“Born in poverty, poorly educated, and utterly unsophisticated, Millard Fillmore is one of our most obscure presidents, and one of our worst.” Yikes. This is the opening sentence on the back cover of Paul Finkelman’s Fillmore biography, which is part of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s American Presidents Series. Schlesinger isn’t some nobody, his father is a “renowned” presidential historian and one of the first to come up with a presidential ranking list. Yet, this grade-school level garbage is what passes for historical research. “I don’t know who he is, so he must have sucked.” And you people wonder why I hate the professional historian class so much? This Presidents’ Day weekend let’s give Millard Fillmore a fair shot and examine him under a new lens.

13th President Millard Fillmore

Finkelman is correct in that Fillmore was born into poverty. His parents were tenant farmers in the Finger Lakes region of New York, and later, Millard became a clothmaker’s apprentice. Fillmore was basically a slave in all but name, which likely fueled the abolitionist sentiment of his adulthood. The only President who can make a case for growing up poorer than Fillmore is Andrew Johnson, who was also basically an indentured servant. Fillmore won’t be on Rushmore (rhyming unintentional) but he deserves credit for a real rags-to-riches story. 

Fillmore settled down in Buffalo, New York, becoming a schoolteacher and a lawyer. His political career began as a congressman, representing New York’s 32nd district. This is where he became affiliated with the growing Anti-Masonic party that was later incorporated into the national Whigs. The Anti-Masons were a western New York party that formed as a result of the disappearance and presumed murder of William Morgan, a former Mason who left freemasonry. The Anti-Masons presumed that Morgan was murdered in an effort to preserve the freemasons’ secrets, and the subsequent political party attracted anti-monarchical, anti-elitist and abolitionist types. They were a natural fit for the Whig movement, whose bête noire was “King” Andrew Jackson (also a Mason).

To this day, it still fascinates me that this wasn’t simply a kook political party that existed on the fringes, but one that actually had representation at the national level. The only contemporary example I can think of would be if after the Epstein stuff, there rose an “Anti-Ped—le” (I don’t want my site to get in trouble with that word) party that sent congressmen to D.C. It’s such a bizarre footnote in American history. The antebellum period is fascinating; I hate that it’s always presented as just “slavery vs. anti-slavery.” There are so many interesting things going on. Did I mention that I hate the professional historian class?

Fillmore becomes President when President Zachary Taylor dies on July 9th, 1850 (Fillmore was his V.P.). Fillmore may be a forgotten president, but he served for 74 more days than Gerald Ford did. There is enough on his resume to give him a fair evaluation. What kind of president was Millard Fillmore? And was he important?

Fillmore was a typical Whig. He supported the federally funded infrastructure programs of Henry Clay. He wanted to federally fund the Erie Canal, which is unconstitutional (funding should come from New York), but understandable coming from a Western New York politician. Fillmore also brings up an interesting conundrum when it comes to “do-nothing” Presidents.

The Government of the United States is a limited Government. It is confined to the exercise of powers expressly granted and such others as may be necessary for carrying those powers into effect; and it is at all times an especial duty to guard against any infringement on the just rights of the States.

This is good! But Fillmore doesn’t always hold himself to these standards. The conservatives that read this site, myself included, tend to like the “do-nothing” presidents like Calvin Coolidge. But “do-nothing” comes in many forms:

My opinions will be frankly expressed upon the leading subjects of legislation; and if–which I do not anticipate–any act should pass the two Houses of Congress which should appear to me unconstitutional, or an encroachment on the just powers of other departments, or with provisions hastily adopted and likely to produce consequences injurious and unforeseen, I should not shrink from the duty of returning it to you, with my reasons, for your further consideration.”

Here, Fillmore is placing good faith in Congress to pass Constitutional bills. He says he can veto unconstitutional bills, but probably won’t. This is the bad flavor of “do nothing.” The “do nothing” actions of a Calvin Coolidge were not really “do nothing.” Coolidge was a very active veto president. Do-nothing is good when it means that a President does not have a legislative agenda. Do-nothing is bad when it means the President lets Congress do whatever it wants. As a party Whig, Fillmore is inconsistent in this area.

