Best President of the Jacksonian Era, and Why?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Utah probably would have been a free state, not because the Mormons didn't want slaves, they didn't want blacks.

New Mexico probably would have had slavery under another name, peonage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At the time of the debate, IA and WI had just been added (1849 I beleive.), balancing out Texas and Florida providing for an evenly devided Senate once again. Any addition of a state or states that would result in the balance of the Senate being tipped against the South would have resulted in the South reacting with much hostility, threatening secession etc etc.  


PA, NJ, CT, MA, NH, NY, RI, VT, OH, IN, ILL, ME, MI, IA and WI (15 states, 30 Senators)

DE, GA, MD, SC, VA, NC, KY, TN, LA, AL, MS, MO, AR, FL and TX (15 States, 30 Senators)

Prior to 1850, the states had always been either evenly balanced or tilted toward the slave states, ensuring a Senate that was at the very least pro-status quo, which was by default pro-slavery. In the 1790's such wasn't the case, but some of the northern states had yet to abolish it or were in the process of implementing gradual abolishment like PA, the first of the 13 original colonies to abolish slavery in 1780. It was so gradual that the last slave died in the 1830's, still in bondage. Vermont abolished slavery in the 1770's.  The Senate was such an epicenter of contention because the House had already become heavily northern as exemplified by the passage of measures outright that conflicted with the south such as gradual abolition in MO in 1819 and the Wilmot Proviso in 1846.

Adding California, Utah and New Mexico would have meant adding two free and one slave state, which has the same impact on the Senate as just adding California. The south would scream bloody murder. If Taylor saw this as a solution to the controversy, he was more naive then I thought. From my interpretation of the events in question, he didn't really seek a solution to the controversy, just a resolution to the issue which prompted it. An issue which he saw in terms of expanding the nation, not maintaining precarious political balances.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Utah probably would have been a free state, not because the Mormons didn't want slaves, they didn't want blacks.

New Mexico probably would have had slavery under another name, peonage.

Of course, California was much the same. They didn't want blacks coming in and competing with the white miners, farmers etc etc. In many places abolition was motivated to a large degree by racism. Preventing competition from blacks was justification/motivation for people on both sides of the issue. The Irish and other working class groups tended to favor pro-slavery politicians and opposed abolitionists, as a means of keeping the blacks in the South and out of the North. One of the reasons Dred Scott did so much to shift Northern opinion and help Republicans in 1858 and 1860, was that no longer was preservation of slavery an insurance policy against such competition.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Taylor took it as axiomatic that the Federal government would never interfere in the peculiar institution in the States, so he saw Statehood for the territories as a way of ending the issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Taylor took it as axiomatic that the Federal government would never interfere in the peculiar institution in the States, so he saw Statehood for the territories as a way of ending the issue.

But he failed to account for the impact of adding states on the Senate and its balance and how the the South would react to losing that.

The only reason the status of territories mattered was because the South was concerned that a Federal ban like that which existed in the Northwest Ordinance, would ensure that the territories would choose free status by default upon statehood. The controversy always revolved around what choice would be made at statehood and how it affected the Senate. Making states prematurely would simply move the day of reckoning up, not resolve it.

I am beginning to think there is artificial disagreement here. All we are doing is layering more detail on without changing the underlying points. If Taylor took the position that making all the territorities in question states was the magic bullet, he missed the boat on what caused the South's objections. Even so, it doesn't alter what I said previously about his motivations. Slavery wasn't at the forefront of his thinking when it came to statehood and he viewed statehood from a perspective of expanding the nation, which he saw as positive. Such a position as you describe, only adds further weight to my point that he failed to appreciate the political impact and the cancerous effect of the slave debate on that political situation. It in no way contradicts that point. If I were to have included every last detail in my intial post, its primary purpose of correcting Snowstalker would have been lost as the post would have taken on book length.

[Dr. Cynic]

Taylor took it as axiomatic that the Federal government would never interfere in the peculiar institution in the States, so he saw Statehood for the territories as a way of ending the issue.

But he failed to account for the impact of adding states on the Senate and its balance and how the the South would react to losing that.

The only reason the status of territories mattered was because the South was concerned that a Federal ban like that which existed in the Northwest Ordinance, would ensure that the territories would choose free status by default upon statehood. The controversy always revolved around what choice would be made at statehood and how it affected the Senate. Making states prematurely would simply move the day of reckoning up, not resolve it.

I am beginning to think there is artificial disagreement here. All we are doing is layering more detail on without changing the underlying points. If Taylor took the position that making all the territorities in question states was the magic bullet, he missed the boat on what caused the South's objections. Even so, it doesn't alter what I said previously about his motivations. Slavery wasn't at the forefront of his thinking when it came to statehood and he viewed statehood from a perspective of expanding the nation, which he saw as positive. Such a position as you describe, only adds further weight to my point that he failed to appreciate the political impact and the cancerous effect of the slave debate on that political situation. It in no way contradicts that point. If I were to have included every last detail in my intial post, its primary purpose of correcting Snowstalker would have been lost as the post would have taken on book length.

To simplify... When the south threatened secession, Taylor had a very simple solution. "I'll hang 'em... And I might start with my son in law, Jefferson Davis". Clearly, he didn't support the south's view.

But to answer the question of the poll, Polk has to be considered the best President on the list. He accomplished everything he set out to do. He successfully led the Mexican War and negotiated successfully to keep us out of another war with Great Britain.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

John Tyler

[Rooney]

John Tyler

Tyler is a fairly good choice but as a Whig he has some terrible connotations to his legacy. The ones which stand out the most are the Tariff of 1842 (or the Black Tariff) and the unconstitutional way in which he and Calhoun managed to bring Texas into the union. He also extended the authority of the Monroe Doctrine to the Hawaiian Islands which paved the way to the eventual imperial annexation of the islands in 1899.

He is to be applauded for vetoing the National Bank Act, the the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, ending the bloody Seminole War and vetoing several harbor and naval improvement bills. President Tyler was far from a perfect classical liberal in office but he is far superior to all modern presidents in that regard. 

[Maxwell]

Jackson stood up to the banks and became the first president with no debt, so him.

Although John Tyler is a good runner up.