tv President James Buchanan and Southern Secession CSPAN June 10, 2017 8:30am-9:31am EDT
lincoln. on sunday, our coverage continues with heather and thompson and her book blood in presentr, the attic up -- attica prison uprising. trey00, former congressman democrazy.his book churchill and orwell, the fight for freedom. ate that starting today 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2's book tv. >> today we take you live to the gettysburg college civil war institute conference in gettysburg, pennsylvania.
this is the first of two days of live coverage on american history tv. they will take a look at several civil war generals as well as the political prejudice thomas omas nast.rtoonist thma president james buchanan and his inability to stop southern states from seceding during the civil war. all.od morning, you y'all. sorry. spent a lot of time in north carolina and virginia. we need to get started with our first session today. it is wonderful to see quite the 8:30 in the morning for a panel on james buchanan, which is that we all know that
james buchanan is often overlooked. we are going to remedy that in a moment. i want to introduce our speakers. first is john quist, the tall one standing behind michael birkner. he is a professor of american history teaching classes in 19 century u.s. history and 20th century as well. john has published a very important book entitled the social roots of antebellum reform in alabama and michigan. his co-speaker today is michael birkner. he is the benjamin franklin professor of liberal arts and professor of history at gettysburg college. many of you might remember that he was the interim director of
the civil war institute. he played a pivotal role in the transition. anything that is not a person on this faculty that i rely more on than michael birkner. he has been indispensable to what i have done here, with my staff has done, and the way we withbeen able to connect gettysburg college students. students adore him. i hear time and time again that michael birkner's class on historical message, it is called a boot camp, in the case -- and the kids come back to me time and time again saying that michael is their favorite professor. he has exceedingly high standards. i am pleased to have two very dear friends here to speak about above that they edited with the
university of florida press. the title of the book is james buchanan and the coming of the civil war. here is john quist and michael birkner. [applause] >> thank you and good morning fellow history addicts. we are glad that you are here. thank you for the kind introduction and the opportunity to address this audience. i have been coming to the civil war institute for many years. it is interesting to be on the side of the microphone. we talked about how we were going to juice up this talk. we had a title plant, the secrets of james buchanan. we thought of the many secrets of james buchanan. at the moment, we will disappoint you. we had a charge and we will talk
about it, but maybe the secrets are not as juicy as you think. we are here to discuss ugandans troubled presidency. has ate everyone here least a quick elevator talk you can make about james buchanan. it did not work as he planned. when we talk about the presidential stock exchange, is always in the basement. one of the revered speakers at this conclave, james macpherson, a fewoted in usa today years ago as saying that james buchanan was indubitably the worst present we ever had. a debatable proposition, but not one that most people disagree with. certainly he was not the first person to suggest that. others have said it in rather firm tones.
what we know about james buchanan tends to be an elevator talk rather than a complicated rendering of a formidable individual in a time of great troubles. he was not, fundamentally, up to meeting the challenge that he faced. what we think we know is that he need in the time of greatest stress and prices. historians love to talk about how the only did two things in the secession crisis, he prayed and cried. to add to that, he would say, please let this challenge pass from me. that doesn't give you a sense of formidable leadership. that is what john and i were tackling when we came up with the idea of doing a conference about buchanan, inviting leading
scholars, and editing the book on james buchanan. it is not an attempt to turn the tables on received wisdom about his presidency. buchanan is going to remain in the basement, not necessarily bottom guide. there is some real competition there. [laughter] >> but he is going to stay in the basement. what we are trying to do in this book and another book we are working on now is to introduce scholars and the public alike to the latest and best thinking not just about james buchanan but the world he inhabited and navigated. we want to provide, and i think we have provided, really s about whatensuse is going on in america in the
political culture of the 1850's. most important, we want to complicate your understanding of the buchanan presidency. a great historian only said history is not about simplicity. it is about complexity. i would say that from many years of attending this institute is that has been the legacy of p carmichael. whatever the subject, it has always brought in the best people to complicate your thinking about things. to start things off, and then i will turn this over to john, i think it is useful for the purposes of some in the room to remind everybody how great a resume james buchanan had when inentered the white house
1856. ere for your up th convenience. with the exception of john quincy adams, nobody in the 19th century really has that resume. starts in the legislature in pennsylvania, 10 years in the house, 10 years in the senate, taking on roles in russia. that is often ridiculed. you may have heard about him annoying andrew jackson in the election of 1854. saying yes to send this guy as far away as he sending him to st. petersburg. he negotiates an important trade treaty and keeps american-russian relations on good standing. he does that.
