing, effectively shutting the newspaper down permanently, near the end of Buchanan’s term, in January, 1861.155
His action would signal the end to an official Democratic organ in Washington, D.C. from that
152 Nichols, 92. 153 Smith, 220-221. 154 Birkner, 85. 155 Nichols, 426-427. 63
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press point forward.156 In fact, this was the official end of the practice of a president, or a party, having an “organ” to manipulate the press with.
There were five influential types of newspapers in antebellum America; the northern
Democratic, the southern, the Republican, the black, and the abolitionist presses. Each projected slightly different images of Buchanan as he took office, however even in the earliest phase of his presidency—his inauguration, the majority of American newspapers selected for this study subjected him to some level of criticism. The Dred Scott decision only spread the negative impressions conveyed by the press. These two events, at the beginning of his presidency, and the depictions of him provided by the press, caused people to begin to question his leadership abilities right off.
The northern Democratic press was representative of his own party, so their projections were prominently positive. They depicted Buchanan as a confident leader that had the skills to maneuver the country through the slavery issue, and the trying times it was experiencing. They wanted to persuade public opinion, so they portrayed Buchanan as a great statesman, and loyal to his beloved Constitution. The northern Democratic press, led by the Daily Union, would prove to be the only press that was unqualifiedly positive about Buchanan.
The southern presses, in some cases, were in agreement with the northern Democratic press regarding Buchanan. But the southern editors, for the most part, did not fully trust
Buchanan, as he was a northerner. The Charleston Mercury was the most suspicious, but the distrust would become less pronounced as one went further north, when one looks at, for example, the Nashville Union and American, and the Richmond Dispatch. The suspicion would
156 Baker, 133. 64
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press lessen in the mid-states and border states. But it remained, at some level, throughout the southern press.
The Republican press, and this included the black and abolitionist presses, were in direct opposition to the northern Democratic and southern presses. They did not trust Buchanan at all, and projected an image of him in their papers that claimed he was dishonest, a cruel pro- slaver, and an ineffectual leader. They were fearful of the future of the country, as a pro-slavery president had been elected, while at the same time the Dred Scott decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, effectively relegating that the African-American slaves were property.
The abolitionist press was closely aligned with the Republican press, but, like the black press, their concerns were centered on the subject of slavery. It was the abolitionists that
Buchanan despised so much, and he blamed them for inciting public opinion about slavery, and giving the slaves hope that their condition could change. The abolitionist press was consistent with the black press regarding the image of Buchanan they projected in their papers; he was dishonest, a pro-slaver, and an ineffectual leader. He threatened to spread slavery and endanger the free black population with his policies.
In 1866, after the end of his career and the devastations of the Civil War, Buchanan wrote his autobiography, Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion, which was mostly an attempt, on his part, to pass the blame for the war onto someone else, and exonerate himself of any wrongdoing. He continued to assume a pro-slavery stance long after the institution was abolished. Rather than assuming responsibility for the war in his book, Buchanan continued to voice his disdain for the abolitionists and blame them for the conflict. He felt, prior to the war, if the abolitionists had stopped harassing the south, then slavery would end naturally; in fact, according to Buchanan, there had been a bill already put into place for this to occur. He
65
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press claimed most southern Congressman were in agreement with gradual emancipation and the abolishment of slavery, but the abolitionists hindered this process by their interference. He felt the south was forced to defend itself and protect their honor, so any thought of ending slavery naturally fell by the wayside. According to Buchanan, these were the reasons the Civil War happened, and that it had little to do with him.157
Despite his attempts at rehabilitating his image, it was hard to counter the negative perceptions of his leadership perpetuated in various press outlets that began immediately upon his inaugural. The press of the era was influential and its coverage resulted in an adverse reaction from the general public that continued to the end of his administration. His pro-slavery attitudes and approach to the issue of slavery, which divided the country, gave the press much to work with, as they fashioned the different images of him. The projection of these images started a trend that continued throughout the duration of his presidency. With the exception of the northern Democrats, the images were consistently negative, and disparaging. These helped to create a public image of Buchanan that did not present him in a positive fashion. The power of the press was overwhelming, and they used their influence to create a negative image of him, and this stigma stayed with him for the rest of his life.
