What do you think?
Rate this book
Franklin Pierce #1
Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire's Favorite Son
Biography of Franklin Pierce, New Hampshire native and 14th president of the United States. Volume covers Pierce to the night of his inauguration.
321 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2004
2 people are currently reading
1030 people want to read
About the author
Peter A. Wallner
3 books1 followerPeter Wallner was formerly the library director for the New Hampshire Historical Society. He earned a B.A. from Waynesburg College, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in American history from the Pennsylvania State University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
February 21, 2022
one time, a drunken man threw an egg at franklin pierce...
July 24, 2017
Well-researched if perhaps overly complimentary, this book does a good job of answering one of the questions that most interests me about presidents: why were they elected in the first place?
Pierce is presented as a moderate in this book, who was looking constantly for a way to secure first and foremost, union. I think it's a little difficult to maintain that that was his only and unwavering goal, but if Pierce was anything, he was a party man. For the Democratic party in the 1840s and 50s, that meant he abhorred abolitionism for its 'threat to union'. In practice what this meant is supporting slave-states and slave owner rights. Pierce wasn't an unlikable guy, though, and while undistinguished as a senator served his party well in New Hampshire, and had strong beliefs around religious freedom that were notable at the time due to rampant nativist and anti-catholic feeling.
Like Polk, Pierce gave lip service to the whole "I didn't want to be president, just waited until called" while managing an underground of supporters and political wizardry to make himself the compromise candidate for the presidency. He is also a very tragic figure, when his only surviving son dies mere weeks away from his inauguration. This book does much to rescue him from obscurity, which I love. A good part of my interest is knowing that really, people don't 'accidentally' become president. They are in the position just to be nominees for a reason, and Pierce is no exception.
Now on to the next book - "Martyr for the Union" - an unambiguously titled sequel to this book. I fully recommend at least this first book as a full and fairly detailed reading of Pierce's pre-presidential life (as well as democratic politics in the Northern states as we approached civil war).
Pierce is presented as a moderate in this book, who was looking constantly for a way to secure first and foremost, union. I think it's a little difficult to maintain that that was his only and unwavering goal, but if Pierce was anything, he was a party man. For the Democratic party in the 1840s and 50s, that meant he abhorred abolitionism for its 'threat to union'. In practice what this meant is supporting slave-states and slave owner rights. Pierce wasn't an unlikable guy, though, and while undistinguished as a senator served his party well in New Hampshire, and had strong beliefs around religious freedom that were notable at the time due to rampant nativist and anti-catholic feeling.
Like Polk, Pierce gave lip service to the whole "I didn't want to be president, just waited until called" while managing an underground of supporters and political wizardry to make himself the compromise candidate for the presidency. He is also a very tragic figure, when his only surviving son dies mere weeks away from his inauguration. This book does much to rescue him from obscurity, which I love. A good part of my interest is knowing that really, people don't 'accidentally' become president. They are in the position just to be nominees for a reason, and Pierce is no exception.
Now on to the next book - "Martyr for the Union" - an unambiguously titled sequel to this book. I fully recommend at least this first book as a full and fairly detailed reading of Pierce's pre-presidential life (as well as democratic politics in the Northern states as we approached civil war).
November 3, 2021
Roy Nichols’ classic Franklin Pierce biography Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills, and this first volume of Peter Wallner’s more recent two-volume biography, are a perfect example of how two people can look at the very same evidence and come to very different conclusions.
Nichols was, ultimately, sympathetic to Pierce but largely characterized him as an undistinguished local politician who found himself in over his head as president. Wallner, in contrast, pushes back against the conventional view of Pierce as "an amiable nonentity who had no business being president."
They both cover the same ground as they tell the story of Pierce’s rise to prominence. But while Wallner focuses on what Pierce accomplished, Nichols also points out what he didn’t. Wallner liberally quotes Pierce’s admirers; Nichols quotes many of his critics. So their conclusions are colored by the way they tell their stories.
