Millard Fillmore, "the most Jacksonian of any president of the era"

Our thirteenth president, Millard Fillmore, is typically cast as a craven milquetoast who facilitated the Compromise of 1850 because he didn't have the guts to stand up to the southern Slave Power.

I have long argued that this is nonsense.  Citing among other things Millard's determination to address the state of Texas's threat to invade the New Mexico Territory, I have repeatedly argued that Millard was a bold and decisive leader who authorized and was prepared to use military force to put down rebellion if necessary.  See my post "Anyone who thought that Fillmore lacked spine was now disabused" for a summary of my views and links to earlier posts on the subject.

I am pleased to report that author Chris DeRose has clearly carefully studied and absorbed my posts.  In his most recent volume The Presidents' War: Six American Presidents and the Civil War that Divided Them the author correctly characterizes Millard as "the most Jacksonian of any president of the era."

In a message to Congress, Fillmore promised to respond to this [Texas's threatened invasion of New Mexico] for what it was - criminal invasion.  He underscored his words by dispatching 750 additional troops to the region. 

*** 

. . . Fillmore learned that extremists in South Carolina planned on seizing federal installments at Charleston.  As he had with Texas, Fillmore acted decisively, inviting General Winfield Scott to cabinet meetings.  He poured federal troops into South Carolina and positioned others in North Carolina that could strike if necessary.  The South Carolina legislature, through their governor, demanded an explanation.  Fillmore, through his State Department, made clear that he was the commander in chief of the army and navy, that the decision to direct troop was entirely within his discretion, and that he was not answerable to the governor, the legislature, or anyone else. 

*** 

. . . [B]y finding the right balance of firmness and flexibility, Fillmore has prevented civil war and ironically was the most Jacksonian of any president of the era.

Millard Not Dissed!

Over at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, Ed Darrell has an appreciative post on Millard: Quote of the Moment: Should We Reconsider Millard Fillmore?  He ends:

Historians often offer back-handed criticism to Fillmore for the Compromise of 1850; in retrospect it did not prevent the Civil War. In the circumstances of 1850, in the circumstances of Fillmore’s presidential career, should we expect more? Compared to Buchanan’s presidency and the events accelerating toward war, did Fillmore do so badly?

Have we underestimated Millard Fillmore? Discuss.

You know how I'd answer the question.

About the illustration, entitled Delivery of the President's Letter:

Print shows the American delegation, under the command of Matthew C. Perry, presenting a letter from President Fillmore to the Japanese, requesting the establishment of diplomatic and trade relations.

Millard Dissed Again!

Longtime readers will know I'm a big Millard Fillmore fan and get seriously perturbed when Millard is dissed.  Well, it's happened again.  Over at the Daily Caller they've posted the Top Ten Hottest US Presidents in History and Millard is MIA.  I'm not of the female persuasion, but who would choose the violent and decrepit Andy Jackson or Franklin Pierce with his greasy locks over the dapper Millard?

Millard Pro and Con

I have discussed previously the ingenious history class in which Williams College students were asked to produce presidential campaign video ads for and/or against candidates in pre-Civil War races.

As you may expect, I awaited with particular interest any videos focusing on my main man, Millard Fillmore.  It was not a sure thing, since he didn't even get the Whig nomination in 1852, and his most serious run was as a third-party candidate of the American Party in 1856.

But, I'm delighted to report, students managed to produce two Fillmore videos, one pro, the other con, both of which are quite good.  The pro-Millard video is at the top.  The anti is below:

You can find all the videos from the class on YouTube here.

"The Compromise of 1850 must be judged a success"

I have also discussed in more than one post whether the Compromise of 1850 was a good thing or bad thing.  This breaks down, as I see it, into essentially two counterfactual questions.  Would war have erupted in 1850 or 1851 if the Compromise had failed?  And, if so, would the North have won?

In his new book on the Compromise, Fergus M. Bordewich answers the first question in the affirmative, the second in the negative.  He therefore concludes that "the Compromise must be judged a success."  (He qualifies this with the proviso, "albeit a temporary one," but that's another story. Millard and the other men who crafted the Compromise in 1850 had no way of predicting, for example, Bloody Kansas.)