157 Buchanan, Mr. Buchanan’s Administration , 9-20. Buchanan wrote this book in the third person, referring to himself not as I, but as Mr. Buchanan. 66
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Bibliography
Articles
Belz, Herman. “Abraham Lincoln and American Constitutionalism.” The Review of Politics Vol. 50, No. 2 (Spring, 1988): 169-197.
Billington, Ray Allen.” How the Frontier Shaped the American Character.” American Heritage: The Magazine of History, IX (April 1958), 4, 7-9, 86-89.
Caudill, Edward I. and Caudill, Susan L. “Nation and Science: An Analysis of Key Symbols in the Antebellum Press.” Journalism History. Spring 1988, vol. 15, issue 1. 16-25.
Childers, Christopher. “Old Buck” and the Political Crisis of the 1850s.” Civil War Book Review (Fall 2008) http://www.cwbr.com/civilwarbookreview/index.php?q=5802&field=ID&browse=yes&record=f ull&searching=yes&Submit=Search
Halbert, Sherrill. “The Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by President Lincoln.” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 1958): 95-116.
Harper, Douglas. “Loose Buchanan.” The Sciolist. http://slavenorth.com/columns/buchanan.htm
Hensel, W.U. The Attitude of James Buchanan, a Citizen of Lancaster County Towards the Institution of Slavery in the United States. Lancaster, PA: Press of the New Era Printing Company. 1911.
Hensel, W.U., and Miller, C.L. “James Buchanan as a Lawyer.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol.60, No.8, (May, 1912). 546-581.
Hensel, W.U. “A PENNSYLVANIA PRESBYTERIAN PRESIDENT: An Inquiry into the Religious Sentiments and Character of James Buchanan, Fifteenth President of the United States.” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society (1901-1930), Vol. 4, No. 5 (March, 1908), 203-216.
Horricks, Thomas A. “Could This Man Have Stopped the War?” America's Civil War. July 2010, Vol. 23 Issue 3, 36-41.
Hutton, Frankie. “Social Morality in the Antebellum Black Press.” The Journal of Popular Culture, 1992, Vol.26, 71-84.
Klein, Philip Shriver. “James Buchanan and Ann Coleman.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies. Vol. 21, #1 (June 1954): 1-20.
67
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Klingberg, Frank Wysor. “James Buchanan and the Crisis of the Union.” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 9, No. 4 (November, 1943): 455-474.
Latner Richard B. “Crisis at Fort Sumter: The Election of 1860.” Tulane University History Department. July 23, 1996. http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Background/BackgroundElection.html
M.G. “Bottom of the List.” Cobblestone. October 2011, Vol. 32 Issue 8, p 7. Accessed through CSUSM Library at- http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=65bbeb49-8a60- 499f-a878- 2b48e165e400%40sessionmgr113&vid=0&hid=116&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2 ZQ%3d%3d#db=ulh&AN=66171176
Nichols, Roy F. “James Buchanan: Lessons in Leadership in Trying Times.” In Bulwark of Liberty: Early Years at Dickinson, Vol. 1, 165-174. The Boyd Lee Spahr Lectures in Americana. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1950.
Ranck, James B. “The Attitude of James Buchanan Towards Slavery.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,Vol. 51, No. 2 (1927), pp. 126-142.
Ridge, Martin. “The Life of an Idea: The Significance of Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis.” Montana: The Magazine of Western History, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), 2- 13.
Shortell, Timothy. “Human Rights Discourse in the Antebellum Black Press.” Studies in Communication. Vol.6, 1995. 121-137.
