Compromise Of 1850

Millard Fillmore’s Third Party Candidacy in 1856: Unique In American History In Many Ways!

Ronald 26 Comments

The 1856 Presidential Election is unique in many ways.

It was the first national campaign of a political party, the Republican Party, which had been founded two years earlier in opposition to slavery and to its expansion.

The Republican Party replaced the moribund Whig Party, and many of the latter’s members had joined the new party. John C. Fremont was its nominee for President, and lost by about 500,000 popular votes margin to Democratic nominee James Buchanan.

The Democratic Party, bitterly divided over slavery, was on its way to a victory in a divided country, but it would be the last Democratic Party victory until Grover Cleveland squeaked out a narrow victory three decades later in 1884. Its nominee was James Buchanan, who won the election with 174 electoral votes to 114 for Fremont.

It was also a time of a “comeback” by the last Whig President, Millard Fillmore, who had succeeded Zachary Taylor upon his death in 1850, and had signed the Compromise of 1850 and opened up relations with the Japanese Kingdom.

Fillmore would go on to win the 8 electoral votes of Maryland, the only electoral votes Fillmore ever won for the Presidency, as he was denied the nomination of his party for a full term in 1852, the last national campaign of the Whigs.

Fillmore became the first of two former Presidents to win electoral votes and states after being President, the other being Theodore Roosevelt on the Progressive (Bull Moose) party line in 1912, when he won six states and 88 electoral votes.

Former President Martin Van Buren had run on a third party, the Free Soil Party of 1848, won ten percent of the popular vote, but won no states or electoral votes.

But Fillmore actually won 21.5 percent of the total national popular vote in 1856, winning about 873,000 total votes, running on the American (Know Nothing) party line, campaigning against Catholic immigration from Germany and Ireland, which would not add to his stature, unfortunately! Ironically, Fillmore was not present at the convention that nominated him, and never actually joined the American Party, but he accepted the nomination, nevertheless, and he ran as a nativist, not good for his historical reputation!

Civil Liberties And The Presidency: From John Adams To Barack Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

When it comes to the issue of the Presidency and the Bill of Rights, many Presidents have scored at an alarmingly low rate, often despite many other virtues that these Presidents have possessed.

John Adams set a terrible standard when he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

Andrew Jackson forcibly decreed the removal of five Native American tribes (The Trail Of Tears) from their ancestral lands and relocation in Oklahoma, supposedly forever, but with the discovery of oil in Tulsa, the territory was opened to whites in 1889, and reservation life became the norm.

John Tyler, through negotiation to add Texas to the Union, and accepting its institution of slavery, helped to create the slavery expansion issue as one which would divide the nation and lead to Civil War, and Tyler was part of the Confederate government and gave up his American citizenship.

James K. Polk further promoted the expansion of slavery through war with Mexico, and had no issue with slavery anywhere and everywhere.

Millard Fillmore, signing the Compromise of 1850, allowed the South to pursue fugitive slaves in the North.

Franklin Pierce, signing the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854, made the expansion of slavery develop into the Kansas Civil War, which led to the Civil War.

James Buchanan endorsed the Dred Scott Decision, which allowed expansion of slavery everywhere in the nation, if a slave owner chose to move to the North with his slaves.

Abraham Lincoln suppressed press freedom; allowed preventive detention; and imposed a military draft that one could escape only by paying a fee that only wealthy people could afford.

Andrew Johnson wanted to restrict the rights of African Americans after the Civil War, and was an open racist, much more than anyone.

Grover Cleveland promoted the reservation life and adaptation to white culture for Native Americans through his signing of the Dawes Act in 1887.

Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote often about superior and inferior races, seeing only intellectual accomplishment and military strength as the basis to admire individuals of other races, but believing in white supremacy and the “Anglo Saxon” race.

Woodrow Wilson backed restrictions on citizens during World War I, and presided over the Red Scare under Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer after the war, as well as showing racist tendencies toward African Americans and Japan. He signed the Sedition Act of 1918, and issued an executive order segregating African Americans in Washington, DC.

Franklin D. Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans under executive order during World War II, and did little to deal with the racial problem in the South.

Richard Nixon arranged for bugging and wiretapping of his “enemies”; arranged break ins and “dirty tricks”; and became engaged in obstruction of justice and abuse of power, leading to moves toward impeachment and his eventual resignation from the Presidency, due to the Watergate Scandal.

Ronald Reagan cut back on civil rights enforcement, and showed insensitivity on the issue of apartheid in South Africa.

George W. Bush pushed through the Patriot Act, and the government engaged in constant civil liberties violations as part of the War on Terror.

Barack Obama also promoted violations of civil liberties, as part of the continued threat of international terrorism.

So 17 Presidents, at the least, have undermined our civil liberties and civil rights, often overlapping.

Short Term Retirements Of Six Presidents, And How History Might Have Changed Had They Still Been In Office!