So which one is right? Well, Wallner often seems to have to stretch in order to put a more positive spin on things. Nichols is somewhat dismissive of Pierce’s unremarkable Congressional career, scoffing that his lasting legacy was "several hundred reports on individual pension cases," while Wallner defensively and almost laughably counters that Pierce’s low-key committee work "undoubtedly saved the treasury thousands of dollars by his careful scrutinizing of applications for military pensions.” Later, Wallner really lays it on thick in assessing Pierce’s legal career: "his attractiveness, both his physical appearance and his personality, were important assets in the courtroom... his pleasant voice was finely modulated to every exigency of legal argument... the charisma that Pierce exuded caused every eye in the courtroom to be constantly on him."
But Nichols’ 80-year-old book is dated in style and dull in stretches, while Wallner is a much stronger storyteller and more astute in his analysis of Pierce’s relationships and his motives behind his actions. Wallner points out that Pierce was an amiable and well-liked individual, but was so devoted to party and principles that his personal relationships sometimes suffered, as he fell out with friends who ended up diverging with him politically. Wallner offers a good analysis of Pierce’s unlikely marriage with the withdrawn, pious and sickly Jane - opposites attract, he concludes, as each believed the other compensated for their weaknesses. And besides, “neither was getting any younger” at the time of their marriage. There’s also a detailed discussion of the enduring and seemingly improbable friendship between Pierce and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and how he and Pierce’s more exuberant friends “reluctantly accept(ed) the morose Jane as an unfortunate appendage to their charming companion."
Wallner also offers more context of the broader issues facing the country, even if Pierce was not directly involved. And as the narrative moves toward Pierce’s nomination and election as president, Wallner provides an excellent description of how that nomination came to be, how the election was won, and how the tragic death of the Pierces’ son Benny affected both Pierces in the busy months before the inauguration.
The book ends with the very beginning of Pierce’s presidency, and ably tees up volume two. I first read both volumes many years ago, and came away from volume one fairly convinced by Wallner’s revisionist view that Pierce was actually a pretty effective and accomplished politician who was a deserving, if unlikely, choice for president. Upon my second reading, I’m somewhat more skeptical of this viewpoint. Pierce was one of those antebellum presidents who were nominated and elected because of - and not in spite of - the fact that they didn’t have distinguished resumes and were largely blank slates.
This is four-star writing, but I had to knock it down to three for not providing a fuller picture of Pierce that more adequately addresses the legitimate criticism of his pre-presidential actions and inaction. Wallner does acknowledge at the end that Pierce was not a standout politician, but credits him for being strong in his convictions, and for his belief in the Constitution and in compromise to keep the Union intact. As we head into volume two on Pierce’s presidency, where the increasingly rancorous debates over slavery play a central role, Wallner observes that, to Pierce, "emancipation was not practical, possible, or constitutional, regardless of the moral issue involved," and "slavery was the price, a regrettable one to be sure, that the people must pay for their safety, their prosperity, and their freedom." Wallner certainly tries, but there’s simply not a great way to put a positive spin on that.
Nichols was, ultimately, sympathetic to Pierce but largely characterized him as an undistinguished local politician who found himself in over his head as president. Wallner, in contrast, pushes back against the conventional view of Pierce as "an amiable nonentity who had no business being president."
They both cover the same ground as they tell the story of Pierce’s rise to prominence. But while Wallner focuses on what Pierce accomplished, Nichols also points out what he didn’t. Wallner liberally quotes Pierce’s admirers; Nichols quotes many of his critics. So their conclusions are colored by the way they tell their stories.
So which one is right? Well, Wallner often seems to have to stretch in order to put a more positive spin on things. Nichols is somewhat dismissive of Pierce’s unremarkable Congressional career, scoffing that his lasting legacy was "several hundred reports on individual pension cases," while Wallner defensively and almost laughably counters that Pierce’s low-key committee work "undoubtedly saved the treasury thousands of dollars by his careful scrutinizing of applications for military pensions.” Later, Wallner really lays it on thick in assessing Pierce’s legal career: "his attractiveness, both his physical appearance and his personality, were important assets in the courtroom... his pleasant voice was finely modulated to every exigency of legal argument... the charisma that Pierce exuded caused every eye in the courtroom to be constantly on him."
