Milliard fillmore is the most obscure president easy!!!
who’s ever heard of him?
Ah-ha! I knew I had read about this somewhere. For those people dedicated to preserving Millard Fillmore as a bastion of the American presidency, maybe SDMB members should consider re-starting the Millard Fillmore Society.
See this {http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_107.html) for more details.
My apologies if this has already been mentioned in this thread.
My, you are a rube. Sure, I could see the president saying, “Oh, that’s because I sleep with men.” :rolleyes: Yes, he courted a young woman, but IIRC she committed suicide under mysterious circumstances, and it has long been assumed that it was because of Buchanan’s orientation.
However, Buchanan did have a 20-year live-in companion - William Rufus DeVane King, Vice President under Buchanan’s predecessor, Franklin Pierce. To quote http://www.xpn.org:
A curious thing - when Buchanan died, he had left instructions that certain papers in his possession were to be publicly disclosed. However, upon his death and the examining of his papers (and before they opened that safety deposit box with the above-mentioned papers), another document was found in Buchanan’s handwriting that reversed the previous and said to burn the papers without reading them, which is what his executors did. Rumors that they revealed the true reason for his fiancee’s suicide were prevalent, but no one will ever know for sure.
Obviously you have, if you’re mentioning him. :rolleyes: (This is why I went with Benjamin Harrison - I had never even heard of him before this thread.)
Esprix
I think Cecil did this already, but since you were too lazy to look it up, and I was too lazy as well, here’s a synopsis of John Hanson, and why he is definately NOT the first president of the U.S.
He was the first presiding officer of the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, which was more of a treaty than a constitution. Hanson did not act as an executive officer or head of state in any sense of the word, indeed NONE of the presidents of the CC did. The Articles of Confederation were no more a national “constitution” than is the Maastrict Treaty a consitution of a European nation. It was mainly a series of loose agreements on common defense and trade between the states, which largely acted as independent nations on their own. When the constitutional Convention was called to Philadelphia, most states had assumed that the people were being sent to renegotiate the treaty of association between the states, NOT to forge a new nation. Indeed, it took threat of invasion to force Rhode Island to ratify the document and join the Union, since it thought of itself as an independent state. So, really, there was no U.S. “nation” before The Constitution itself, and there was also no Chief Executive of the collective states.
George Washington was indeed the first President.
Oh, and re: the Buchannan Debate:
I always thought it was common knowledge that he was gay. Maybe it’s because my middle school U.S. History teacher used to refer to him as “our only ::wink wink:: bachelor president” sort of gave it away for me. Hey, every country has to have at least 1 gay head of state, (England’s James I, France’s Henri III, etc.) so why not Buchannan? Can you imagine having a gay president nowadays? It’d never happen. If you think people get upset over Monica Lewinski, think what they’d say about a Marvin Lewinski…
Thanks for remedying my ignorance, Olentzero. I knew, of course, that the Federal and state governments had played an active role in union-busting during the first few decades of the 20th century, but I didn’t know it had been going on long before that. Funny how that stuff isn’t in the history books. 
I hate to throw a monkey wrench into your Buchanan-was-gay fantasy, Esprix; but did you know that Mr. King was Pierce’s vice-president–but wasn’t even in the United States when Pierce was inaugurated in Wadshington? He was in Havana, and was sworn in there. He died about two months later. So by the time “Old Buck” was inaugurated, King had been dead for four years!
Before you call me “rube,” please give me credit for having access to historical sources same as you do…
You did! :rolleyes:
dougie_montie said:
What does that have to do with anything? The allegation was that during the 20 years in which they shared rooms Buchanan and King had a gay relationship. The fact that King died soon after he became VP and before Buchanan was elected prez obviously has no bearing on what happened during the preceding 20 years- I can’t see how the facts you cite could be the basis of refuting the allegation. Clearly no eyewitness report has surfaced to definitely prove the allegation , but it is a fact that contemporary Washington gossips did refer to King as Mrs. Buchanan.
