IS President Fillmore badly underated?

[Elfwine]

Ganesha, thank you very much for the research. I don't know the period as thoroughly as I'd like, so I'm open to anyone who can show me something I haven't seen - which is what inspired those questions. Surely if Filmore had some claim to something here it would show up, rather than them just happening to happen around his time.

But 0.5 out of 4 is decidedly underwhelming. Especially since it assumes only he could have prevented immediate secession.

 

[CalBear]

I've answered every intelligent query in depth to the best of my knowledge.
I can't aid you with your hurt and anger.

As a non Mormon I can't answer for the church,but if you call your local missionary stake they will send a couple of people over

It is barely possible that three or four kicks would bring you into some sort of reasonable level of polite behavior.

Life, however, is too short for that level of coddling of what seems to be a hard core troll.

Banned for trolling straight out of the gate.

We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.

 

[January First-of-May]

Surely if Filmore had some claim to something here it would show up, rather than them just happening to happen around his time.

Well, there's the whole Meiji thing (Commodore Perry and all that). I've mentioned it in my post back on page one, but almost three pages on there's somehow no other mention of this rather obvious point.
Then again, I don't know the specific details, so it could well be that Fillmore didn't have anything to do with that one as well. In which case, sorry.

 

[Mikestone8]

Re 1850, just what exactly would Fillmore's critics prefer him to have done?

Taylor's proposal, to admit CA and NM immediately as free states, might have got through the House, but stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats and Southern Whigs would have combined against it. So if Fillmore vetoes the Compromise measures, all that does is to leave matters on hold until at least 1851, and probably 1853. Since Northern and Southern Whigs would be at each other's throats, the 1852 election will be much the same sort of Democrat landslide as OTL, whereupon the Compromise measures will be signed into law by President Pierce, with any changes more likely to be in favour of the South.

As it was, the Compromise was pretty much a northern victory, with CA admitted at once without slavery, and NM and UT likely to follow. All the South got in return was a Fugitive Slave Law which it would have got anyway a couple of years later, and putting off the evil day for a few years in regard to admission of other free states. Fillmore would have been crazy to veto the measures.

As for the "Mormon question", afaik Utah gave no trouble during the Fillmore Administration, or even the Pierce one. As I understand it, Brigham Young's appointment as Governor received Senate confirmation without a debate, which would seem to indicate that it wasn't seen as controversial at the time.

 

[unprincipled peter]

It's interesting. There are a lot of comments about how Fillmore is not responsible for anything good. but yet, it would appear that his administration oversaw a period of expansion. It would seem that the overall consensus is that he was a doofus. has anyone actually argued that point yet and given examples of how he's doofus?

his party died after him. has anyone educated us how he killed it?

don't get me wrong. history deems him a do nothing. who am I to say otherwise? overall, it would seem that most here simply accept that and defends against any alternative. I would simply ask to educate how he was so bad?

IMO, turning against the prez is not always a sign that the prez is a bad person. Often, yes, but it's also a sign that the prez doesn't suck up to the corrupt (can you say Chester Arthur?). Very often, if both sides hate you, it's a sign you're on the right track. Teddy Roosevelt's party hated him. Not saying that's the case here. Just saying pissing off both sides isn't always an automatic negative. So, approach it neutrally, and say why he was so bad, not only why he wasn't so good. Because what I've heard so far is that he F'd up on the slavery issue and nothing else. The slavery issue is more than just one man, even if that guy is Prez.

 

[Japhy]

It's interesting. There are a lot of comments about how Fillmore is not responsible for anything good. but yet, it would appear that his administration oversaw a period of expansion. It would seem that the overall consensus is that he was a doofus. has anyone actually argued that point yet and given examples of how he's doofus?

his party died after him. has anyone educated us how he killed it?

I'm not saying he's a doofus, and no one here is saying that. What is being said is that he had major negative aspects to him, the Compromise of 1850, the appointment of Young as Governor of Utah which oversaw the end of effective Democracy in that territory, the nativism and the pandering to Slave Power, being all rather negative things about him. In contrast, while he did hold the office during a period of expansion and growth, the now-banned OP nor anyone else has shown anyway that his actions impacted that. And they're not going to find any, because the era's growth was laid out not by him but by his predecessors and those not even in government.

And his roll in the death of the Whig Party may not be primary but it is critical, since Tyler's Democratic-Republican Party fiasco the North-South tensions in the Whig Party were at a critical height, and then Fillmore by crushing Taylor's compromise saw slightly healed slips be shattered by completely and utterly caving into the demands of Calhoun and Yancey.

 

[Japhy]

As for the "Mormon question", afaik Utah gave no trouble during the Fillmore Administration, or even the Pierce one. As I understand it, Brigham Young's appointment as Governor received Senate confirmation without a debate, which would seem to indicate that it wasn't seen as controversial at the time.

On this you would be wrong, there was debate and controversy around it. And on it being quiet, so what? Democracy was stunted and killed in the territory, how is that ok so long as it took years for the crisis to become prominent and to boil over?

And as for the "Compromise" what it showed most of all was that the leadership in the North was willing to cave into Southern Demands, California came into the Union Free, yes but the groundwork for the subversion of Free State's by Slave Power became law, its no surprise that after it we got Kansas-Nebraska and then Dred Scott.

 

[unprincipled peter]

in a country based on checks and balances, ya kind a got to wonder how a lack of any sort of check is only the fault of the president. If Fillmore pushed through an appointment without debate, that says rubber stamp or a breakdown of the system. Since he's also being accused of killing a party and failing compromise deals, that maybe says that politics were rotten at the time.