Tulane University. “The Election of 1860.” http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Background/BackgroundElection.html
Weatherman, Donald V. “James Buchanan on Slavery and Secession.” Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 4, (Fall, 1985): 796-805.
Books
Auchampaugh, Philip Gerald. James Buchanan and His Cabinet on the Eve of Secession. Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Press, Inc. 1926. Baker, Jean H. James Buchanan: The American Presidents Series: The 15th President, 1857- 1861. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, 2004. Barker, Hannah and Burrows, Simon. Press and the Public Sphere in Europe and America: 1760-1840. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
68
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Binder, Frederick Moore. James Buchanan and the American Empire. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1994.
Birkner, Michael J., ed. James Buchanan and the Political Crisis of the 1850s. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1996.
Blondheim, Menahem. News over the Wires: The Telegraph and the Flow of Public Information in America, 1844-1897. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1994.
Bullock, Penelope L. The Afro-American Periodical Press:1838-1909. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. 1981.
Calabresi, Steven G and Yoo, Christopher S. Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2008.
Copeland, David A. The Antebellum Era: Primary Documents on events from 1820-1860. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003.
Curtis, George Ticknor. Life of James Buchanan: Fifteenth President of the United States. Vols. 1 & 2. London, England: Forgotten Books, 2012. Reprinted from 1883.
Daniel, Walter C. Black Journals of the United States: Historical Guides to the World’s Periodicals and Newspapers. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1982.
Dumond, Dwight Lowell. The Secession Movement 1860-1861. New York, NY: The MacMillan Company. 1931.
Ellis, Richard J. Speaking to the People: The Rhetorical Presidency in Historical Perspective. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. 1998
Etcheson, Nicole. Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 2004.
Faber, Charles F. and Faber, Richard B. The American Presidents Ranked by Performance. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., 2000.
Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1990.
Fuller, A. James. Election of 1860 Reconsidered. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. 2013.
Goodman, Matthew. The Sun and the Moon: The Remarkable True Account of Hoaxers, Showmen, Dueling Journalists, and Lunar Man-Bats in Nineteenth Century New York. New York, NY: Basic Books. 2008.
69
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Greenberg, Amy S. Manifest Destiny and American Territorial Expansion: A Brief History With Documents. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2012.
Greenberg, Amy S. Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum American Empire. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2005.
Hall, Roger A. Performing the American Frontier: 1870-1906. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2006.
Holt, Michael E. The Political Crisis of the 1850s. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. 1978.
Holzer, Harold. Lincoln and the Power of the Press. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 2014.
Howe, Daniel Walker. The Political Culture of the American Whigs. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 1979.
Hutton, Frankie. The Early Black Press in America, 1827-1860. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. 1993.
Johnson, Gerald W. The Secession of the Southern States. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. 1933.
Klein, Maury. The Flowering of the Third America: The Making of an Organizational Society 1850-1920. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee. 1993.
Klein, Philip S. President James Buchanan: A Biography. Newtown, CT: American Political Biography Press, 1962 (1995 ed.).
Lahuu, Isabelle. Carnival on the Page: Popular Print Media in Antebellum America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 2000
Limerick, Patricia Nelson. Something in the Soil. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.
Limerick, Patricia Nelson. The Legacy of Conquest. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1987.
Milton, George Fort. Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column. Washington D.C.: the Infantry Journal. 1943.
Milton, George Fort. The Eve of Conflict: Stephen Douglas and the Needless War. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1934.
70
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Milton, George Fort. The Use of Presidential Power, 1789-1943. New York, NY: Octagon Books. 1965.
Monroe, Dan, and Tap, Bruce. Shapers of the Great Debate on the Civil War: A Biographical Dictionary. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005.
Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Douglas, Buchanan, and Party Chaos, 1857-1859. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950.
Nevins, Allan. The Ordeal of the Union. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970. Reprinted from 1940.