But Nichols’ 80-year-old book is dated in style and dull in stretches, while Wallner is a much stronger storyteller and more astute in his analysis of Pierce’s relationships and his motives behind his actions. Wallner points out that Pierce was an amiable and well-liked individual, but was so devoted to party and principles that his personal relationships sometimes suffered, as he fell out with friends who ended up diverging with him politically. Wallner offers a good analysis of Pierce’s unlikely marriage with the withdrawn, pious and sickly Jane - opposites attract, he concludes, as each believed the other compensated for their weaknesses. And besides, “neither was getting any younger” at the time of their marriage. There’s also a detailed discussion of the enduring and seemingly improbable friendship between Pierce and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and how he and Pierce’s more exuberant friends “reluctantly accept(ed) the morose Jane as an unfortunate appendage to their charming companion."
Wallner also offers more context of the broader issues facing the country, even if Pierce was not directly involved. And as the narrative moves toward Pierce’s nomination and election as president, Wallner provides an excellent description of how that nomination came to be, how the election was won, and how the tragic death of the Pierces’ son Benny affected both Pierces in the busy months before the inauguration.
The book ends with the very beginning of Pierce’s presidency, and ably tees up volume two. I first read both volumes many years ago, and came away from volume one fairly convinced by Wallner’s revisionist view that Pierce was actually a pretty effective and accomplished politician who was a deserving, if unlikely, choice for president. Upon my second reading, I’m somewhat more skeptical of this viewpoint. Pierce was one of those antebellum presidents who were nominated and elected because of - and not in spite of - the fact that they didn’t have distinguished resumes and were largely blank slates.
This is four-star writing, but I had to knock it down to three for not providing a fuller picture of Pierce that more adequately addresses the legitimate criticism of his pre-presidential actions and inaction. Wallner does acknowledge at the end that Pierce was not a standout politician, but credits him for being strong in his convictions, and for his belief in the Constitution and in compromise to keep the Union intact. As we head into volume two on Pierce’s presidency, where the increasingly rancorous debates over slavery play a central role, Wallner observes that, to Pierce, "emancipation was not practical, possible, or constitutional, regardless of the moral issue involved," and "slavery was the price, a regrettable one to be sure, that the people must pay for their safety, their prosperity, and their freedom." Wallner certainly tries, but there’s simply not a great way to put a positive spin on that.
August 2, 2025
As American presidents recede into the past, the degree to which they are remembered by the public is contingent upon the retrospective judgments about the benefits of their contribution to our nation. While ones such as Washington, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts are regularly celebrated, the more regrettable ones fall into obscurity. Why dwell on Warren Harding’s regrettable tenure, when we can focus instead on Dwight Eisenhower’s accomplishments? Is there any pride to be found in Andrew Johnson’s lamentable time in the Oval Office?
Among the chief executives who languish in this void of public memory is Franklin Pierce. Known if at all for his failed leadership in the ongoing political crisis of the 1850s that resulted in the bloodiest war in American history, Pierce is not ranked today among the country’s better presidents and has been largely neglected because of it. Whereas his more esteemed counterparts enjoy a steady stream of attention from biographers, throughout most of the twentieth century readers who wished to learn about Pierce’s life and career had only Roy Nichols’s venerable 1931 biography to turn. Peter Wallner’s offers a generous assessment of it in the introduction to this book, claiming that the need for a new biography of Pierce is necessary not because of any failings on its part but because of the decades of subsequent scholarship on the era, which has vastly expanded our knowledge of antebellum America and the events that led to the Civil War.
This is all well and true, yet the question remains whether a two-volume work is warranted. This Wallner also justifies by arguing that separating Pierce from his presidency allows us to make an assessment of him as a person separately from his time in the White House. Here the author tips his hand, as he explains in his introduction that his goal is not to bury Pierce, but to praise him “as a caring, honest, dedicated nationalist and public servant who understood many of the forces at work in his nation and his state and who tried to steer a course that benefited his constituents, his political party, and the nation.” Such intentions for a president are indeed laudable, and the same anodyne objectives could undoubtedly be claimed for just about every other person who preceded and succeeded Pierce in his office. But how did Pierce understand the issues he faced and in what ways did he seek to achieve these goals?