becausecretary of state he does not get the top prize is shooting for in 1844. i would argue in a way that masochistic polk needed buchanan to be a burr. in some way they had a partnership that produced great results. we might question the reality of those results and the efficacy of some of them, but they did swaths of territory. great turmoil the over the admission of california to the union as a free state, he avoids that kerfuffle as he would avoid another one when
kansas-nebraska is being debated. he is our minister to england during the franklin pierce presidency. he is a guy who knows how the clock ticks, what is underneath it, and is presumably the right leave the right time to the country when it is -- to lead the country when it is quite stressed. of course, he is wrong. one more thing. during that political career as an elected politician, he was known best as a dough face, which is another man with southern principles -- a nor thern man with southern principles. his most formidable scholar disagrees with that. an wasnts out that buchan
a high tariff man, which is anti-southern in its outlook. by large, historians have a consensus that this was a northern man with southern exposed. that attitude and outlook will permeate his presidency. prof. quist: thank you all for coming here. as michael said, it is the morning. astorians in the public michael has noted have long consigned james buchanan to the dustbin of presidential failures. buchanan did not see himself in that fashion. he did not see himself as a loser. he made no apologies for his
presidency. presidency, he wrote about his experience as president, particularly during the secession crisis. it stands as the first presidential memoir. work blankedis secession not on his own abolitionistson and southern fire eaters. his positive assessment of his presidency is one that has n ot weathered very well. even though historians have generally regarded him as a failure, they have not always agree as to why his presidency was unsuccessful.
i would like to say a few things about some of the ways historians have looked at buchanan's presidency. while historians use documentary evidence to build their conclusions, it is the interpreting of that evidence that leads historians into disagreement. as michael said, philip klein's work that cannot happen century ago remains the most thoroughly documented biography of the 15th president. viewed buchanao n much as he would have liked to view himself. this is something implied by the
title, the proposed title of the work that his publisher rejected. he wanted to entitle his book, "cursed are the peacemakers." penn state university press said no. was a unionist first and foremost and believer in small government. he believed that northerners and southerners should put aside their differences regarding slavery for the sake of national cohesion. is oneid, klein's work that is well researched. buchananhrough all the manuscripts and related manuscript collections, but his
sympathetic portrayal, depiction has failed to persuade specialists writing on the. -- writing on the period. disputes overhe slavery as being that hobbyhorse of politicians, something that was worked out by politicians themselves rather than as a fundamental problem of 19th century american life. on the one hand we have this biography by philip schreiber klein. biography wast published in 2004 by jean harvey baker. he is a very renowned and accomplished historian. which many one to
people turn to first. views buchanan in ways that echo those of his contemporary republican rivals. nan offersn bucha substantial contrast to the one advanced.ein that his close associations with southern politicians affected the decisions that he made as president. she titles her chapter on buchanan's approach to the secession crisis as appeasing the south. consistentlyat he
sided with southern interests during his presidency. she argues that his to llingness to a sort -- assert federal authority during the secession crisis was his major shortcoming as president, and to be sure that was a criticism raised by contemporary republicans and by many northern democrats. n neverues that buchana objected when secessionist seized federal property in the south and says that he did not act forcefully enough or was not assertive with respect to fort sumter sc should have been. -- as he should have been.
those months between lincoln's histion in 1860 and inauguration in march of 1861, she argues that his favoritism towards the south was something that bordered on disloyalty. these two biographies, the one ,y klein, and the one by baker to theseful bookends ways that historians have n for well buchana over a century. in the end, it is not enough to say that he was simply a bad president were among the worst presidents. historians further disagree on buchanan and his approach to the secession crisis and things he did during his presidency.
some say that his shortcoming was that he was indecisive or that he was disloyal or unstable or impulsive or just hampered by his strict constitutionalism. in the end, michael and i both lieve that the way -- be that the way to come to a better and stronger understanding of his presidency is to understand these issues and examine his presidency as we have done in the book and brought together some scholars with an eye towards looking at some of these points. now michael will say a few things about the buchanan residence the -- presidency. birkner: what john has done is set the table for the rest of the talk.