Nichols, Roy Franklin. The Disruption of American Democracy. New York, NY: The MacMillan Company. 1948.
Quist, John W. and Birkner, Michael J., eds. James Buchanan and the Coming of the Civil War. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2013.
Ratner, Lorman A. Fanatics and Fire-eaters: Newspapers and the Coming of the Civil War. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. 2004.
Sachsman, David B., Rushing, S. Kittrel, Van Tuyll, Debra Reddin. The Civil War and the Press. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. 2000.
Schlesinger, Arthur M, ed. The Coming to Power: Critical Presidential Elections in American History. New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers. 1971-1972.
Schudson, Michael. Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc. 1978.
Schudson, Michael. The Power of News. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1995.
Smith, Elbert B., The Presidency of James Buchanan, Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 1975.
Smith, Culver H. The Press, Politics, and Patronage : the American Government's Use of Newspapers, 1789-1875. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. 1977.
Stampp, Kenneth M. America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1990
Stampp, Kenneth M. And the War Came: The North and the Secessionist Crisis 1860-1861. Baton Rouge, LA: The Louisiana State Press. 1950.
71
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Significance of the Frontier in American History. Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books. 2014 (reprinted from 1894).
Updike, John. Buchanan Dying: A Play. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group. 1974
Dissertations
Bragg, Dianne. “The Causes of the Civil War: A Newspaper Analysis.” PhD diss., University of Alabama. UMI Dissertations Publishing. 2013. ”
Mindich, David T. “Building the Pyramid: A Cultural History of “Objectivity” in American Journalism.” PhD diss., New York University. UMI Dissertations Publishing. 1996.
Pierce, Katherine Anna. “Networks of disunion: Politics, Print Culture, and the Coming of the Civil War.” PhD diss., University of Virginia. UMI Dissertations Publishing. 2006.
Schmeller, Mark. “Imaging Public Opinion in Antebellum America: Fear, Credit, Law, and Honor.” PhD diss., University of Chicago. UMI Dissertations Publishing. 2001.
Primary Sources Articles, Books
Barstow, Benjamin. A letter to the Hon. James Buchanan, president elect of the United States. Concord, N.H: Printed at the office of the Democratic standard. 1857. Accessed through Sabin Americana 1500-1926, at- http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/servlet/Sabin?dd=0&af=RN&locID=san marcoscsu&srchtp=a&d1=SABCB08575700&c=1&an=SABCB08575700&ste=11&stp= Author&dc=flc&d4=0.33&docNum=CY101257491&ae=CY101257491&tiPG=1
Buchanan, James. “Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union.” December 3, 1860. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29501
Buchanan, James. James Buchanan, his doctrines and policy as exhibited by himself and friends. New York, NY: Greeley & McElrath. 1856. Accessed through Sabin Americana 1500- 1926, at- http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/servlet/Sabin?vrsn=1.0&dd=0&locID=s anmarcoscsu&b1=0X&srchtp=b&d1=SABCP00922600&c=1&ste=11&stp=DateAscend &dc=flc&d4=0.33&n=10&docNum=CY104289861&b0=James+Buchanan%2C+his+do ctrines+and+policy+as+exhibited+by+himself+and+friends&tiPG=1
Buchanan, James. General Jackson’s letter to Carter Beverley and Mr. Clay’s reply: Mr. Clay’s speech at the Lexington Dinner: General Jackson’s reply to Mr. Clay, in which he gives
72
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
up James Buchanan, a member of congress from Pennsylvania, as his authority for his assertions about bribery, corruption, &c.: Mr. Buchanan’s reply, which effectually prostrates to the earth every imputation against Mr. Clay and his friends. Portsmouth, N.H.: Printed by Miller and Brewster. 1827. Accessed through Sabin Americana 1500- 1926, at- http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/servlet/Sabin?dd=0&af=RN&locID=san marcoscsu&srchtp=a&d1=SABCP04999700&c=1&an=SABCP04999700&ste=11&stp= Author&dc=flc&d4=0.33&docNum=CY103125473&ae=CY103125473&tiPG=1
Buchanan, James. The Life of the Hon. James Buchanan, as Written By Himself, and Set to Music, By an Old Democrat. Lancaster, near Wheatland, PA: 1856.