Wallner sees Pierce’s unionism as paramount. The source for this was Franklin Pierce’s father, Benjamin, a formidable figure whom the author credits as being the foremost influence on the young man’s life. A Revolutionary War veteran, Benjamin Pierce became one of his state’s leading figures after the war, serving in several public offices while maintaining a farm and a tavern in Hillsborough. Appreciating the value of education, the elder Pierce ensured that “Frank” enjoyed the fullest opportunities for an education, including four years at Bowdoin College where he met some of the future political and cultural leaders of his generation. Affable and outgoing, Frank made friends easily among the small student body, and overcame early academic difficulties resulting from the neglect of his studies to graduate near the top of his class.
Upon his return to Hillsborough Pierce began studying with a judge in preparation for a career as a lawyer. The pull of politics quickly drew in Pierce, however, as little more than a year after passing the bar he was elected to the state legislature as a member of the emerging Democratic Party. From there his rise was nothing short of meteoric: speaker of the state House, then election to the federal House of Representatives for three terms before his selection by the New Hampshire legislature as one of his state’s senators at just 32 years of age. Pierce benefited throughout both from his family’s name and the Democratic Party’s dominance in state politics. So long as it was united, the party’s nomination was tantamount to winning the election, a circumstance which fostered in Pierce the prioritization of party unity over all else.
This led Pierce to view the budding antislavery movement in his state with alarm. Here Wallner adopts his subject’s treatment of moderate antislavery sentiment as an abolitionist-driven militancy that threatened not just to the party’s unity, but to the Union itself. By framing the slavery issue in more polarizing terms than was warranted in the 1830s and 1840s, Wallner presents the politics of the matter in a misleading way while glossing over Pierce’s moral calculus during this period. And while he maintains that Pierce was no fan of the institution, Wallner leaves out how his strident support for Southern initiatives to advance slavery, although offered in the interests of party unity, effectively made his positions on the subject indistinguishable from his slaveholding colleagues.
In the short term, Pierce succeeded in stifling antislavery elements within his state’s party, albeit at the cost of a few electoral losses at the hands of a temporary alliance between dissident Democrats and the minority Whig organization. These efforts did not go unrecognized by Southerners. Though his service in the Mexican War was less heroic than Pierce had hoped, during his time in Mexico he made friends with several Southern politicians who had also put on the uniform for the duration. And in the wake of the Whigs’ victory in the 1848 presidential election, various party leaders began planning possible tickets for the next presidential election. As a proslavery Northern “doughface” personally familiar to many Southern leaders, Pierce featured prominently in many of their calculations as a potential vice-presidential nominee. His own sights were higher, though, as he plotted with friends to position himself as a compromise choice in a deadlocked convention. When no candidate could win the required supermajority of delegates, a perfectly timed intervention created a stampede for Pierce that won him the nomination.
Thanks to the solid support of his party and an opposition that was hopelessly divided, Pierce won the 1852 election easily. Yet this would prove the high point of his presidential career, as he spent the next four years struggling in the face of growing sectional pressures to keep his party together. Wallner foreshadows these challenges in his description of Pierce’s efforts to assemble a cabinet that was representative of an increasingly fractious party. The chapter in which he describes it both embodies his argument and at the same time demonstrates its limitations, as Pierce seemed incapable of separating the needs of his party from that of the nation as a whole. Whether this is a theme that emerges in the succeeding volume remains to be seen, but that it is not developed in this one points to the weaknesses in the author’s attempts to rehabilitate this controversial figure.
Among the chief executives who languish in this void of public memory is Franklin Pierce. Known if at all for his failed leadership in the ongoing political crisis of the 1850s that resulted in the bloodiest war in American history, Pierce is not ranked today among the country’s better presidents and has been largely neglected because of it. Whereas his more esteemed counterparts enjoy a steady stream of attention from biographers, throughout most of the twentieth century readers who wished to learn about Pierce’s life and career had only Roy Nichols’s venerable 1931 biography to turn. Peter Wallner’s offers a generous assessment of it in the introduction to this book, claiming that the need for a new biography of Pierce is necessary not because of any failings on its part but because of the decades of subsequent scholarship on the era, which has vastly expanded our knowledge of antebellum America and the events that led to the Civil War.