As to the first issue, Bordewich has no doubt that "[f]ailure . . . meant war."  As I have argued before, he is convinced that the first shots would have been fired in Santa Fe.  But even a desultory border scrimmage between Texas and U.S. forces or New Mexican militia would have drawn in volunteers from other southern states and widened into a general war:

Failure would have meant war, with its first shots fired at Santa Fe instead of Fort Sumter.  Even if Texas had suffered an initial defeat, southerners were ready to rush to her aid. . . .  Large numbers of southerners had come to accept secession as politically reasonable, economically rational, and morally justified.

Intertwined with this issue is Bordewich's response to the second question.  The North would have lost, he maintains, primarily because it would not have put up a serious fight:

The North, if it had any stomach for war at all in 1850, would likely have lost. . . .  [F]ew northerners . . . were prepared to fight a war for the Union, much less to end slavery.  There was nothing in the North to compare with the flaming war fever that was epidemic in the newspapers of the South, and the fiery letters that war-hungry men from South Carolina to Mississippi sent to the leaders of Texas, begging for a chance to fight for slavery.

During the 1850s northern industrial resources grew by leaps and bounds.  Although this may also have contributed to the Union's victory a decade, but the crucial difference was "will":

During the decade that was purchased by the Compromise of 1850, the North's advantages in population, industrial production, and transportation steadily grew. . . .  But it took more to win the Civil War than factory output: it required will.  In the course of the 1850s, as slavery continued to gnaw at the nation's political vitals [other southern outrages omitted]. white Americans [in the North] increasingly understood that the erosion of their own rights was tied to the fate of enslaved blacks . . ..

Finally, Bordewich evocatively describes what might have happened if northerners like President Fillmore had taken the moral high road in 1850 and lost:

Had secession taken place peacefully in 1850, the South would have set a precedent that in time might well have splintered what remained of the United States still further.  The United States might then have evolved into a congeries of states - a Pacific Republic, a federation of New England, another of the upper Midwest - competitive with one another, vulnerable to foreign interference, and perhaps chronically at war.  A truncated United States would never have become a globe-striding power, or a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world, but more likely a second-tier state like Germany or France. . . .  That none of this happened, we owe to the compromisers of 1850.

Why Millard Blew It

In a post entitled Van Buren at Lawyers, Guns & Money, Erik Loomis refers to "a study that correctly notes the tendency of historians to give high rankings to presidents who kill a lot of Americans in wars during their tenure."

While Erik worries about more important things, such as whether this phenomenon creates an incentive for modern-day presidents to start wars, I of course am fixated on Millard Fillmore.

Millard, as you know, gets hammered as a cross between a nebbish and the anti-Christ for facilitating and signing the bills that are collectively known as the Compromise of 1850. If only he'd sabotaged the Compromise and started a war that killed as many as died starting eleven years later.  Then maybe he'd be as revered as the Railsplitter!

"Anyone who thought that Fillmore lacked spine was now disabused"

I have explained in a number of previously published posts how Millard Fillmore's firm and decisive actions in early August 1850 formed the basis for resolution of the crisis that had been building for four years, ever since David Wilmot had introduced his fateful Proviso in August 1846.  In a nutshell (see the posts linked above for more detail), the newly-installed president made clear to the State of Texas that the federal government would fight if state forces attacked the New Mexico territory.

In his newly-published book America's Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and the Compromise That Preserved the Union, Fergus M. Bordewich points out the guts that this move took:

The following day, August 6 [1850], Fillmore sent his own message to Congress.  [Secretary of State Daniel] Webster may have contributed to it, but to give the president his due, anyone who thought that Fillmore lacked spine was now disabused.  A weak man might well have capitulated to the Texans: Fillmore dug in his well-polished boots.  The president declared unequivocally that New Mexico was federal territory, and that Texas enjoyed no rights or powers beyond her state limits.  "If Texas militia march into any of other States or into any Territory of the United States, there to execute or enforce any law of Texas, they become at that moment trespassers; they are no longer under the protection of any lawful authority, and are to be regarded merely as intruders," he declared.  Should the laws of the United States be opposed or obstructed in any way, it was his duty as commander-in-chief to employ the armed forces as they were needed.

The response to Fillmore's message, especially from northerners in Congress, was highly favorable; from Newport [Rhode Island], Henry Clay sent a telegram offering the president his full support.  The sleekly groomed Fillmore might not be the soldier that hard-edged [Zachary] Taylor had been, but his meaning was equally unmistakable: the United States was ready to go to war.