Buchanan, James. Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion. New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company, 1866.
Buchanan, James. “Inaugural Speech.” Washington, D.C., March 4, 1857. Accessed June 30, 2015, http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres30.html
Buchanan, James. Remarks of Mr. Buchanan of Pennsylvania in reply to Mr. Davis of Massachusetts against the Independent Treasury bill, Senate U.S. March 3, 1840. Washington D.C.: Printed at the Globe office, 1840. Accessed through The Making of Modern America, at- http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/mome/retrieve.do?docLevel=TEXT_GRAP HICS&inPS=true&prodId=MOME&userGroupName=sanmarcoscsu&doDirectDocNum Search=false&tabID=T001&resultListType=RESULT_LIST¤tPosition=0&conten tSet=MOMEArticles&showLOI=&bookId=19010291100200&collectionId=ocm179125 61&relevancePageBatch=U105791828
Forney, John W. Memoir of James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: C. Sherman and Son. 1856 (This is a pamphlet published by the Democratic State Central Committee of Pennsylvania, prior to the election of 1856).
Horton, Rushmore G. The life and public services of James Buchanan: late minister to England and formerly minister to Russia, senator and representative in Congress, and secretary of state: including the most important of his state papers. New York, NY: Derby & Jackson; Cincinnati: H.W. Derby & Co., 1856. Accessed through Sabin Americana 1500-1926, at- http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/servlet/Sabin?vrsn=1.0&dd=0&locID=s anmarcoscsu&b1=0X&srchtp=b&d1=SABCA06292500&c=1&ste=11&stp=DateAscend &dc=flc&d4=0.33&n=10&docNum=CY100513967&b0=The+life+and+public+services +of+James+Buchanan&tiPG=1
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume I, 1813-1830. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
73
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume II, 1830-1836. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume III, 1836-1838. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume IV, 1838-1841. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume V, 1841-1844. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume VI, 1844-1846. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume VII, 1846-1848. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume VII, 1848-1853. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume IX, 1853-1855. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume X, 1856-1860. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume XI, 1860-1868. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Moore, John Bassett, ed. The Works of James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence, Volume XII, Biographical. Philadelphia and London: J.B Lippencott Company, 1910.
Orr, Hector. Letter to Hon. James Buchanan: occasioned by his late speech at Greensburg, Pa. Greensburg, Pa.?: s.n., 1852? Accessed through Sabin Americana 1500-1926 at-
74
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/servlet/Sabin?vrsn=1.0&dd=0&locID=s anmarcoscsu&b1=0X&srchtp=b&d1=SABCPA8063200&c=1&ste=11&stp=DateAscend &dc=flc&d4=0.33&n=10&docNum=CY107617790&b0=Letter+to+Hon.+James+Bucha nan+%3A+occasioned+by+his+late+speech+at+Greensburg%2C+Pa&tiPG=1
Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Session Begun at Harrisburg, On the Sixth Day of October, A.D., 1857. Harrisburg, PA: A. Boyd Hamilton, State Printer. October 6, 1857.
Primary Sources
Newspapers
(Alphabetical by newspaper)
“The Dawn of Prosperity.” The Alleghanian. Ebensburg, PA. March 14, 1861.
“Inaugural Address.” Alexandria Gazette. Alexandria, VA. March 6, 1857.
“Mr. Buchanan’s Inaugural.” American Advocate. Kinston, North Carolina. March 12, 1857.
Anti-Slavery Bugle. Lisbon, OH. March 7, 1857.