This is all well and true, yet the question remains whether a two-volume work is warranted. This Wallner also justifies by arguing that separating Pierce from his presidency allows us to make an assessment of him as a person separately from his time in the White House. Here the author tips his hand, as he explains in his introduction that his goal is not to bury Pierce, but to praise him “as a caring, honest, dedicated nationalist and public servant who understood many of the forces at work in his nation and his state and who tried to steer a course that benefited his constituents, his political party, and the nation.” Such intentions for a president are indeed laudable, and the same anodyne objectives could undoubtedly be claimed for just about every other person who preceded and succeeded Pierce in his office. But how did Pierce understand the issues he faced and in what ways did he seek to achieve these goals?
Wallner sees Pierce’s unionism as paramount. The source for this was Franklin Pierce’s father, Benjamin, a formidable figure whom the author credits as being the foremost influence on the young man’s life. A Revolutionary War veteran, Benjamin Pierce became one of his state’s leading figures after the war, serving in several public offices while maintaining a farm and a tavern in Hillsborough. Appreciating the value of education, the elder Pierce ensured that “Frank” enjoyed the fullest opportunities for an education, including four years at Bowdoin College where he met some of the future political and cultural leaders of his generation. Affable and outgoing, Frank made friends easily among the small student body, and overcame early academic difficulties resulting from the neglect of his studies to graduate near the top of his class.
Upon his return to Hillsborough Pierce began studying with a judge in preparation for a career as a lawyer. The pull of politics quickly drew in Pierce, however, as little more than a year after passing the bar he was elected to the state legislature as a member of the emerging Democratic Party. From there his rise was nothing short of meteoric: speaker of the state House, then election to the federal House of Representatives for three terms before his selection by the New Hampshire legislature as one of his state’s senators at just 32 years of age. Pierce benefited throughout both from his family’s name and the Democratic Party’s dominance in state politics. So long as it was united, the party’s nomination was tantamount to winning the election, a circumstance which fostered in Pierce the prioritization of party unity over all else.
This led Pierce to view the budding antislavery movement in his state with alarm. Here Wallner adopts his subject’s treatment of moderate antislavery sentiment as an abolitionist-driven militancy that threatened not just to the party’s unity, but to the Union itself. By framing the slavery issue in more polarizing terms than was warranted in the 1830s and 1840s, Wallner presents the politics of the matter in a misleading way while glossing over Pierce’s moral calculus during this period. And while he maintains that Pierce was no fan of the institution, Wallner leaves out how his strident support for Southern initiatives to advance slavery, although offered in the interests of party unity, effectively made his positions on the subject indistinguishable from his slaveholding colleagues.
In the short term, Pierce succeeded in stifling antislavery elements within his state’s party, albeit at the cost of a few electoral losses at the hands of a temporary alliance between dissident Democrats and the minority Whig organization. These efforts did not go unrecognized by Southerners. Though his service in the Mexican War was less heroic than Pierce had hoped, during his time in Mexico he made friends with several Southern politicians who had also put on the uniform for the duration. And in the wake of the Whigs’ victory in the 1848 presidential election, various party leaders began planning possible tickets for the next presidential election. As a proslavery Northern “doughface” personally familiar to many Southern leaders, Pierce featured prominently in many of their calculations as a potential vice-presidential nominee. His own sights were higher, though, as he plotted with friends to position himself as a compromise choice in a deadlocked convention. When no candidate could win the required supermajority of delegates, a perfectly timed intervention created a stampede for Pierce that won him the nomination.
Thanks to the solid support of his party and an opposition that was hopelessly divided, Pierce won the 1852 election easily. Yet this would prove the high point of his presidential career, as he spent the next four years struggling in the face of growing sectional pressures to keep his party together. Wallner foreshadows these challenges in his description of Pierce’s efforts to assemble a cabinet that was representative of an increasingly fractious party. The chapter in which he describes it both embodies his argument and at the same time demonstrates its limitations, as Pierce seemed incapable of separating the needs of his party from that of the nation as a whole. Whether this is a theme that emerges in the succeeding volume remains to be seen, but that it is not developed in this one points to the weaknesses in the author’s attempts to rehabilitate this controversial figure.
June 7, 2011
I think this is my saddest prez bio ending yet! Maybe even sadder than Polk arranging his library! And this was only part one of a two-volumer, and now he's just heading to the White House. On to part two and his presidency.
