Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 342 views

    UB Professor Statement On Millard Fillmore

    Uploaded by

    The College Fix
    1. Fillmore supported the Compromise of 1850 in an attempt to delay the Civil War and end slavery through political means rather than war, which would have prolonged slavery. 2. The Compromise temporarily postponed secession for over a decade and strengthened the political power of free states, though it included the controversial Fugitive Slave Act. 3. Fillmore is criticized for this Act but rejecting the Compromise could have admitted more slave states, continued slavery in D.C., and led to an earlier Civil War that the Union was less prepared for and may have lost, preserving the Confederacy and slavery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    UB Professor Statement On Millard Fillmore

    Uploaded by

    The College Fix
    342 views3 pages
    1. Fillmore supported the Compromise of 1850 in an attempt to delay the Civil War and end slavery through political means rather than war, which would have prolonged slavery. 2. The Compromise temporarily postponed secession for over a decade and strengthened the political power of free states, though it included the controversial Fugitive Slave Act. 3. Fillmore is criticized for this Act but rejecting the Compromise could have admitted more slave states, continued slavery in D.C., and led to an earlier Civil War that the Union was less prepared for and may have lost, preserving the Confederacy and slavery.

    Original Description:

    The Case for Honoring President Millard Fillmore, 13th President of the United States (1850-53)

    Original Title

    UB professor statement on Millard Fillmore

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Fillmore supported the Compromise of 1850 in an attempt to delay the Civil War and end slavery through political means rather than war, which would have prolonged slavery. 2. The Compromise temporarily postponed secession for over a decade and strengthened the political power of free states, though it included the controversial Fugitive Slave Act. 3. Fillmore is criticized for this Act but rejecting the Compromise could have admitted more slave states, continued slavery in D.C., and led to an earlier Civil War that the Union was less prepared for and may have lost, preserving the Confederacy and slavery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    342 views3 pages

    UB Professor Statement On Millard Fillmore

    Uploaded by

    The College Fix
    1. Fillmore supported the Compromise of 1850 in an attempt to delay the Civil War and end slavery through political means rather than war, which would have prolonged slavery. 2. The Compromise temporarily postponed secession for over a decade and strengthened the political power of free states, though it included the controversial Fugitive Slave Act. 3. Fillmore is criticized for this Act but rejecting the Compromise could have admitted more slave states, continued slavery in D.C., and led to an earlier Civil War that the Union was less prepared for and may have lost, preserving the Confederacy and slavery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    MEMO

    To: Date: July 27, 2020


    University at Buffalo, SUNY

    From: Professor James E. Campbell


    Department of Political Science
    University at Buffalo, SUNY

    Re: The Case for Honoring President Millard Fillmore, 13th President of the United States (1850-53)

    The Dispute: Questions are being raised about whether UB should celebrate and memorialize its respect
    for Fillmore’s service to UB and the nation. The objections to Fillmore center around his support for and
    eventual signing of The Fugitive Slave Act, one of five components of the Compromise of 1850.

    The Defense of Fillmore:


    (1.) Fillmore (an opponent of slavery) ably stepped forward to serve the nation under extremely
    difficult circumstances, attempting to deal positively with the issues of slavery that had
    defied previous attempts at peaceful political resolutions since the nation’s founding.
    (2.) The Compromise of 1850 was well intentioned, attempting to end the extension of slavery to
    new states and territories while averting a catastrophic Civil War that might well have left
    the horrific institution of slavery still in place at a horrific cost of human life.
    (3.) While failing to avert the tragic carnage and devastation of The Civil War (with more than
    620,000 American deaths), the Compromise of 1850 postponed secession for eleven years
    and strengthened the political position of the Free States compared to the Slave States.
    The Compromise of 1850 supported by Fillmore, included a noxious aspect (as is the
    nature of many compromises), but overall it helped lead to the end of slavery and a better
    America. As such, Fillmore deserves our gratitude, not our disdain.

    The Context: Both historically and personally, Millard Fillmore inherited extraordinarily challenging
    conditions when he ascended to the presidency from the vice presidency upon the death of President
    Zachary Taylor in July of 1850. Less than two years before, Fillmore was serving as New York’s
    Comptroller. When Fillmore became president, the nation had unsuccessfully struggled with the slavery
    issue for several generations (including “a fugitive slave” provision in the Constitution, Article IV,
    Section 2). Senator Henry Clay’s proposed Compromise of 1850 was the latest in a long line of
    compromises aimed at averting secession and a bloody Civil War.

