If President James Buchanan had acted decisively in 1856, could the Civil War have been avoided?

James Buchanan was the fifteenth President of the United States. His election in 1856, and his term of office, beginning in 1857, occurred at the start of the rising tensions in the nation as the result of slavery and sectionalism. Buchanan did not fully comprehend the impending catastrophe resulting from the unresolved issue of slave versus free state. He underestimated the animosity of supporters of a strong federal system and proponents of what became known as state's rights. The question is, if Buchanan had been more engaged and better educated about the issues, would he have taken the necessary steps to negotiate compromises that would have left the Union intact avoiding future civil war?
Buchanan's course of action began with an attempt to appease Northern and Southern factions by appointing members of his governing cabinet representing both factions. Buchanan believed the issue of slavery would be decided by the Supreme Court and the political divide as he viewed it would disappear in time. His course of action by modern historians has been judged as a poor political calculation hastening and adding fuel to the fire for war.
If we view his initial course of action from the perspective of Buchanan, it is not too difficult to see why Buchanan chose this as his initial response. Buchanan no doubt was taking advice from his regionally representative council. He probably knew the members of the Supreme Court and preferred to allow them to settle the issue, avoiding the political fallout. On its face, his initial response to the developing crises was probably prudent in his time.
What Buchanan had not counted on was the impact of the Dred Scott decision, which handed the South a Constitutional victory deciding that an escaped slave by merely residing in a free state does not entitle a slave to be free. The decision went further, declaring African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States. The decision is widely viewed by historians as the worst example of the Supreme Court imposing a legal ruling on what is substantively a legislative decision.
The reaction from abolitionists and Northern politicians was swift and determined to legislate an end to slavery. Republicans repeatedly proposed bills to end the stalemate. Southern votes in the Senate and vetoes by Buchanan stymied all efforts to resolve the question through the political process. The appointment of men from different regions of the country did little to alleviate the issues and may have contributed to the public resentment over the questions of slavery as each side held fast to their position.
With the House and Senate in a stalemate, regional appointees increasingly taking hardline partisan positions, a Supreme Court overextending its authority, and sectionalism splitting the country into diehard polar opposite positions, Buchanan found himself hemmed in with little options to resolve the snowballing crises. Buchanan's party, the Democratic Party, split into a Southern and Northern faction, virtually assuring the next election would go to a Republican. By dividing the party and ensure the election of a Republican who Southerners associated with the abolition of slavery, radical members of the southern Democratic Party began to talk of secession.
Buchanan believed the Constitution prevented secession. Although he believed the Constitution was in opposition to secession, Buchanan did not think the federal government had the power to stop the Southern states from seceding. Again, seeking a political solution, Buchanan tried to convince political leaders to find a compromise. His efforts were too late, and, unable to cobble a compromise, Buchanan began to look at other solutions.
Already stung by a Supreme Court decision that went further than he or others anticipated and with the country in turmoil, Buchanan chose to send a civilian merchant ship with supplies for the military force to Fort Sumter. The merchant ship arrived a few days after leaving the port of New York on January 5, 1861. Buchanan had politically calculated the best way not to provoke an incident was to send a civilian vessel instead of a military ship. When the ship entered the channel, a cadet from the Citadel fired two errant cannon shots at the ship from a battery on Morris Island. No shots were fired from Fort Sumter, but this incident was the first military provocation signaling the resolve of Southerners to use the military to advance their cause.
Could any actions by Buchanan have avoided war? In light of the evidence, some historians claim Buchanan was indecisive and invited civil war. The actions and motivations of Buchanan support the notion that he was continually looking to find a compromise once he comprehended the depth of hatred the issue of slavery presented and seems to contradict this premise. Other historians argue the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was the catalyst for civil war, and Buchanan was unlucky that he was president at the time of the decision. It is certain the Dred Scott decision probably inflamed the passions of both sides, making any compromise untenable.
At some point, slavery would have to come to an end. In the history of civil rights and human rights, it seems the only path to equality is civil war. From a historical perspective, if not under Buchanan, then the Civil War would have been inevitable regardless of who was president. Buchanan's actions resulted in little positive results that deterred the war, but what else could he have done?
https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/2611

https://millercenter.org/president/buchanan

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/james-buchanan/