April 15, 2015
Of the two books Wallner wrote about Franklin Pierce, I prefer the second one. This book starts from Pierce's birth and ends with him securing the presidency. It's no fault of Wallner that the book that contains the Civil War is more interesting; this one is just as well-written, but the subject matter is a little on the boring side. There wasn't quite as much information on Pierce's childhood (or his friendship with Nathaniel Hawthorne) as I was hoping. The bulk of the book covers Pierce's time in the Senate, or the House of Representatives. That's only fitting, I guess. Still, though, Peter Wallner writes a fine biography - by far the best books on Franklin Pierce I've ever come across.
February 8, 2014
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...
Peter Wallner’s two-volume biography of Franklin Pierce is the most recent comprehensive look at Pierce’s life and presidency. The first volume is “Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire’s Favorite Son” published in 2004. Prior to writing this biography Wallner moved to New Hampshire in order to more fully research Pierce’s life. Previously he was a history teacher; he is now a professor at Franklin Pierce College.
This first volume covers Pierce’s life from his childhood to his first night in the White House as the nation’s fourteenth president. These forty-eight years encompass his childhood, his college education at Bowdoin, his earliest days as a politician in the New Hampshire state legislature, his service in Congress (both the House and the Senate) and his leadership as his state’s Democratic party boss.
Wallner’s biography is the first major effort in over seventy years to re-assess Pierce’s life and presidency. Happily it proves very well researched, extremely comprehensive, wonderfully descriptive and incredibly detailed. And where some authors seem to provide detail in an effort to overwhelm or exhaust their readers, Wallner’s level of detail is perfectly calibrated to add color without being burdensome. His writing style, though not quite comparable to authors like McCullough, is expressive, well-paced and effortless to read and understand.
Wallner’s view of Pierce is far more favorable than history’s judgment of this former president. But his sympathy presents itself clearly, without being clumsy or obtuse. This first volume, of course, merely represents the ascension of a future president, so the author’s supportive view in this phase of Pierce’s life is not only unsurprising…it may actually be deserved. Wallner’s treatment of Pierce’s presidency, certain to be well-described in the second volume, deserves to be judged in its own right.
More often than not, biographies about unsuccessful and largely forgotten presidents prove somewhat bland and uninteresting. In this first of two volumes on Pierce’s life, however, Wallner undertakes the daunting task of holding the reader’s interest by animating Pierce and portraying him as multi-faceted, eager to serve and likable.
Wallner also takes the complex social and political issues of antebellum America and makes them comprehensible – even to readers without a deep background in American history. What I appreciated most about Wallner’s biography was how he carefully tracked Pierce’s political philosophy and his views on a variety of issues over the course of his career. In this manner Wallner demonstrated a consistency in Pierce’s political approach which blunts some of the criticism Pierce receives from his harshest critics.
The most common objection relating to Wallner’s biography is that it goes too far trying to repair Pierce’s damaged reputation. At certain times the author does seem to work breathlessly to paint a flattering portrait of Pierce; occasionally the author comes across as slightly defense or apologetic on Pierce’s behalf. But more often, Wallner articulately explains his perspective alongside the conventional view of Pierce on an issue, allowing the reader to reach his or her own conclusion on the matter.
Wallner is also prone to making broad, sweeping generalizations that may or may not be true (particularly near the book’s beginning). These statements are generally worded in such a way that they are difficult to disprove but equally challenging to wholly support. The author’s commentary which falls under this spell is invariably supportive of Pierce’s character or legacy.
Overall, this first volume of Wallner’s biography on Franklin Pierce is a refreshing, lively and engaging review of Pierce’s pre-presidency years. For both the novice as well as the advanced scholar this book provides unique insight into Pierce without becoming laborious or tiresome. With this book weighing in at just over two-hundred-fifty pages, it is unclear why Wallner (or the publisher) felt it necessary to separate Pierce’s life into two pieces. Nevertheless, readers of Wallner’s first volume on Franklin Pierce will be eager to dive into the second volume without hesitation.