    Good Intentions: Clay’s Compromise of 1850 attempted to stop the spread of slavery into newly
    acquired territories and states (a concern elevated by the acquisition of lands in the Mexican-American
    War). As in any compromise, there was give and take. Fillmore stated so much in his Second Annual
    Message to Congress in 1851. The fugitive slave law was a concession by the anti-slavery North. In
    return, the slave-holding South acceded to the elimination of the slave trade in the District of Columbia,
    the admission of California as a Free State, and the redrawing of Texas’s boundaries (possibly expanding
    “Free” territory). One might judge the Compromise by who supported it and who opposed it at the time.
    As one might expect, the Compromise found polarized opponents at both ends of the spectrum. A
    leading opponent of the Compromise was South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun, an ardent defender
    of slavery. However, quite notably, a leading supporter of the Compromise was Massachusetts’ Senator
    Daniel Webster, a staunch opponent of slavery and its extension. Indeed, Webster delivered his famous
    three and a half hour “Seventh of March” speech to the Senate in support of the Compromise.
    Some Positive Consequences: Though Fillmore’s detractors can rightfully point to “runaway” slaves
    who were captured and returned as a notorious result of the Fugitive Slave Act law enacted in the
    Compromise of 1850, its impact was limited by the great resistence to the law’s enforcement, including
    its nullification by several state laws. On the positive side, the Compromise eliminated the slave trade in
    D.C. and bought time for the political power of the anti-slavery Free States to grow. Before the
    Compromise of 1850, the number of Slave States equaled the number of Free States (both at 15). This
    balance had been carefully preserved (see, the Compromise of 1820). Free States held a majority in the
    House, but not by a wide margin (60% Free States v 40% Slave States). After the Compromise of 1850
    and in the decade following it to the outbreak of the Civil War, four additional states had joined the
    union–each as a Free State (California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas). The long-term tie in the Senate
    was now replaced with a 38 to 30 Free state majority. In the House, the Free State v Slave State
    representation difference expanded from 60-40 percent to 65-35. Because of the time bought by the
    Compromise of 1850, the North was politically and economically stronger and better positioned to win
    the Civil War and to abolish slavery. President Fillmore did his part and deserves credit for doing so.

    Table 1. Representation of Free and Slave States Before and After “The Compromise of 1850"

    U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate


    Free vs Slave States 1840s 1860s 1850 1861
    Free States 139 156 30 (15 states) 38 (19 states)
    Slave States 91 85 30 (15 states) 30 (15 states)
    Regional Difference +48 +71 0 +8
    Compromise Difference +23 for Free States +8 for Free States

    The Problems with the Case Against Fillmore: The case against Fillmore rests on his acceptance of
    the Fugitive Slave Act. The case emphasizes the Act’s notorious aspects (the returning of slaves who
    escaped servitude), but neglects other perspectives, particularly the likely consequences of rejecting the
    Fugitive Slave Act.

    1. As a compromise in the nation’s formation, the Constitution had already confirmed the Fugitive Slave
    Act in principle (Article IV, Sect. 2) and a law enacted it in 1793. The 1850 Act was about enforcing the
    ratified principle. Both the principle and its enforcement are abominations, but the 1850 Act did not
    introduce the principle nor was it the first federal law regarding it.

    2. If the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 had been rejected, the other provisions of the Compromise would
    also have been rejected. As a result,
    A) The slave trade would have disgracefully continued in the District of Columbia,
    B) California would not have been admitted as a Free State. Its admission had already been
    rejected by Congress. Later Free State admissions may also have been in jeopardy, and
    C) the boundaries of Texas (a Slave State) would have remained more extensive.

    3. Southern states may have seceded earlier, triggering a Civil War for which the Union was less
    prepared. A devastating Civil War lost by the Union and preserving a southern Confederacy with
    slavery in tact would have been the worst of all possible outcomes.
    SUMMARY

    1. Fillmore’s own words


    “God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil, for which we are not responsible, and we must
    endure it, till we can get rid of it without destroying the last hope of free government in the world.”

    2. Michael Holt’s (of UVA’s Miller Center) essay on Fillmore


    “By championing the Compromise of 1850, he can be credited for keeping America from civil war for
    more than a decade. The political cost to himself, however, was total.... In fairness to men like Fillmore,
    they were simply prey for the most heated American social debate of the nineteenth century.”

    3. My Take
    Fillmore was an Anti-Slavery Pragmatist Dedicated to the Democratic Process and the Rule of Law who
    Sacrificed His Political Career in an Effort to Preserve the Nation.

    My Take on Fillmore’s Critics–


    They offer not very good hindsight from 170 years away.
    Their criticism is one dimensional and not very sophisticated or realistic on that one dimension.

    You might also like