This guy must be obscure, because there is no mention of him yet: Franklin Pierce, from 1853-57, and only President from New Jersey.
You can read about him here.
Cap: I agree that Franklin Pierce should be near top (or on top) of this list.
But don’t you mean that FP was the only prez from New Hampshire, not New Jersey?
Wilson, while a Virginian by birth, is usually associated with NJ. He was President of Princeton and also the Governor.
The appearance of the word “gossips” appears in your response tells me all I need to know. I hesitate to accept something that sounds like the source was the National Enquirer or Buzz magazine; I’m funny that way.
More to the point, I’ve noticed how many alleged exposes have surfaced during and after Reagan’s term as president; it seems that the Republicans are zealously dedicdated to labeling all Democratic presidents, past and present, as sexuaally promiscuous or deviate is some way. Nary a word about Brinkmanship (Eisenhower), Watergate (Nixon), The Iran-Contra affair (Reagan), or “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” (you remember.) Nor do we hear about Crédit Mobilier (Grant), the Trusts (Benjamin Harrison, McKinley, Taft), or Teapot Dome (Harding). No, what we get is the kind of mudsligining which has no historical objectivity or value–except to party politicians trying to sell an allegedly guillible electorate on voting for their candidate by portraying the opposing party as historically sexually immoral. (Sorry about the rant, but I just had get this off my chest.)
Dougie- are you serious? You think the allegation that Buchanan may have been gay is part of some vast rightwing Republican conspiracy? As if today’s Democrats (such as myself) give a crap about the reputation of some mid 19th century pro-slavery, doughface political hack. And I’m surprised you didn’t add the accounts of Thomas Jefferson’s affair with Sally Hemmings to your rant about the “smearing” of Democratic presidents
If you reread what I posted you will see that I haven’t claimed there is irrefutable evidence Buchanan was gay, but there were certainly circumstances which could lead to such speculation. However, you do not argue that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion- rather you have stated the unequivocal conclusion “James Buchanan was gay- No way.”
As evidence to support that definitive conclusion you cite, what are IMHO, two facts laughable in their inadequacy. I’ve got no particular ax to grind on this issue- but if you’re going to present an argument for your position I’d like to see some persuasive facts. And just because it was gossips that said something, does not automatically prove that the opposite must have been true.
Obviously you didn’t read about him too closely. Pierce was from New Hampshire, not New Jersey - as was stated quite clearly by yours truly earlier in this thread. 
stuyguy wrote:
And 4. He’s on the dollar coin!
Well, he was, from 1971-1978 anyway.
Let me put it this way: in Melvin Belli’s book Ready for the Plaintiff, he noted that in 1916 a writer in Washington State refuted the George Washintgon cherry-tree story (which I will not discuss here), among other things. The writer wound up facing criminal charges, and, losing an appeal, went to jail!
The point is, as I see it, you bear the burden of proof making such a rash claim about Buchanan. YOU must show evidence; by dint of the criminal-libel precept Belli alluded to, I bear no burden of proof.
As for Jefferson, please note what I said about him in my first posting in this thread.
Libel law is not the standard by which historical research is conducted.
While others in this thread may have said that Buchanan and King were gay, my position is not as clear cut. What I have said is that there is evidence that- (1)many of their contemporaries strongly suspected they were gay; and (2)there were circumstances which could lead someone today to suspect those contemporaries were right.
Now, if your position is only that the suspicion is not confirmed by any solid proof, then I agree with you. However, what I interpreted from your earlier post was that you were making the definite statement that Buchanan was not gay.
If that is in fact the case, then you are making a positive assertion regarding a historical fact, and as such, the burden of proof does shift to you.
Sorry, but I don’t see it that way. A “strong suspicion” does not pass muster as acceptable evidence. (I used to know a local historian in Redondo Beach, CA, and gleaned some notions from her about historical data.)