Millard Fillmore’s Views on Slavery and the Union

johnbowe.info – Millard Fillmore, the 13th president of the United States, governed during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history. His presidency, from 1850 to 1853, was defined by intense national debate over the issue of slavery and its place in the Union. As a moderate political figure, Fillmore navigated the fraught relationship between the North and South, a time when tensions over slavery were at a boiling point. While he sought to preserve the Union, his views and actions regarding slavery contributed to the growing rift between the sections that would ultimately lead to the Civil War. This article examines Fillmore’s views on slavery, the Union, and his legacy in the broader context of antebellum America.

Fillmore’s Early Views and Political Background

A Moderate in an Era of Division

Millard Fillmore’s political career began as a member of the Whig Party, which, at the time, was a moderate political party that straddled the divide between the growing abolitionist sentiment in the North and the pro-slavery interests in the South. Born in New York in 1800, Fillmore’s early life was shaped by a strong work ethic and a commitment to self-improvement. He entered politics as a representative in the New York State Assembly and later as a member of Congress. Over time, Fillmore became known for his pragmatic and cautious political style. He was neither an ardent abolitionist nor a staunch defender of slavery, but rather a political figure who sought to maintain peace and unity in a nation increasingly torn by sectional strife.

As the nation expanded westward and acquired new territories, the question of whether slavery would be permitted in those territories grew more pressing. Fillmore’s views on slavery were influenced by his desire to preserve the Union at all costs. He believed that compromise was essential to maintaining peace between the North and South, and he hoped that careful negotiation could prevent the country from descending into civil war. His moderate stance on slavery would be tested during his presidency, particularly in relation to the Compromise of 1850.

The Compromise of 1850 and Fillmore’s Role

A Nation on the Brink of Crisis

By the time Fillmore assumed the presidency in 1850, the United States was on the brink of crisis. The admission of California as a free state, along with the new territories gained from the Mexican-American War, raised the contentious question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into these regions. The existing Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had established a line dividing free and slave territories, was no longer sufficient to address the needs of the growing nation. With the political balance between free and slave states at stake, the country was deeply divided along sectional lines.

As president, Fillmore inherited this crisis when his predecessor, Zachary Taylor, died unexpectedly in July 1850. Taylor had been an opponent of the expansion of slavery into the territories, and his sudden death left a vacuum in leadership. Fillmore, who was vice president at the time, assumed the presidency at a critical moment.

The Role of the Compromise of 1850

To address the growing tensions, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky introduced the Compromise of 1850, a series of legislative measures designed to ease the conflict between the North and South. The Compromise sought to resolve several key issues:

California’s Admission as a Free State: California would be admitted as a free state, tipping the balance of power in the Senate toward the North.
Popular Sovereignty in New Territories: The territories of Utah and New Mexico would be organized with the question of slavery left to the settlers of those regions through popular sovereignty—that is, allowing the people to decide whether to allow slavery.
Stronger Fugitive Slave Laws: A new, stricter Fugitive Slave Law would require that runaway slaves be returned to their owners, even from free states.
Abolition of the Slave Trade in Washington, D.C.: While slavery itself would remain legal in the nation’s capital, the trade of enslaved people would be abolished.
Texas and New Mexico: The boundary dispute between Texas and New Mexico would be settled, with Texas relinquishing some of its land in exchange for federal compensation.

While many Northern politicians opposed the provisions relating to slavery, especially the Fugitive Slave Law, Fillmore supported the compromise, believing it was the only viable solution to prevent disunion.

Fillmore’s Support for the Compromise

Millard Fillmore’s support for the Compromise of 1850 was rooted in his belief that the preservation of the Union was paramount. He recognized that the nation was deeply divided over the issue of slavery, but he also understood the importance of maintaining political stability. Fillmore worked with members of both parties to secure passage of the measures in Congress, and once they passed, he signed them into law.

Fillmore’s support for the Fugitive Slave Law, which required the return of escaped slaves to their owners, was particularly controversial. Many Northern abolitionists and free blacks opposed the law, viewing it as a moral compromise that violated the rights of individuals. The law sparked fierce protests and led to civil disobedience, particularly in Northern states. It also led to the personal liberty laws, passed by Northern states to obstruct the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Fillmore, however, argued that the compromise was essential for preserving the Union. He viewed the Fugitive Slave Law as a necessary concession to the South, which had threatened to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. His support for the law was politically expedient but morally troubling for many of his Northern supporters.

Slavery and the Politics of Sectionalism

The Growing Divide Between North and South

While Fillmore’s presidency sought to address the question of slavery through compromise, it also highlighted the growing sectionalism that was dividing the nation. The Fugitive Slave Law, in particular, galvanized Northern abolitionists and anti-slavery activists, who viewed the law as a betrayal of the moral principles on which the nation had been founded. The law’s passage deepened the rift between North and South and contributed to the rise of the Republican Party, which was founded in the mid-1850s in opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories.

In the South, Fillmore’s willingness to compromise on slavery was seen as a necessary step in preserving Southern interests. However, Southern leaders also became increasingly vocal in their demands for the protection of slavery as an institution. As the debate over slavery continued, Southern states began to consider the possibility of secession, and the political landscape grew more polarized.

Fillmore’s Position on Secession

As tensions escalated, Fillmore remained committed to the preservation of the Union. He believed that secession was an illegal and dangerous response to political disagreements. However, while Fillmore expressed a desire to prevent the breakup of the Union, his actions were not sufficient to quell the growing discontent in the South. He did not take decisive action to address the underlying issues of slavery and states’ rights, and as a result, the nation continued its drift toward civil war.

In the 1852 election, Fillmore was not the Whig candidate for re-election, and he was replaced by Franklin Pierce, a Democrat who continued the policies of compromise with the South. Fillmore’s failure to prevent the deepening sectional divide contributed to the eventual collapse of the Whig Party and the rise of the Republican Party.

Millard Fillmore’s Legacy on Slavery and the Union

A Complicated Legacy

Millard Fillmore’s views on slavery and the Union are often regarded as emblematic of the moderate, pragmatic political style that characterized much of the antebellum era. While he sought to balance the demands of both the North and South, his support for the Compromise of 1850 and its accompanying Fugitive Slave Law alienated many in the North and did little to quell the South’s demands for the protection and expansion of slavery.

Fillmore’s presidency was marked by a series of compromises, but these compromises ultimately failed to resolve the underlying issues of slavery and sectionalism. His inability to decisively address the growing divide between the North and South is one of the key reasons why his presidency is often viewed as ineffective in preventing the Civil War.

The Road to Civil War

Although Fillmore’s actions temporarily delayed the onset of conflict, his presidency is often seen as a precursor to the Civil War. The issues of slavery and the Union would remain unresolved and continue to simmer until they eventually exploded into violent conflict in 1861. Fillmore’s efforts to maintain peace through compromise, while well-intentioned, were insufficient to address the deep moral and political divides that had formed over the issue of slavery.

Conclusion

Millard Fillmore’s views on slavery and the Union were shaped by his desire to preserve the nation at all costs. His moderate stance and his support for the Compromise of 1850 reflected his belief that the Union could only survive through compromise and negotiation. However, his presidency highlighted the deepening sectionalism in the country, and his actions did little to resolve the issues that would eventually lead to the Civil War. Fillmore’s legacy on slavery is one of compromise and pragmatism, but it is also one of missed opportunities and a failure to prevent the nation’s descent into conflict. His presidency serves as a reminder of the difficulty of navigating the complex and divisive issues of slavery in antebellum America.