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.