Fillmore was an abolitionist, but he didn’t think that the Federal Government had any say in the matter outside of the territories. He did abolish the slave trade in Washington D.C. As V.P., he was instrumental in the debates that formed the Compromise of 1850, which he coincidentally inherited after the death of Taylor. Fillmore admitted California as a free state (which the people of California decided) but supported a stronger fugitive slave law. Fillmore also supports popular sovereignty on the slavery issue in the Utah and New Mexico territories. Was this constitutional? Hard to say. Fillmore is without a doubt right on California. But he’s giving territories powers that are normally reserved to actual states. Fillmore peacefully preserves the Union, but one can argue he’s merely pushing the problem down the road.

How was Fillmore’s foreign policy? This is where he gets spotty. From his inaugural address (first annual message to Congress):

Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for themselves, and they readily concede it to others.

This is good stuff and in the vein of George Washington. But Fillmore didn’t exactly practice what he preached. To Fillmore’s credit, he did take a neutral stance on Eastern Europe. Europe was undergoing a massive shift in political tides as a result of the proto-Marxist revolutions of 1848. But he supported American intervention in detaching Cuba from Spain, which becomes a problem towards the end of the 19th century. Fillmore also supported Hawaiin resistance to the French. His Hawaii policy wasn’t exactly interventionist, but it does foreshadow American expansion into the Pacific. Speaking of the Pacific, Fillmore’s most notable foreign policy objective was his approach to Japan.

Fillmore sent the Commodore Perry expedition to Japan in an effort to “modernize” the Japanese and open them to trade with the United States, and use “gunboat diplomacy” if the Japanese didn’t play ball. This doesn’t align with Fillmore’s statements on allowing nations to establish their own governments. As a result of this, the Japanese recognized that they needed to modernize their economy. Was Fillmore indirectly responsible for the Meiji Restoration of 1868? Can we trace the rise of Japanese nationalism/imperialism to Millard Fillmore?

I think that’s a bit of a stretch. If anything, the Japanese wanted to emulate Great Britain. Both nations had identical geographical limitations. And the British Empire of the 19th century was one of the most tightly run, economically efficient empires of all-time. All nations had a reason to be jealous of the 19th century British. Fillmore doesn’t deserve sole credit for modernizing Japan, but his efforts are not insignificant. Should the Japanese be more thankful for Millard Fillmore than we Americans are?

In summary, I believe that Fillmore was a decent American President. He didn’t always uphold his oath to defend the Constitution, but his blunders were miniscule in comparison to what Presidents do in the 20th and 21st centuries. I would crawl through broken glass to vote for a candidate like Fillmore today. Fillmore ran for President again in 1856 under the American Party, before fading into the obscurity that Finkelman mentions. He died in 1865.

As far as I know, there’s only one comprehensive biography on Fillmore, Robert Rayback’s 1959 effort. Finkelman’s garbage doesn’t count. Fillmore’s 1826 East Aurora, NY home is on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and can be visited by appointment only. There is a small sign out front, but other than that, it looks like an average house. If you live in the Buffalo, NY area, you may have driven past the house dozens of times and not known it was the home of our 13th President. I guess it’s only fitting that Fillmore’s humble beginnings are bookended by a humble legacy.

Is Fillmore important? I think so. He wasn’t a world-changer, but our policy with the Pacific and Asia largely begins with him. He made crucial decisions to preserve the Union peacefully. He won’t get a bobblehead figurine (although I’d probably buy one), he won’t get monuments in D.C., but he was an important figure in American history deserving of respect, not indifferent scorn from those that lack the intellectual curiosity.

So, next time you’re eating a chicken wing, visiting Niagara Falls, or watching the Bills blow another Super Bowl, fondly remember Buffalo, New York’s only contribution to the Presidency of the United States 🙂

More Presidents’ Day obscurity:

William Henry Harrison