The president's message shifted the focus from the California issue to Texas-New Mexico.  And the combination of the president's "stick" and the "carrot" represented by the Texas bond bill did the trick:

The real question was: what would [the two Texas senators, Thomas Jefferson Rusk and Sam Houston] do?  Without their support, no compromise would work. . . .  Both . . . knew that federal troops were en route to New Mexico, that the president was firmly committed to resist an invasion, and that without the camouflage of the Omnibus Texas stood no chance of winning congressional recognition for its entire elephantine claim.  Some Texans were also having second thoughts.  "It is unpleasant to impoverish the state and tax our people with insupportable burthens to make war against the U.S. although it is as we all know on our soil," one uneasy constituent wrote to Rusk.

It was over within a matter of days.  On August 9 Rusk and Houston announced their support for the Texas-New Mexico measures.  That day, Stephen Douglas' motion for a third reading of the bill squeaked by, 27 to 24.  "[T]he Texans had tipped the balance."  The final vote on the bill, later that evening, "was decisive, if anticlimactic": 30 votes to 20.

About the illustration at the top, entitled Capability and Availability:

Sharply critical of both the Democratic and Whig choice of presidential candidates in 1852, the artist laments the nomination of two soldiers, Winfield Scott (center) and Franklin Pierce (far right), in preference to several more "capable" statesmen who appear at left. The latter are (left to right): Samuel Houston, John J. Crittenden, Thomas Hart Benton, Millard Fillmore, John Bell, Lewis Cass, Stephen A. Douglas, and Daniel Webster. Most prominent in the group are Fillmore, Cass, and Webster, who also sought the presidential nomination in 1852. Fillmore: "I have sought more anxiously to do what was right; than what would please, and feel no disappointment, at finding that my Conduct has, rendered me an unavailable candidate." Cass: "We have been partizans where we differed in opinions as to the best means of promoting the prosperity and happiness of our native land, but we cast aside, party when we stood Shoulder, to Shoulder, for the Constitution & the Union." Webster: "It is not our fortune to be, or to have been successful Millitary Chieftains. We are nothing but painstaking, hardworking, drudging Civilians, giving our life, and health, and strength, to the maintenance of the Constitution and upholding the liberties of our country." Columbia, draped in stars and stripes and grasping the hands of Scott and Pierce, responds: "I acknowledge your noble services, worth and Constant devotion most Illustrious sons, and that you have the long experience, Sound sense and practical wisdom which fit you to receive the highest honor in my power to bestow, but you are "not Available." " "Availability," in the contemporary lexicon, meant the quality of broad popular appeal. Scott and Pierce were both distinguished in the Mexican War. Scott, holding a liberty staff and Phrygian cap, proclaims: "You see Gentlemen it is "availability" that is required and that is "my" qualification." Pierce holds a shield adorned with stars and stripes, adding, "I am a "Great" man and have done the country "Great" Service! I never knew it before; but it "must be so;" for the Convention has declared it, and the Democracy affirm it." Before his nomination by the Democratic convention of 1852, Pierce was a relatively little known New Hampshire attorney--a fact which Whig publicists tended to exaggerate. Pierce had, after all, served as a two-term congressman and senator from New Hampshire.

"Fillmore was the real thing"

I have, on more than one occasion, discussed Millard Fillmore's childhood and young manhood, which bear a striking resemblance to those of his Whig successor, Abraham Lincoln.  Born and raised in abject poverty, young Millard, like young Abe, pulled himself up by his bootstraps to become a respected member of his community by virtue of native intelligence, hard work and a little luck.

I am pleased to see that in his newly-published work on the Compromise of 1850, America's Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and the Compromise That Preserved the Union, Fergus M. Bordewich recognizes this affinity and, indeed, concisely summarizes the hurdles that Millard navigated far more eloquently than I could:

In an era when many political careers . . . were based on exaggerated, if not faked, log cabin origins, Fillmore was the real thing.  Born in 1800 to a hard-luck sharecropper in western New York, he was bred from boyhood to backbreaking labor in a mostly losing struggled to keep his family's farm going.  He didn't learn to spell until the age of seven, and at nineteen still had never seen a map or an atlas.  Books, as they were for his equally disadvantaged contemporary Abraham Lincoln, were his escape hatch.  Once he became literate, Fillmore read with a frightening ferocity.  At the carding mill where he worked for a time, he propped a dictionary on his worktable, and looked up a word each time he passed by, and then fixed it in his memory while he changed rolls of wool.  When, a few years later, he talked a local judge into taking him on as a law clerk, he was so grateful he burst into tears.  Through superhuman perseverance, he eventually became one of the most sought after lawyers in Buffalo.