Overall rating: 4 stars
Peter Wallner’s two-volume biography of Franklin Pierce is the most recent comprehensive look at Pierce’s life and presidency. The first volume is “Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire’s Favorite Son” published in 2004. Prior to writing this biography Wallner moved to New Hampshire in order to more fully research Pierce’s life. Previously he was a history teacher; he is now a professor at Franklin Pierce College.
This first volume covers Pierce’s life from his childhood to his first night in the White House as the nation’s fourteenth president. These forty-eight years encompass his childhood, his college education at Bowdoin, his earliest days as a politician in the New Hampshire state legislature, his service in Congress (both the House and the Senate) and his leadership as his state’s Democratic party boss.
Wallner’s biography is the first major effort in over seventy years to re-assess Pierce’s life and presidency. Happily it proves very well researched, extremely comprehensive, wonderfully descriptive and incredibly detailed. And where some authors seem to provide detail in an effort to overwhelm or exhaust their readers, Wallner’s level of detail is perfectly calibrated to add color without being burdensome. His writing style, though not quite comparable to authors like McCullough, is expressive, well-paced and effortless to read and understand.
Wallner’s view of Pierce is far more favorable than history’s judgment of this former president. But his sympathy presents itself clearly, without being clumsy or obtuse. This first volume, of course, merely represents the ascension of a future president, so the author’s supportive view in this phase of Pierce’s life is not only unsurprising…it may actually be deserved. Wallner’s treatment of Pierce’s presidency, certain to be well-described in the second volume, deserves to be judged in its own right.
More often than not, biographies about unsuccessful and largely forgotten presidents prove somewhat bland and uninteresting. In this first of two volumes on Pierce’s life, however, Wallner undertakes the daunting task of holding the reader’s interest by animating Pierce and portraying him as multi-faceted, eager to serve and likable.
Wallner also takes the complex social and political issues of antebellum America and makes them comprehensible – even to readers without a deep background in American history. What I appreciated most about Wallner’s biography was how he carefully tracked Pierce’s political philosophy and his views on a variety of issues over the course of his career. In this manner Wallner demonstrated a consistency in Pierce’s political approach which blunts some of the criticism Pierce receives from his harshest critics.
The most common objection relating to Wallner’s biography is that it goes too far trying to repair Pierce’s damaged reputation. At certain times the author does seem to work breathlessly to paint a flattering portrait of Pierce; occasionally the author comes across as slightly defense or apologetic on Pierce’s behalf. But more often, Wallner articulately explains his perspective alongside the conventional view of Pierce on an issue, allowing the reader to reach his or her own conclusion on the matter.
Wallner is also prone to making broad, sweeping generalizations that may or may not be true (particularly near the book’s beginning). These statements are generally worded in such a way that they are difficult to disprove but equally challenging to wholly support. The author’s commentary which falls under this spell is invariably supportive of Pierce’s character or legacy.
Overall, this first volume of Wallner’s biography on Franklin Pierce is a refreshing, lively and engaging review of Pierce’s pre-presidency years. For both the novice as well as the advanced scholar this book provides unique insight into Pierce without becoming laborious or tiresome. With this book weighing in at just over two-hundred-fifty pages, it is unclear why Wallner (or the publisher) felt it necessary to separate Pierce’s life into two pieces. Nevertheless, readers of Wallner’s first volume on Franklin Pierce will be eager to dive into the second volume without hesitation.
Overall rating: 4 stars
October 25, 2020
A decent history of his life up to the time he is inaugurate President. Only for really serious Presidential history dorks.
November 8, 2023
Deep in the stretch of presidential biographies from Jackson to Lincoln and I find this one by Peter Wallner to bring the excitement back. With Harrison's and Taylor's short run, John Tyler's stint as the first Accidental President, James Polk quick in-and-out, and Millard Fillmore's battle with control of New York politics, this two part book delves into the life and presidency of Franklin Pierce.
I appreciate the history of New Hampshire politics which strongly includes Pierce's father Benjamin, who fought under George Washington and strongly held the Jeffersonian democratic ideas. During his life, Franklin came off as an honorable, honest gentleman who is assumed to be weak. Working the background of New Hampshire's Democrat Party, it was assumed he had no backbone. Once he became president, those principles of the Constitution, states rights, small executive government strongly guided him. This I respect.