we want to talk to substantively about these issues and offer a fresh or reasonable perspective on these things. the comments about jean baker and philip klein show that history is argument without end. there are people who think george mcclellan was a good general. they are out there. in the end, we have to go with persuasive writing and argumentation based on the documents. what is the deal? what is the problematic that james buchanan inherits? what is he trying to do as president? he is elected in a tough conflict in 1856 against john fremont. he is elected largely through southern electoral votes. he got a lot of his votes in the swept much ofmont
the north. james buchanan to pennsylvania and indiana. them over the top. thinks the two are interlinked. if he can protect the democratic party, he protects the union, and the democratic party remains the dominant party, and all is good in the country. it does not work out that way. the argument we make in some of our contributors make is that he distinctly contributes to the write-down of the union -- breakdown of the union by the decisions he makes. what is he interested in doing? shoring up democracy, pursuing constitutionalism he thinks is central to the success of the nation, and he is an expansionist.
he is not trying to take the country's mind off of its sectional problems, but he is focused on collecting more territory, cuba particularly. he has this theory that some others at the time like robert john walker offered a version of that. slaveh is if you have states, they will drain slavery out of the upper south and reduce the conflict between north and south because you won't have as clear a division on slavery emma slater expansion question in the west. he picks a fight with stephen douglas. this remains a mystery. douglas had been his major competitor for the democratic nomination in 1856.
little giant, great character, strong-willed, maybe too clever by half for kansas nebraska. thatstarts a firestorm makes for the republican party's emergence. what does the can-do -- buchanan do? he makes it clear that douglas will not get any patronage. stephen douglas spent $3000 of his own money to elect james buchanan in 1856. -- $40,000 of his own money to let james buchanan in 1856. then he goes further when douglas breaks with him over kansas, he proscribes and then democrats inasite congress that he controls. you have two big figures
that are at loggerheads. he does nothing to recognize the growing antagonism that many northern white working voters have towards what they call the slave power. this story has been told in every textbook. i don't need to rehearse it at length. the issue was not slavery or no slavery in the late 1850's. the issue was what is the issue of the west? felt you were going to have more inequality and poverty and trouble socially. southerners believed if you close up the west to them, slavery cannot prosper as it is prospering. it is prospering in the 1850's. that this collision over what is happening in the west. james buchanan has always been a trimmer on this issue. when it came up in the 1840's,
he wants to extend the missouri compromise line to the pacific. that is not really what northerners had in mind. on every issue that pertains to slavery, somehow or another james buchanan was nodding to the southern perspective on these things. slavery is at the heart of the failure of his presidency. kansas,about bleeding the constitution, james buchanan putting his thumb on admitting kansas on the side of admitting as a slave state. james buchanan had a little bit view that you admit it as a slave state and the people would turn around and make it a free state, which was not a very sophisticated way of understanding the political environment of the country at that time. he gets off on the wrong foot
and stays on the wrong foot. not only does he missed the growing fervor in the north aimed at slave power, but also on specific issues not willing to acknowledge the interest of the northern democrats who are with that institute c. besiegedding himself and in the camp of southerners. the other thing is the cabinet. some supporters of buchanan, talk about how able his cabinet was. anyone who looks at it in a serious way to notice it is not that evil in the first place. some of the people you would not recognize their names. even jeremiah black, one of the more able people is essentially a provincial pennsylvania politician. how about john floyd. you know about john floyd. not a distinguished appointment.
the cabinet is essentially pro-southern or southern, and james buchanan music as his family. he does not have a personal family. --treats the is very family family-like.s very that is one of the reasons he would be so wounded when some of them abandoned him. what you have is a president who does not get it. that is the fundamental point. he does not get why slavery is so fundamental to the political discourse and why there is not a moral will let between -- moral equivalent between abolitionists and southern fire eaters. prof. quist: much of james
buchanan's presidency does focus on the issues of slavery. in fact, he begins his bysidency in his inaugural referring to the crisis that was then affecting the country regarding slavery in the federal territories, particularly in the territory of kansas. buchanan announced in his inaugural that the supreme court would soon be ruling on the question of whether congress and for that matter whether people living within a territory would be there were differing interpretations within the democratic party as to how this matter should be handled.