Millard, Dissed Again

Uh oh, the upcoming Paul Finkelman biography of Millard Fillmore looks like it's going to be a simplistic hatchet job. Amazon has posted an excerpt from the beginning of the book, and it's full of nonsense and snide innuendo. Let's start with this; my comments are in brackets:

Millard Fillmore, who became president after Taylor's death, was inexperienced and virtually unknown when he was nominated for vice president at the 1848 Whig convention. [Uh, he served four terms in Congress, rising to become Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; alot more experience that a certain Mr. Lincoln later had.] He was born in poverty in central New York, poorly schooled as a child, and largely self-educated after that. [Notice the snarky "poorly schooled". Again one might say the same about Lincoln.] He achieved a comfortable middle-class status and struggled to fit in with men who were better educated, culturally more sophisticated, and more socially adept than he. [More snarkiness. Millard didn't raise himself up by his bootstraps to better himself and achieve success. His goal, apparently, was to become a self-satisfied bourgeois fat-cat - if he weren't such a socially inept dolt. Imagine Abe being described this way.] Moving to Buffalo, he practiced law and entered politics at age twenty-eight, serving three terms in the state legislature and later four terms in Congress. He was an unsuccessful candidate for governor of New York in 1844, but in 1847 he was elected state comptroller - an important but hardly a major office. [What happened to the Ways and Means Committee? And what state-wide office did Abe hold?] A year later, this obscure politician was nominated to run for vice president alongside General Taylor. [So obscure he was nominated more or less by acclamation after his name was suggested.]

Pathetic rubbish.

Lego Lincoln

Knowing how many of you are huge fans of Abe, I wanted to alert you that you can now obtain your very own portrait of the Great Emancipator made from Lego, courtesy of artist Nathan Sawaya.

No word on when the Millard Fillmore edition will be available.

H/T Jonah Goldberg at The Corner and WebUrbanist.

Sean Wilentz Gets His Act Together, Finally

Having criticized Sean Wilentz about six months ago for not having gotten around even to scheduling the release of a biography of President Millard Fillmore in the American Presidents Series, I'll give the devil his due: the volume has now at last been scheduled. The release date is May 10, 2011.

The choice of author is interesting: legal historian Paul Finkelman of Albany, most of whose writings focus on race and slavery-related topics. Will Prof. Finkelman simply rake Millard over the coals for his endorsement and signature of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, or adopt a more nuanced view? We'll find out in due course.

UPDATE: In the comments, Prof. Finkelman explains that Prof. Wilentz was not responsible for the delay in the release of the Fillmore volume.

Happy Belated Birthday, Mr. President

Millard Fillmore, our nation's thirteenth president, was born January 7, 1800 and celebrated his 211th birthday four days ago.

The press of events prevented me from composing a timely post celebrating the life of this fine man. But the ever-reliable Ed Darrell at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub did his usual thorough job on matters Millard by marking the moment with no fewer than four posts, all of which are worth reading: University of Buffalo President Simpson to speak at Millard Fillmore's 2010 birthday observance, Millard Fillmore's 211th, A day that will live in obscurity, and Would Albuquerque and Santa Fe be part of Texas, but for Millard Fillmore? The last of these posts, in turn, highlights an entry at Duke City Fix, If it weren't for Millard Fillmore, you might be a Texan!

Having repeatedly lauded Millard's virtues, I won't belabor the issue unduly. For an overview, try Presidential Scholars on Crack and Millard Loses a War He Didn't Fight. On Millard's deft handling of the Texas-New Mexico dispute, and what might have happened if he had acted less decisively, see Millard Fillmore, Firm Statesman and "Civil War between North and South would then have likely erupted".

Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Forgive me for being a few days late.

It's Millard!

A good friend of mine, Cliff Sahlin, who is an accomplished painter, presented me with a fantastic Christmas present yesterday: a portrait of our thirteenth president, Millard Fillmore! Feel free to click on the image to enlarge.

The "handsome, portly gentleman" Was . . . Millard!

You guys and gals have really fallen down on the job. In a recent post I challenged you to identify the "handsome, portly gentleman" who Julia Gardiner (later Julia Gardiner Tyler) saw on a train while heading from New York to Washington in about December 1841.