Ronald 2 Comments

Much more attention is paid to longevity of retirement of America’s Presidents, or those who died in office, than those who died within less than a term after leaving the Presidency.

So it is generally well known that some Presidents have had long retirements, including Jimmy Carter (who keeps on adding to his record of retirement, presently 32 years, seven months and two weeks as of today), Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, and John Adams.

And eight Presidents died in office (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy).

But it is also a fact that five Presidents who retired, died within the next Presidential term, and one died just two days after that next Presidential term ended, so we could have had at least five more Presidents die in office, and likely, due to the stress of the job, a sixth one, as well!

So who are these Presidents who would have died in office had they served another term?

James K. Polk, who died just 103 days after leaving the White House.
Chester Alan Arthur, who died 624 days after leaving the White House.
George Washington, who died 1015 days after leaving the Presidency (The White House was not yet built).
Woodrow Wilson, who died 1066 days after leaving the Presidency.
Calvin Coolidge, who died 1403 days after leaving the Presidency.
Lyndon B. Johnson, who died 1463 days after leaving the Presidency (two days after the next term of office ended).

Try to imagine Washington dying in office, our first President, and a Vice President having to challenge, earlier than John Tyler had to do in 1841, the issue of whether the Vice President could have all the Presidential authority by succeeding to the office, instead of being elected! Also, the reality that Washington would have set a precedent for a third term, which might have affected the views and attitudes of future Presidents on a third term!

Imagine James K. Polk dying in the midst of the controversy over the territories gained in the Mexican War, and how that might have affected the debates which led to the Compromise of 1850!

Imagine Chester Alan Arthur, having succeeded the assassinated James A. Garfield in office, being the second successive President who died in office!

Imagine Woodrow Wilson dying in office, after the American people had decided to elect him to an unprecedented third term, and how it might have affected the political realities of what became the conservative 1920s!

Imagine Calvin Coolidge having to deal with the Great Depression, as compared to Herbert Hoover, and the reality that he would have died just about two months before the end of his term, with his Vice President likely only serving those two months!

Imagine Lyndon B. Johnson in declining health in his extra term, and maybe dying earlier than two days after the end of that term, and his Vice President likely serving only a very short time in the Presidency, had Johnson died from the stresses of that extra term in office!

This is all theory, of course, what is known as “What If”, but it is food for thought regarding the short retirement of six of our Presidents!

Having stated all of the above, the odds are that Polk would not have been reelected due to the controversy over the Mexican War; that Arthur was denied the nomination in 1884, due to the civil service reform bill he signed into law (The Pendleton Act); that Wilson was still recovering from a stroke in 1920, and would unlikely have been reelected, had he been the nominee of his party; and that Johnson would have had trouble being reelected, due to the Vietnam War. Only Washington and Coolidge probably would have had another term, had they sought it, but even there, Washington might have had opposition to a third term on the basis that it would be creating an image of a monarchy for him to have more than two terms in office. So only Coolidge would have been likely to have had smooth sailing for another term in the White House!

Analyzing The Ten “Less Than One Term” Presidents: Kennedy And Ford Stand Out!

Ronald 3 Comments

America has had 43 men serve as President of the United States over the past 224 years since George Washington was inaugurated in 1789. Ten of those Presidents, however, served less than one full term in office.

Of those ten, two served less than a year each—William Henry Harrison, one month; and James A. Garfield, six and a half months.

Of those ten, five served between 16 months and 34 months in office—Zachary Taylor, 16 months; Warren G. Harding, 29 months; Gerald Ford, 29 and a half months; Millard Fillmore, 32 months; and John F. Kennedy, 34 months.

The remaining three Presidents served more than three years, but less than four, as successors to the Presidency during the term—Chester Alan Arthur, 41 and a half months; Andrew Johnson, 46 and a half months; and John Tyler, 47 months.

Five of these ten Presidents died in office—Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Harding, and Kennedy, with Harrison, Taylor and Harding dying of natural causes, and Garfield and Kennedy being assassinated.

One President succeeded after the resignation of the sitting President, Ford after Richard Nixon left office facing an impeachment trial due to the Watergate Scandal.

Five of these Presidents finished the term of the previous President—Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson,. Arthur, and Ford, and none were elected to the White House.

Which of these Presidents made a difference?

John Tyler brought about the acquisition of Texas during his time in office, along with the Webster-Ashburton Treaty with Great Britain, dealing with Canadian boundary issues.

Millard Fillmore brought about the delay of the Civil War by his agreement to sign the Compromise of 1850, and sent Commodore Matthew Perry to open up Japan to the Western world, although by the time Perry made contact with Japan, Franklin Pierce had become President.

Chester Alan Arthur signed into law the first Civil Service Reform bill for the federal government, the Pendleton Act.

Warren G. Harding pardoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs from prison for having violated the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I; and an important treaty, the Washington Naval Agreements, was negotiated by his Secretary of State, Charles Evans Hughes, the future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1930s.