“Telegraphic Intelligence Three Days Later from Europe New York March 7.” Charleston Mercury. March 9, 1857. Vol. XLVIII, Issue 9868.
“The Political Prospects.” Charleston Mercury. Charleston, SC. March 14, 1857. Vol. XLVIII, issue 9873.
“The New Federal Constitution.” Charleston Mercury. Charleston, SC. March 16, 1857. Vol. XLVIII, Issue 9874.
“Agitation of the Slavery Question.” Charleston Mercury. March 17, 1857. Vol. XLVIII, Issue 9875.
“Editors, Charleston Mercury,” Charleston Mercury, Charleston, SC, March 24, 1857, vol. VLVIII, issue 9881
“The New National Administration.” Chicago Daily Tribune. Chicago, IL. March 5, 1857.
The Columbian Centinel. Boston, MA. 1799.
“The Inaugural and the New York Press.” Daily Advocate. Baton Rouge, LA. March 16, 1857.
75
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
“Democratic Candidate for Governor, and the Democratic Jugglers.” The Jeffersonian. Stroudsburg, PA. March 8, 1860.
Garrison, William Lloyd. “Buchanan and Slavery.” The Liberator. Boston, MA. September 19, 1856.
“The Change of Presidents,” The Nashville Union and American, March 5, 1857.
“Mr. Buchanan’s Inconsistencies.” The National Era. Washington, D.C. July 24, 1856.
“Mr. Buchanan’s Nunca Dimittas.” The National Era. Washington D.C. August 21, 1856.
“Inaugural Address.” The National Era. Washington D.C. March 5, 1857.
“The Supreme Court and Slavery—The Duty Before Us.” The National Era. Washington D.C. March 12, 1857.
“The New York Herald is discussing of the collapse of Black Republicanism,” The National Era, Washington D.C., October 22, 1857.
National Intelligencer, Washington D.C., February 20, 1820.
“City Politics.” The New York Herald. March 5, 1857.
“The Decision in the Dred Scott Case.” New York Herald. New York, NY. March 9, 1857. “The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case and Its Tremendous Consequences.” New York Herald. March 13, 1857.
“The Wailings of the Provincial Press: A Tremendous Crits.” New York Herald. April 18, 1860. Vol. XXV, Issue 108.
“Speech of Wendell Phillips at the Anti-Slavery Celebration at Framingham, July 4th, 1861. The New York Times. New York, NY. July 4th, 1861.
“Mr. Buchanan’s Inauguration.” New York Tribune. March 5, 1857. Vol XVI, issue 4953.
“The Triumph of Slavery Complete.” New York Tribune. March 9, 1857. Vol. XVI, Issue 4956.
New York Tribune. March 13, 1857. Vol. XVI, Issue 4960.
“The Inauguration; Scenes Attending It; Mr. Buchanan’s Inaugural, &c.” Richmond Dispatch. March 5, 1857.
“Washington News and Gossip.” Washington Evening Star. Washington D.C. March 10, 1857.
The Washington City Evening Star. March 28, 1857.
76
Frank Turner James Buchanan, Slavery, and the Press
“Reception of the News of the Election of Buchanan and Breckinridge.” Washington Daily Union. Washington D.C. March 4, 1857.
“Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case.” Washington Daily Union. Washington D.C. March 14, 1857.
“Hon.Henry W. Hilliard.” Washington Daily Union. Washington D.C. April 10, 1857.
Websites
“A young lawyer named James Buchanan in Hardin County, KY,” http://www.hardinkyhistory.org/JAMESBUCHANAN.pdf
Chernus, Ira. “Mythic America.” The Mythology of Hope and Change. http://mythicamerica.wordpress.com/the-two-great-mythologies/the-mythology-of-hope- and-change/ 1.
Cornell University Law School. Legal Information Institute [LII]. Fifth Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
United States Senate. William Rufus King, 13th Vice President (1853). http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_William_R_King.htm
77