northern democrats said that territorial governments had the right to decide whether slavery would exist within that territory orterritory or not. the southern democrats in contrast said that residents of the territory could only choose whether to ban slavery or to keep slavery legal and protected only at the time the territory was applying for statehood. otherwise, slavery was something that should the protected within a territory. this matter in the democratic over withbeen glossed rather vague language in the party platform. that theynnounced would be deciding this question. if he said he would be happy to
abide by whatever the supreme court decides. at this point, he was being at rest disingenuous -- best tinge ingenuous -- best disingenuous, he knew where the court was going to decide. samford scott versus 1857, it was one that the court issued just after buchanan's inaugural. beforethe months buchanan's inaugural but after his election, he had been in touch with members of the supreme court. one member from tennessee had it said it to buchanan and asked told him what the
decision was going to be. he was a little worried that the southern justices decided one way and northern justices voting another way would make the dred scott case look sectional. he wanted to know if buchanan his fellowade robert greer who grew up in cumberland county not that far from here, if he would assist, if buchanan might persuade him to vote with the southern justices to make the decision look like it was a by opposed toecision as a succession one. got greer to vote along with the southern justices. when supreme court issued its
decision, which was a seven-to two of the seven justices were from the north. buchanan announced that the case would be one that would put the sectional issue regarding slavery in the territories behind the country. hopefully it would undermine the rationale for the republican party's existence. buchanan had ad, tin ear with slavery. the tin ear he had with respect to slavery is one that is complicated further if you look at the course of his political career. buchanan during the missouri crisis had favored the missouri compromise that would have kept
slavery from some territories. congress,en he was in he gave a speech in which he announced he was glad he lived in a northern state, that he regarded slavery as a social evil. when he brother-in-law hadied buchanan's sister owned slaves. you can and saw to it that his brother-in-law would sell his slaves because buchanan did not want to have a family member in pennsylvania even in the 1830's who was a slaveholder. on the one hand, he recognized that slavery was divisive.
during his presidency, buchanan had really lacked the understanding how slavery itself had been such a crucial issue for so many northern voters, not just republicans but democrats as well. buchanan was not really prepared the anger across the north that showed itself in the dred scott decision. nor was he prepared for the response among the northern public with respect to the matter of kansas being the minted as a state into the union . as michael noted, kansas had been a divisive issue since the kansas nebraska act provided slavery would be allowed to
exist in the territory of kansas. popular sovereignty had been a very violent thing in kansas. in the mid-1850's, kansas was a scene of continuous civil war. about 200 kansans died in the fighting during the mid-1850's. all, kansas had to territorial governments, a government sponsored that was the residents of kansas who had come from slave states, and another capital in ipeka that was supported residents from free states -- b y president trump free states. residentsty -- by
from free states. the pierce administration and the buchanan administration andrd sized the government recognize the lecompton admission for statehood. it would have kansas enter the union avenue's -- as a slave state. buchanan pulled out all the stops to have kansas it added as a state into the union as a slave state. i think in many respects one of buchanan's greatest failures or perhaps his greatest failure as a president was pushing this lecompton constitution through congress. he never got it through congress. the result ultimately was the break with stephen douglas that michael alluded to just a little while ago. thelso ultimately led to
northern democratic party losing large numbers of seats in the 1858 elections, it led to many more democrats openly's letting with buchanan it. the northern democratic newspapers of the buchanan administration, it's hard to find one that is supportive of the president. manyme to be loathed by northern democrats. these actions led to the breakup of the democratic party in 1860. buchanan's vision of the union led by a democratic party ultimately required a united democratic party, by citing so heavily with southern interests as he did in the case of the effort to have kansas admitted
as a state under the lecompton constitution. that led to the breakup of the democratic party. democratsltimately to losing in 1860. we should also add on a final theer regarding lecompton, can administration's effort to admit kansas as a slave state under the lecompton constitution resulted in a large amount of corruption. which was aon thatlican led commission issuedarings in 1859 and an 850 page report on corruption during the be can administration
was also something that impacted and proved to be damaging to the buchanan presidency. buchanan himself does not appear to have been involved in any of the corruption, the contracts, the money offered to members of the house to get the lecompton bill through congress. his administration was. the high level of corruption in the buchanan administration was also something that led many northern democrats to turn away tom buchanan and ultimately strengthen the case for there -- breaking up the democratic party. michael: pretty grim. we are reaching a point where we need to offer some.
