The life of a modern left-handed democrat.
Part 12 of My Presidential Review Series
Published on April 5, 2005 By NJforever In History


The next president up is Zachary Taylor. Taylor was the second president to die in office; the first to die in office but actually do something. After him, there was no president from the Deep South again until Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976. He was one of only 4 presidents to serve in the Whig party. Taylor owed his election to the 3rd-party bid of Martin Van Buren, who drew enough anti-slavery Democrats from Democratic nominee Lewis Cass to give the election to Taylor. He served March 5, 1849 to July 9, 1850.

The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was drawn up by Secretary of State John M. Clayton and Henry Lytton Bulwer, minister to the U.S. It stated that: any canal constructed across Central America was to be neutral, with neither government exercising absolute control; neither country was to build or maintain fortifications in the canal zone; neither country was to "occupy, fortify, or colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion over...any part of Central America." The last part was deliberately vague, and as such drew criticism, which claimed that it allowed the British to continue dominion over Honduras and other established colonies. The British government had, in fact, interpreted it to mean they only could not colonize further. Taylor, however, saw it as a ban on all colonization, past and future.

The long-standing claim against the U.S. by the Galphin family of Georgia had been paid before Taylor took office, but the family then pressed for $191,000 in interest. Treasury Secretary William M. Meredith, taking the advice of Attorney General Reverdy Johnson, paid the Galphin family. During the time that the matter was under consideration, War Secretary George W. Crawford failed to mention that he represented the Galphin family and stood to receive half of everything paid to them. When news of this leaked to the public, a hailstorm of criticism followed. Taylor, Meredith, and Johnson denied knowing this, the opposition charged conflict of interest and threatened impeachment. Taylor decided to reorganize his Cabinet, but died before replacing anyone.

Although a slaveholder and elected with Southern support, Taylor opposed the extension of slavery. He came out against the Compromise of 1850, spurning the pro-slavery parts of it. He supported the admission of California as a free state to the Union, though. Taylor made it perfectly clear that he would veto the bill if it were passed. The only thing that prevented its veto was the sudden death of Taylor and the accession of the pro-compromise Millard Fillmore.

Taylor did little during his presidency. He might have done more, but his term was cut short by his sudden death. It is a bad thing he died; the Compromise of 1850 was passed by Millard Fillmore, something I oppose not only because of the modern beliefs I hold, but because the pro-slavery parts were impractical even for the time. But that's for another review. Taylor pretty much did nothing, and will be remembered as such.

Overall Ranking: 33

"For more than half a century, during which kingdoms and empires have fallen, this Union has stood unshaken. The patriots who formed it have long since descended to the grave; yet it still remains, the proudest monument to their memory...In my judgement, its dissolution would be the greatest of calamities...Upon its preservation must depend our own happiness and that of countless generations to come. Whatever dangers may threaten it, I shall stand by it and maintain it in its integrity to the full extent of the obligations imposed and the power conferred upon me by the Constitution."

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 08, 2005
Damn it, you've been busy since I last checked! A great history lesson for a foreigner like me.
on Apr 08, 2005
Damn it, you've been busy since I last checked!


Heh, sorry. If it's any consolation, production has stalled for a couple of days. Maybe I'll write one tonight.

A great history lesson for a foreigner like me.


Thanks. Educating the few masses who read them was my intent with these.
on Apr 08, 2005
Dr. Guy, I thought I debunked your romantic notion that history is the result of the actions of great men. No one man can be "great", as it takes a village, a collective will to accomplish anything that can be considered as great. Dr. King and Gandhi- men who accomplished more than any general- are naturally exceptions to the proposition that suppossed "great men" merely ride the tide of history. This is especially so of white-males who are not billionaires.
on Apr 08, 2005
Dr. Guy, I thought I debunked your romantic notion that history is the result of the actions of great men. No one man can be "great", as it takes a village, a collective will to accomplish anything that can be considered as great. Dr. King and Gandhi- men who accomplished more than any general- are naturally exceptions to the proposition that suppossed "great men" merely ride the tide of history. This is especially so of white-males who are not billionaires.


In case you didn't notice, I'm the one who writes these. Again, presidents can only be put into power by the collective will of the nation. However, as they are the ones who get things done, they can be great. And believe it or not, history IS the result of the actions of great men. Very often you will find the decision of one man drastically changed history. One man's existence has often changed the course of history.
on Apr 08, 2005
What is the basis for the white-male superiority complex? First, as athletes they rank at the bottom. Furthermore, as a group they are responsible for most of the horrors that have occurred throughout history. They will not even apologize for the considerable pain and suffering that they have caused minorities and women. Bill Clinton is probably the only white male who is not a flat out hypocrite. As a good Christian, Bill came clean when he asked for forgiveness. All white males would do well to follow in Bill's footsteps in light of the exemplary life he has led. Dr. Miller knows what I am saying.
on Apr 08, 2005
What is the basis for the white-male superiority complex? First, as athletes they are rank at the bottom. Furthermore, as a group they are responsible for most of the horrors that have occurred throughout history. They will not even apologize for the considerable pain and suffering that they have caused minorities and women. Bill Clinton is probably the only white male who is not a flat out hypocrite. As a good Christian, Bill came clean when he asked for forgiveness. All white males would do well to follow in Bill's footsteps in light of the exemplary life he has led.
on Apr 08, 2005
What is the basis for the white-male superiority complex? First, as athletes they rank at the bottom. Furthermore, as a group they are responsible for most of the horrors that have occurred throughout history. They will not even apologize for the considerable pain and suffering that they have caused minorities and women. Bill Clinton is probably the only white male who is not a flat out hypocrite. As a good Christian, Bill came clean when he asked for forgiveness. All white males would do well to follow in Bill's footsteps in light of the exemplary life he has led. Dr. Miller knows what I am saying.


Why did you suddenly start talking about white-males? When were white-males brought into this? Any person from any group can be great. If you are being very specific about what I said, by "man" I meant human. Happy?
on Apr 08, 2005
I sees a troll!
on Apr 10, 2005
Ok, Answer Latour. he did say that REAGAN WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT ()


NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! That was taken out of context! I read Noam Chomsky, for crying out loud!
on Apr 10, 2005
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! That was taken out of context! I read Noam Chomsky, for crying out loud!


Hehe. Calm down there Latour.

Truth be told, after reading up more on Reagan, my attitude towards him has cooled somewhat.
2 Pages1 2