Well, the gentleman in question was none other than the future thirteenth president, Millard Fillmore. The passage is from the Reminiscences of Mrs. Julia G. Tyler found in Volume 3 of The Letters and Times of the Tylers, by Lyon Gardiner Tyler:

My father was of an old family of New York, and possessing means and leisure, placed his time at his daughters' disposal, and there was no wish personal to ourselves which he did not attempt by every available means to gratify. Having become acquainted in former days, while a member of the New York State Senate, with nearly all the prominent politicians of the State, he conceived the idea of a visit to Washington during the session of Congress, thinking that our education would be singularly imperfect if, after seeing the capitals of nearly all the governments of the old world, we should neglect lo see our own. Impressions of our public men began with our trip from New York to Washington. A handsome, portly gentleman came several times into the car in which we were seated and excited the interest of myself and sister by the self-conscious manner in which he looked into the mirror at the head of the car and adjusted his cravat, while he cast several furtive glances in our direction. These glances were, doubtless, accidental, though, soon after our arrival in Washington the gentleman alluded to called upon our parents, in company with an old friend of my father, the Hon. Silas Wright of New York, Then we found that the handsome stranger was no less a personage than Millard Fillmore, the then chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and alas! also married. By this latter discovery mine and my sister's little romance was dissolved, for, though perhaps a little vain, we always thought him an accomplished gentleman. He afterwards followed in the footsteps of General Taylor as President of the United States.

Millard Fillmore With Ham

Now this is an image I've got to have on my blog.

Thanks to Ed Darrell at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub for pointing out that an artist by the name of Bijijoo has painted a series of portraits of presidents holding hams.

"The Top 100 Influential Figures in American History"

Apart from poor Millard, whom I didn't expect to make the new Atlantic list, several others immediately spring to mind as worthy of consideration. In more or less chronological order:

Andrew Jackson may have been the figurehead, but it was Martin Van Buren who invented the Democratic Party and the Second Party System, then abandoned the party he had created to serve as the presidential candidate for the first non-trivial anti-slavery party, the precursor to the Republican Party.

Daniel Webster's stirring oratory focused and inspired among a generation of Americans unionist sentiment that they would rise to defend when the crisis came.

Abolitionists get all the press, but it was David Wilmot who rose in the House in 1846 to move the famous Proviso that set the country on the road to Civil War.

After crafting and pushing through Congress the Compromise legislation of 1850 that averted civil war for ten years, Stephen A. Douglas's decisions to introduce the Kansas-Nebraska Act and later oppose the Lecompton Constitution gave birth to the Republican Party and placed it on the road to victory in 1860, sparking the war he sought to avoid.

Ann Althouse's musings on the list are worth your time.

About the illustration, entitled Marriage of the Free Soil and Liberty Parties (1848):

A comic portrayal of the alliance between Free Soil Democrats and Whigs and the more extremist abolitionist Liberty party interests during the election campaign of 1848. The factions joined to form the Free Soil party and nominated a presidential candidate in a convention at Buffalo in August. That union is lampooned here as the wedding of Free Soil presidential candidate Martin Van Buren (center left) and a ragged black woman (center right). Van Buren ally Benjamin F. Butler presides over the "marriage." Van Buren, reluctant to embrace the aged bride, is shoved forward by antislavery editor Horace Greeley (left), who says, "Go, Matty, and kiss the bride That is an indispensable part of the ceremony." Van Buren's son John (far left, here called "John Van Barnburner") also urges him on, "Walk up, dad. You can hold your breath till the ceremony is over, and after that you can do what you please." Van Buren says, "I find that politics, as well as poverty, make one acquainted with strange bedfellows." In contrast, the woman beckons with open arms, "Come here, my flower. You is a great stranger, and I want to get acquainted wid you." A black man behind her says of Van Buren, "I nebber hab berry good pinion ob the gemman; but if he ax pardon for all he hab done and said agin us, I will shake hands wid de genman." A black woman (further right) remarks, "Mercy on me! How bashful he is!" Butler, with arms raised and book in one hand, intones, "Who giveth this man to be married to this woman?"

An Undeserved Honor

I see that the creators of Online Schools have been kind enough to include this blog on a list of 50 Resources for Students Attending Online Liberal Arts Schools. I'm stunned and don't know what to say, other than Thanks!