 

[Mikestone8]

On this you would be wrong, there was debate and controversy around it.

Could I have a source for that? I've been hunting through the Senate Journal for the relevant time, and if there was any debate on Young's confirmation I haven't found it.

And as for the "Compromise" what it showed most of all was that the leadership in the North was willing to cave into Southern Demands, California came into the Union Free, yes but the groundwork for the subversion of Free State's by Slave Power became law, its no surprise that after it we got Kansas-Nebraska and then Dred Scott.

What Southern demands in particular?

They got popular sovereignty in NM and UT, but neither place was likely to develop a plantation economy, so it was a pretty empty "victory".[1]

As for the FSL, the South was constitutionally entitled to the return of fugitive slaves, so their demand for a tougher law on the subject was perfectly legitimate even if distasteful. Even Lincoln acknowledged that in his first inaugural.


[1] Ironically, the South would have done better in the long run had it been more comprehensively defeated.

One northern proposal was for a much reduced state of Texas, whose boundary with New Mexico would have run along the 32nd parallel. Had this gone through, these borders would have pretty well guaranteed that NM would become the 16th slave state.

And had the FSL been vetoed, its enactment would probably have been put off until 1854. Had this happened, the KNA would almost certainly have failed. Northern Democrats would have swallowed one pro-South measure, but not two. Since the KNA was what triggered the emergence of the Republicans as a major party, its defeat would have saved the South from a disastrous mistake.

 

[Mikestone8]

in a country based on checks and balances, ya kind a got to wonder how a lack of any sort of check is only the fault of the president. If Fillmore pushed through an appointment without debate, that says rubber stamp or a breakdown of the system. Since he's also being accused of killing a party and failing compromise deals, that maybe says that politics were rotten at the time.

Fillmore was totally powerless to push anything through.

In 1850/1, his Whig Party held only 24 seats in the Senate, as against 36 Democrats. He couldn't get anything enacted to which the opposition had any rooted objections.

 

[Japhy]

Could I have a source for that? I've been hunting through the Senate Journal for the relevant time, and if there was any debate on Young's confirmation I haven't found it.

The Mormon Rebellion by David L. Bigler and Will Bagley

What Southern demands in particular?

They got popular sovereignty in NM and UT, but neither place was likely to develop a plantation economy, so it was a pretty empty "victory".[1]

As for the FSL, the South was constitutionally entitled to the return of fugitive slaves, so their demand for a tougher law on the subject was perfectly legitimate even if distasteful. Even Lincoln acknowledged that in his first inaugural.


[1] Ironically, the South would have done better in the long run had it been more comprehensively defeated.

One northern proposal was for a much reduced state of Texas, whose boundary with New Mexico would have run along the 32nd parallel. Had this gone through, these borders would have pretty well guaranteed that NM would become the 16th slave state.

And had the FSL been vetoed, its enactment would probably have been put off until 1854. Had this happened, the KNA would almost certainly have failed. Northern Democrats would have swallowed one pro-South measure, but not two. Since the KNA was what triggered the emergence of the Republicans as a major party, its defeat would have saved the South from a disastrous mistake.

Now this one I admit, I don't even know how to respond to because the assumptions you're making are so off base, are ridiculous.

And then of course the FSA is not just a matter of returning property, the South was very big on it because it was the first volley of a concentrated effort to overthrow the Free States by subverting them. They got New Mexico slimmed which prevented the entry of a FREE State, the option of Slave territory expansion remained on the table, the bi-regional parties collapsed, as the Southern Democrats hoped for. The threat of violence overcame the rule of law.

Fillmore was totally powerless to push anything through.

In 1850/1, his Whig Party held only 24 seats in the Senate, as against 36 Democrats. He couldn't get anything enacted to which the opposition had any rooted objections.

And this means nothing. This is not British politics where Party affiliation defined much of anything. Incase you ever wondered how John Tyler was a Whig and Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. It doesn't matter, what matters is local politics and regional affiliation. There is a reason Henry Clay (Whig) passed his abomination onto Stephen A. Douglas (Democrat).

 

[Mikestone8]

The Mormon Rebellion by David L. Bigler and Will Bagley

So when do they say he debate took place? Do they indicate by what majority Young's appointment was confirmed?.

Now this one I admit, I don't even know how to respond to because the assumptions you're making are so off base, are ridiculous.

Sorry, not sure what you're talking about.

And then of course the FSA is not just a matter of returning property, the South was very big on it because it was the first volley of a concentrated effort to overthrow the Free States by subverting them. They got New Mexico slimmed which prevented the entry of a FREE State, the option of Slave territory expansion remained on the table, the bi-regional parties collapsed, as the Southern Democrats hoped for. The threat of violence overcame the rule of law.

As already pointed out, in the Senate at least the votes to admit NM as a free state were not there, so Fillmore hadn't the power to bring that about even if he wanted to.

The collapse of the bi-regional partiers was mainly down to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, not to anything in particular done in 1850. The problem wasn't the Compromise, but the South's refusal to be satisfied with it.

And this means nothing. This is not British politics where Party affiliation defined much of anything. Incase you ever wondered how John Tyler was a Whig and Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. It doesn't matter, what matters is local politics and regional affiliation. There is a reason Henry Clay (Whig) passed his abomination onto Stephen A. Douglas (Democrat).

And your point is? None of the above changes the fact that Fillmore had no power to make Congress do anything that Congress wasn't willing to do.