John F. Kennedy was the most accomplished, responsible for actions promoting civil rights; negotiating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; promoting the Peace Corps; advancing the US Space program to land a man on the moon; and avoiding nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, which undermined his popularity, but is now seen as having been the correct action to move the country away from the Watergate Scandal; resolved the Magaguez Affair with Cambodia, with the successful return of the hostages of that US Navy ship by direct action of the US Marines; and appointed long time Associate Justice John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, a great influence on the Court for 35 years.

The three shortest term Presidents had little impact, with only Garfield regarded as a major loss, since his education and his accomplishments, both politically and intellectually, made him seem a person who might have had a dramatic effect on the Presidency, had he lived to serve a full term.

The leading tragedy of these ten “less than one term” Presidents clearly was Andrew Johnson, who pursued a confrontational policy with Congress, showed intense racism in his approach to the issue of how African Americans should be treated in the post Civil War South, and faced impeachment and trial (which was unjust), but was caused to a great extent by his horrible relationship with the Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

If one was to rank where these ten Presidents belong in ratings in history, one just needs to look at the C-Span poll of 42 Presidents by 64 scholars, conducted in 2009 as George W. Bush left office.

What we find is the following rankings:

Kennedy—-6
Ford—22
Garfield—28
Taylor—29
Arthur—32
Tyler—35
Fillmore—37
Harding—38
Harrison—39
Johnson—41

Of course, listing Harrison and even Garfield may seem silly to many, since their tenure in office was so short, but it is interesting that Garfield’s potential and promise as a possible full term President is the idea now being promoted by scholars, who see him as a particularly tragic loss.

In the long run, it is clear that Kennedy and Ford will always stand out as the two best “less than one term” Presidents, with Garfield’s potential also significant, and otherwise, Tyler, Fillmore and Arthur having the greatest impact in their times. Harrison and Taylor had little impact, mostly remembered for their military exploits as President. Harding is still regarded as the worst President of the 20th century, particularly because of the massive political scandals in his administration, and Johnson is just seen as a total disaster, only standing above hapless full term President James Buchanan, so Harding and Johnson are seen as “failures”!

So this is the analysis of our ten “less than one term” Presidents!

Back To the 19th Century Mentality: Proposed Amendment Would Permit State Nullification Of Federal Laws! Have We Failed To Learn The Meaning Of Our Constitution? :(

Ronald 1 Comment

Just as we begin to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the beginnings of the Civil War over the next year, we now see a movement promoted by Congressional Republicans, including future House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, to propose a constitutional amendment that would allow states to overrule any act of Congress, effectively nullification of federal law! 🙁

This battle was fought by Andrew Jackson in the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833, when he threatened John C. Calhoun and South Carolina with federal military intervention if that state refused to obey the federal tariff law.

It was also being threatened by Zachary Taylor if any state attempted secession during the debate over the Compromise of 1850.

It was also the reaction of Abraham Lincoln when the Southern states seceded from the Union and seized American military property and bases in 1860-1861.

These were three Presidents of different parties, all from Southern slave states of birth, who were ready to uphold the federal government’s authority over the states, and actually led to Lincoln’s actions against the Confederacy during the Civil War.

But now, a century a a half after this issue was supposed to have been resolved by the Northern victory, there is a push on to allow just that–states refusing to obey the federal laws and Constitution and claiming the right to do so! 🙁

If the legislatures of two thirds of the states–34–voted for such a repeal of a federal law, it would not be in effect. So far, 12 states have supported such an amendment being introduced.

Of course, two thirds of the House of Representatives and two thirds of the Senate would have to agree to such an amendment, which is hard to imagine, as it would limit their own power and authority.

Additionally, 38 states, three fourths, would have to ratify such an amendment, and that also seems extremely unlikely, as there are more than 12 states which certainly, in a political sense, would oppose such a concept.

While one cannot be sure of the exact dynamics of which states would be opposed to such an amendment, were it to make it through the House of Representatives and Senate, the likelihood would be that the following states would NOT support such an amendment: Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii.

Thirteen of these seventeen states would be enough to stop such an amendment, and realize that there are other states that might also oppose it, including Maine, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico, which would bring the total to a potential 25.

And also realize, in other states that might be seen as supporting such an amendment, all that would be needed to defeat it is a one vote margin of defeat in one of the two houses of the state legislature.

Another consideration is that such an amendment would allow small states with small populations to have equal influence on such nullification, despite having, in many cases, tiny population totals as compared to large states, so even large states which might be motivated to support such an amendment would not be pleased that small states would have an inequitable influence on repeal of federal laws.

So basically, this is all demagoguery, and a sign that many people do not understand their own Constitution, and the concept that ONLY the national government can speak for the nation through the tortorous process of passing laws through our Congress, and that the state legislatures, many of them incompetent and corrupt on a far greater level than our Congress, have no ability or competence or justification to interfere with what is good for the nation at large,whether they like it or not!