Millard, We Hardly Knew Ye

I have this piece up on the Daily Beast today, explaining the cancellation of Millard Fillmore by the University at Buffalo. Here is the gist:

Millard Fillmore’s Fast Track From Presidential Nobody to Racist Pariah

On the expanding list of canceled honors for the perpetrators of slavery and racism—think Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, John C. Calhoun, and Woodrow Wilson—the name Millard Fillmore is notable for its very obscurity. If the 13th president of the United States is remembered at all, it is usually as the answer to a trivia question or the punchline to a joke about historical insignificance. Nonetheless, students at the University at Buffalo (part of the State University of New York) have persuaded the administration to remove Fillmore’s name from an Academic Center that includes faculty offices, dormitories, and a theater. A son of Buffalo, Fillmore was a founder of the university and its first chancellor. He was also the president who signed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. And therein lies his disgrace.

Fillmore was the first in a series of three “doughface” presidents—Northern men with Southern principles—who sought to accommodate slavery interests, including expansion into previously free territories. If he was not the most despicable pro-slavery politician in the antebellum era, a position for which there would be much competition, he was certainly among the most hypocritical.

It actually speaks well of the University at Buffalo that Fillmore was evidently the largest available target for protesters. The campus apparently has no monuments to treasonous generals, Ku Klux Klan leaders, or genocidaires, as grace so many other locales. Ironically, canceling his name probably generated the most attention Fillmore has received in over 150 years. Hardly anyone knew much about him before, and no one is likely to miss him now.

The entire article is here.

 

Comments

[A non]

Do you think if Fillmore saw SCOTUS' composition today he'd give you a big "I told you so..."?

If statues are erected in the coming years to politicians who had enacted safe haven cities laws, do you think they'd rightly be torn down for glorifying modern-day slavers?

[A non]

Or if there's a Bezos University established in the coming years?

[PaulB]

The argument made by Prof. Lubet follows in the pattern of the notorious New York Times' 1619 Project by retroactively choosing and occasionally distorting facts 170 years later. Yes, the Compromise of 1850 put together by Henry Clay was denounced by abolitionists as favorable to slave power but it was denounced in the south as well and threats of secession were made. When put to a vote, it overwhelmingly failed by both free and slave state senators, and the Great Compromiser returned home to Kentucky to die.

Just as it appeared that the Union would dissolve, Taylor died suddenly and Fillmore became president. The young Steven Douglas stepped up and reintroduced Clay's deal as separate bills. Northern representatives voted overwhelmingly for the items that favored their side and the southerners did likewise. Douglas and Fillmore organized a small number of members from the west (mostly Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee) who voted for all of the bills, thus providing the slim majority for the Compromise to pass.

For a compromise that was initially opposed by most members of Congress, the end result was overwhelming public support both North and South and the belief that the union had been saved. Prof. Lubet suggests that the compromise should not have been supported by Fillmore. What would he have rather done? Does he think that the South was bluffing? Would the North have been able to win a civil war then, without the benefit of ten years of growth in population and industry? And with Fillmore as commander in chief instead of Lincoln?

Fillmore, Douglas, and Webster put together a compromise that saved this country. You could argue that Douglas pushing through the Kansas-Nebraska Act two years later under Pierce did far more than the efforts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act to unleash Northern resentment toward slave power in American politics. Telling us from the comfort of the future how much you detest the Fugitive
Slave Act without consideration as to what the political realities facing those in power at the time is not a serious argument.

[anon]

PaulB

Great comment and a thoughtful analysis that is rare in the main post.

My sense is that you are quite correct. Viewed from the choices of the times, the demonization is misplaced. Also, Lubet might have mentioned the provisions of the Constitution.

But, even if Lubet (or the students he defends) are right on the merits, viewed by the standards today, one cannot let the WAY that Lubet expresses himself pass. He says:

"If he was not the most despicable pro-slavery politician in the antebellum era, a position for which there would be much competition, he was certainly among the most hypocritical."

This hyperbolic vitriolic ranting really should be called out. It is ruining America, and it is coming almost always from the far left. How will the students use your words? Are you inciting anger? Or worse?

Calm down, Steve. "The most hypocritical of the despicable pro slavery politicians"?

C'mon man.

[Scott Fruehwald]

Steve,

Have you heard about the controversy at USC Marshall? The school suspended a professor for saying a Mandarin word that sounds like an English racist pejorative. The Volokh Conspiracy has several post about this scandal. Very interesting reading.

[Ediberto Roman]

Thanks Steve for drafting this article! I learned a great deal. Much appreciated.