About the illustration, entitled The Right Man for the Right Place (1856), which features my favorite, Millard Fillmore:

Another satire complimentary to Fillmore, whose [1856] campaign slogan was "the right man in the right place." Fillmore was nominated at the American party's February 22 convention in Philadelphia. Here he is the embodiment of equanimity, in stark contrast to the combative hostility of Republican John C. Fremont (left) and Democrat James Buchanan. Fillmore mediates between the two men, who are armed here with a musket and dagger respectively. Fremont: "He's a border ruffian! and I'll shoot the Slave-holding Villain!" He associates Buchanan with recent violence against antislavery settlers in Kansas, and with the slaveholding interests. Buchanan, raising his dagger but restrained by Fillmore: "Let go! Let me at him! I'll make Mince meat of the rascally abolitionist!" Fillmore: "Stop! Stop! My friends, I cant allow any fighting, there must be peace between you as long as I stand here."

Sean Wilentz Falls Down on the Job

I've got a serious bone to pick with Sean Wilentz, the editor of the American Presidents Series. According to the list on their site, they have now published biographies of thirty-three presidents. Additional volumes scheduled to be released through the beginning of next year have apparently been announced. Amazon, for example, lists a volume on Andrew Johnson that is not scheduled to be released until January 18, 2011.

Amid this welter of releases the obscure as well the iconic have been celebrated. For God's sake, they've published a volume on James Garfield, who effectively served as president for all of four months, from the beginning of March 1881 until he was shot on July 2 of that year. (True, it took a couple of months for the doctors to finish him off after that, but I don't think he was doing much governing during the period.)

Who's missing? You guessed it: Millard Fillmore. No volume on our thirteen president has been released or, so far as I can determine, even been scheduled for release at this point. Shameful.

Presidential Scholars on Crack

In a post yesterday, I highlighted a newly-released list of presidential rankings based on the opinions of "238 presidential scholars." I'd like to take a closer look at the components that led those alleged experts to the moronic conclusion that that Millard Fillmore was our sixth worst present.

I am not going to go into turgid detail explaining the events of Millard's presidency to which I refer in the discussion below. For more detail on most of the events, go to this post and follow the links.

Background (Family, Education, Experience): 40 out of 43. Total rubbish. Millard grew up dirt poor, pulled himself up by his bootstraps and became a lawyer and leading citizen of the then-thriving port town of Buffalo, NY. As I've remarked before, his family background and educational attainment are remarkably similar to that of Abe Lincoln. Millard had more legislative and executive experience. Abe is ranked 28th. Bias anyone?

Party Leadership: 41. Since Millard was unexpectedly elevated to the presidency on the death of Zachary Taylor, he's a bit hampered on this one. Because he tackled and solved issues that had split both parties by region, his ability to lead the Whigs suffered, and he was denied nomination for another term in 1852. Millard is in effect being penalized because he placed country over party. Would the experts have preferred it otherwise?

Communication Ability (Speak, Write): 40. Millard served in an era when presidents did not give many speeches. Basically, their inaugural addresses were about it, and an occasional Gettysburg Address. Millard didn't start a war, so he didn't have that opportunity. Not too many people deliver great speeches on compromises. But on the written side, Millard shone. His August 6, 1850 message to Congress on Texas is one of the most effective communications ever sent to that body. By putting the Texas-New Mexico issue front and center Fillmore paved the way for resolution of the Crisis of 1850.

Relationship with Congress: 38. I suppose it depends on what "relationship" means. Millard effectively dealt with tough issues that divided Congress and both parties. As a result, compromisers hailed him and radicals, both north and south, vilified him. So what? I'm amused to see that Andy Jackson is ranked no. 14 in this category.

Court Appointments: 35. Millard had the opportunity to nominate only one Supreme Court Justice. His pick was one of the finest ever made: Benjamin Robbins Curtis of Massachusetts, who wrote a brilliant dissent in the Dred Scott case.

Handling of US Economy: 33. Not sure what to do with this one. Presidents before the Civil War really didn't have the power to "handle" the economy. In addition, the economy hummed along just fine throughout Millard's presidency, so there was nothing to "handle" except to leave it alone.

Luck: 25. Here I'd disagree because the rating is too high. Millard was unexpectedly elevated to the presidency in the middle of the greatest crisis the country had ever faced. He'd been largely frozen out the previous administration and disagreed with its approach. You call that lucky? It was Branch Rickey, I think, who said luck was the residue of design. Millard helped resolve the Crisis of 1850 through good appointments (Daniel Webster, see below), intelligent planning, and effective execution. He wasn't lucky, he was good.