we have a president who is very self-confident when he takes office. is aware of his own resume. he knows he is a bright guy and he knows the constitution and the law. he mucks it up. dred scott, unethical as well as stupid did -- stupid. kansas did not help him or the democratic party. we have not talked about secession. a narrowing one. you could make a case for buchanan at least from january to march of 1860, you can make a case that his policies were lincoln's policies and worked as he intended them to do, to prevent a broken union from being further broken. from making the south look like
a victim of aggression from the north. that is lincoln's main game. what is there to say about you can and besides these three big storylines? dred scott, kansas, secession. buchanan and his presidency go into a black hole except those three issues. we are not going to go into it at length, but it is worth saying quickly that there are other things going on. buchanan acquits himself quite well in a couple of areas. in aals with filibustering forceful and effective way. you might be surprised. the filibusters were advancing agents of celebrity. -- slavery. he works very well as president with the british. that's not an inconsiderable fact considering they are the most powerful country in the
world and we have a civil war on the horizon. where england goes in terms of the north south division is going to be very important to the outcome of that war. you could say he really does make it easier for lincoln and charles francis adams to work with the british during the war and not side with the south. john is talked about the corruption in the presidency. it's a reality and it sustained. he himself was personally honest and worked extremely hard and did his best for the country by his light. , this is forword students in the takeaway. things you can and is tagged with consistently in the low marks that put him in the presidential basement is he is a k kind of of -- wea
guy. that is not an argument the best scholars hold two. -- to. it is specifically applied to secession. buchanan was decisive. done only in secession as he goes back and forth from curling up in his bed and wishing it would go away to actually saying we will hold the forts, we will not acknowledge secession as illegal. -- legal. one element in the book that we will not go into detail here is how the events in utah in 1857 foreshadow buchanan's errant decisiveness in the secession crisis. we have a situation in utah that is a mess.
brigham young sees himself as a god out there. he acknowledges very little in the way of federal authority. he acts as he pleases. it is part of the united states of america. president pierce had been unsuccessful in bringing brigham young to order. buchanan determined he would do it. he sent out a large chunk of the army to essentially engage brigham young in warfare and put them down. it comes within an inch of that, thanks in part to bad communication to his generals. it doesn't quite happen. canon -- you that can and exercises are in many ways -- buchanan exercises are what you see in the secession crisis. what do we make of this president western mark -- president?
anything we say about this president or any president comes values,ur own al use -- political views, historical setting. this is a true story. had a historical advisor in the white house. he brought another historian in to talk with kennedy. they started talking about -- theyts and solicitor started dumping on buchanan. kennedy stopped them right away. this is early in his presidency. he said he would not hear that. you have no right. you haven't been in the spot. you don't know what the pressures are. you don't know what i am dealing with. .ive buchanan a break
that is so interesting. we are not judges as scholars. we do make judgments based on where the evidence takes us. wouldt think john or i try to persuade you that buchanan belongs in the top 10 or even the top 20 or even the top 30. we could go further. there have been 44 of them. buchanan is what he is. historiansd to do is is set him in the context and say where does he succeed? where were the options clear? i will conclude with this. with his much as i admire phill kline's work, i think he got lost in the constitutional weeds with buchanan.
if you read buchanan's own words, take his state of the in which he extols slavery as a positive good, he says they are well treated and well fed. he has drunk the southern kool-aid. when he gives his last message to congress and the crisis has come full blown, who does he blame? abolitionist's, the fanatics he calls them. they have caused the crisis. they cause trouble for our union. think it's being unfairly judge mental about him to see how blind and i he cast to the viciousness of slavery and how unwilling he was to keep
his ear to the ground about what is going on in what people were thinking in the north. you could argue and i would argue that you can and might have made an adequate president in an earlier time. he was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. i will let john offer his final question -- comments and we will take your questions. john: michael's remarks about buchanan being the wrong president for the wrong time i fork is worn out by looking -- at the polk administration. buchanan was the secretary of state. andng buchanan's presidency also during the pierce administration, buchanan had become identified with the
interests of expansionist's. administration, buchanan was often the person who was arguing against expansionism, arguing within the administration against expansionism. to be quite irritated by buchanan and one way of getting rid of him was to kick him upstairs and have him take a seat on the supreme court, which buchanan ultimately declined. buchanan himself is a fascinating hearse and -- person as we look over the course of his career and also as we look at the decisions he made as president. as michael said, if there is a theme that comes out during a his presidency -- during his presidency is his errant
decisiveness. --is a bit of of the gambler bit of a gambler. it was a gamble on his part and -- part. he figured if he could get the issue of slavery out of the way, the issue itself would go away. he lost the gamble and he failed to understand the depth of majority of the northerners regardless of party felt regarding slavery. history itself is something that as we like to say is an argument without end. not isthis book something that is providing answers regarding buchanan and the presidency, it is something
that is continuing the dialogue. that is something we would like to do now by considering any questions or comments any of you may have. go ahead and come to the microphone. >> i don't particularly care for buchanan, but i have to give him some credit. the situation he went into was 3/5er one-sided given the counting of lacks towards determining electoral votes, representation and those measures. concede that he was dealing with a political reality.
the imbalance due to that compromise favored the south in terms of legislature, in terms of who was going to be able to get on the supreme court. him as a true politician. i don't like the result. that's what i see him is doing. michael: the 3/5 compromise was more useful to the south. the president gets to appoint a supreme court justices. the senate does approve them, wantedhanan got what he on the supreme court did i would say again what your comments do is set the approach and that's ok. it's one side of that argument, that's what i would say. the other thing i would say is the 3/5 compromise was something
that was a greater advantage to the south in the southern states in the time of the constitutional ratification and the decades following. showed therecensus were 31 million people living in the united states. 18 million of them lived in the non-slaveholding states. a bit over 12 million lives in the slaveholding states. to begin with, there were more northern representatives in the house by a considerable margin. also by buchanan's administration, the balance in the senate had ended because with california's admission as a state and during the
administration, the admission of oregon, minnesota in the last weeks of his administration meant there were more free state senators then there were slave state senators. michael made a nice analogy about this briarpatch he found himself in between the abolitionists and the fire eaters. voicing thelly opinion of a lot of mainstream americans who weren't in either camp? they just kind of wanted it to go away and for things to be normal. how would you respond to that? expert, john is such an i will be reef and say i think your point is very well taken. there are a lot of northerners
who are not only sympathetic to his perspective, they just want this whole thing to go away. bookbeen reading a new "the making of a racist." it's an amazing book. he talks about the nature of the slave trade in what the prophets were in the slave trade. how profitable it is to trade in human chattel. most of these people want everything to go away. the people who were in the business in new jersey or boston , they wanted it to go away. thes not underestimate abraham lincoln when you be republican party. i take your point is a very good one. john: the only thing i would add to that is many people would
have wanted things to go away. the perception that the people in both sections had during the 1850's, the other section was being the aggressor. among people living in the north, the offense that -- sense that slavery was not a good thing was widespread. there was a difference among northern voters regarding race. buchanan did not succumb to the trope of many northern democrats of using race as a way of changing the conversation away from slavery as stephen douglas often did. voters stillhern couldn't get away from slavery slavery entered into
everything during the 1850's, even if one went hundreds of miles away from it. buchanan strikes me as smart enough to understand the duty of the president is to execute the constitution. in his final address, he said if secession were legal, the constitution is nothing but sand. i hope you can help us understand, what was he thinking insane he could not do anything about it? michael: he is operating under government isthe
going to be what the civil war is going to determine. fundamentally, what he is thinking is you've got five or six states that have already left the union. untildoes not go out march in 1861. you have a confederacy in the making. his view is i can't let this get worse. he is backed up by a guy name jeremiah black who is his attorney general. black says he will resign if he doesn't write a better state paper. it is a tougher view. the tougher view is we will defend federal property and defend the forts and uphold the constitution and we will let our successor deal with it. lincoln was ok with it. he did not want buchanan mucking things up further.
other thing to keep in mind is a difference between what is happening in utah which is a federal territory and states that are taking action against the federal government. buchanan argued on a basis of what his attorney general was arguing, that as president he could not act in states without the authorization of congress. the federal governments power in the territories is one of the constitution makes quite clear. states have sovereignty, but territories only have as much sovereignty as the congress is willing to give them. the federal government's authority to intervene in utah is different than the authority with respect to south carolina. is irony of this is buchanan