Ability to Compromise: 25. 25! For God's sake, the man was a principal facilitator of the Compromise of 1850! Lincoln, who led the country into civil war, is rated no. 1. Are these people on crack?

Willing to take Risks: 37. More nonsense. The experts hear "compromise" and apparently assume no risk was involved. Every decision that Millard made was fraught with risk.

Executive Appointments: 35. One of Millard's first decisions was to nominate Daniel Webster as Secretary of State. Need I say more?

Overall Ability: 38. Let's see. After two months in office Millard had had a substantial part in resolving the greatest crisis the country had ever experienced. He opened Japan to the West. He "handled" the economy just fine by leaving it alone. Clearly the bottom of the barrel. Idiots.

Imagination: 36. Resolution of the crisis brought on by the Mexican War and the Wilmot Proviso eluded two prior presidents and the Great Triumvirate. Millard helped resolve it in two months by shifting the focus from California to Texas and New Mexico. Imagine that.

Domestic Accomplishments: 35. So utterly stupid I am left speechless.

Integrity: 36. Ludicrous. Before, during and after his presidency, Millard was integrity personified. Even his political enemies realized that. Not a breath of a scandal ever attached itself to him or his administration.

Executive Ability: 38. In the context of the time, it's hard to know what to make of this category. On top of it, Millard was a Whig, and the Whigs prided themselves on legislative primacy. That said, Millard's appointment of Daniel Webster as Secretary of State, his ability to redirect the deliberations of Congress from California to Texas, and his willingness to throw down the gauntlet to Texas mark him as a first-rate executive.

Foreign Policy Accomplishments: 33. Japan's not bad.

Leadership Ability: 39. I can only shake my head. No, Millard did not lead in the style of Teddy Roosevelt. But his understated yet firm style fit perfectly the tenor of the time and the delicate situation in which he unexpectedly found himself.

Intelligence: 39. Again, I'd liken Millard to Abe. Both were smart enough to raise themselves out of rural poverty and establish themselves as leading men in their communities. There isn't a reason in the world that the intelligence ratings of the two men (Abe is rated no. 3) couldn't be reversed.

Avoid Crucial Mistakes: 30. His second-highest ranking, but still absurd. What mistakes did Millard make?

The famed historian David M. Potter concluded (and I have quoted this before) that "Fillmore settled a very inflamed crisis . . . with such adroitness and seeming ease that history has scarcely recognized the magnitude of his achievement." Unfortunately, these farcical presidential rankings suggest that Millard's skill does not fully explain his obscurity.

It's pretty clear that these rankings are deductive. The alleged experts decide up front who they like and who they don't - FDR great, for example. They then back into their conclusions by making up individual category rankings that even someone strung out on acid would recognize are insane - let's give FDR a "1" for his "Handling of U.S. Economy"!

In Millard's case, my guess is that it boils down to a visceral dislike of compromise and the Compromise of 1850 in particular. Millard shouldn't have compromised, he should have led the country into war and wiped slavery off the map! I've discussed before why we should be grateful that Millard was not so rash. The advantage of being an expert is that you don't have to worry about such subtleties.

More Proof That Most "Presidential Scholars" Are Idiots

Not that any is needed.

Professors rank President Obama 15th best president:

A new poll of leading presidential scholars ranks Barack Obama as the 15th best president of the United States, just below Bill Clinton but ahead of Ronald Reagan.

The Siena College poll, which surveyed 238 presidential scholars at U.S. colleges and universities, asked scholars to rate the nation’s 43 chief executives on 20 attributes ranging from legislative accomplishments to integrity and imagination.

In the overall ranking, Obama rated two places below Clinton, who was 13th best, and three better than Reagan, who is ranked as the 18th best.

***

Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, was ranked at number 23 in 2002 — the last time Siena’s presidential expert poll was conducted — but has since dropped to number 39, qualifying him as one of the five worst presidents. Bush came in at number 42 — second to last — on issues such as handling the U.S. economy, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. (Warren G. Harding was rated the least intelligent president).

Bush joins Harding, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, all of whom have consistently ranked as the worst presidents since the poll started, in the bottom five.

The chart showing the ccmplete rankings is here (pdf).

Confirming their utter cluelessness, the "238 presidential scholars" ranked Millard Fillmore no. 38 - ahead of only Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce and Dubya.