A few things that mark his early life. After college at Bowdoin, Pierce is involved in state politics then becomes elected to U.S. Congress in 1835. The country saw the rise of abolitionist movement in the 1830s with William Lloyd Garrison and the formation of American Anti-Slavery Society. Most knew slavery could not be abolished through legislation, but they saw areas where Congress could rule: territories and D.C. Groups came together in disunion. So when Pierce convened in his first congress in 1835, anti-slavery petitions were read during Congress. Petitions called for abolition of slavery in D.C. Since Northern representatives of New England traditionally were recognized first, Southern representatives had to listen to these petitions. Finally, James Hammond of S.C. moved that the petition just read by Representative Williams Jackson of M.A. be rejected, since Congress had no Constitutional authority to abolish slavery anywhere in the U.S. Pierce was now at a crossroads. He knew Congress was not going to act on these petitions, making them annoying and divisive, but rejecting a petition violated First Amendment rights. Pierce was present in Congress when the divisive agitation was set that would split the Union to Civil War.
Pierce stayed in U.S. politics retiring from the Senate in 1842, after his and Jane's second, Frank Robert, died of Typhoid Fever. Pierce respected the military so much, thanks to his father and brothers. After Polk was elected, he turned down a cabinet appointment since his law practice was going well. He was then nominated by Polk to be Brigadier General in NH volunteer army since Polk's leading Generals were all Whigs. This sent Pierce to the War with Mexico where his troops were sent to join Winfield Scott's troops at Vera Cruz to march to Mexico City. After the war, he breaks his promise to Jane to stay out of politics and runs for president in 1852.
Pierce would become the nation's second Dark Horse candidate but NOT because the Democrats were was divided and could not agree any anyone else. It is true that Lewis Cass, James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas would not get the 2/3 needed. But Franklin a group of politicians he had mentored over the years called the 'Concord Clique' who thought for years he would be a good presidential candidate. The clique planned his nomination by keeping it a secret and allowing the dust to settle from a divided convention. They organized VA to nominate Pierce as a test, and it went well. The country economically was doing well and in peace. The only issue was civil sectionalism such as Anti-Catholicism and Abolition. Guess who took few stands on either side? The South would be pleased with a northern, states rights Democrat. Pierce received the nomination and defeated General Winfield Scott losing only 7 states and winning the popular vote.
After Christmas with Jane's family, the Pierce's left on a train from Amherst. The car was a single car with Franklin, Jane and Benny (11). The train either hit rocks or the back wheels came off. Franklin reached in the backseat for Benny, but did not get him. The train spun and went 20 feet down a ravine. Jane and Franklin were hurt, so were others. When Franklin saw Bennie, he thought Bennie was pasted out. But the broken pieces of he wreck had cut off the back of Bennie's head. He had died instantly. This was their last surviving son. It would leave Jane with depression and grief her whole time in the white house, and I believe her death in 1863. Jane was very close to Benny through his schooling. When Bennie heard his father would run for president he wrote, "I hope he won't be elected for I should not like to be at Washington and I know you would not either."
I appreciate the history of New Hampshire politics which strongly includes Pierce's father Benjamin, who fought under George Washington and strongly held the Jeffersonian democratic ideas. During his life, Franklin came off as an honorable, honest gentleman who is assumed to be weak. Working the background of New Hampshire's Democrat Party, it was assumed he had no backbone. Once he became president, those principles of the Constitution, states rights, small executive government strongly guided him. This I respect.
A few things that mark his early life. After college at Bowdoin, Pierce is involved in state politics then becomes elected to U.S. Congress in 1835. The country saw the rise of abolitionist movement in the 1830s with William Lloyd Garrison and the formation of American Anti-Slavery Society. Most knew slavery could not be abolished through legislation, but they saw areas where Congress could rule: territories and D.C. Groups came together in disunion. So when Pierce convened in his first congress in 1835, anti-slavery petitions were read during Congress. Petitions called for abolition of slavery in D.C. Since Northern representatives of New England traditionally were recognized first, Southern representatives had to listen to these petitions. Finally, James Hammond of S.C. moved that the petition just read by Representative Williams Jackson of M.A. be rejected, since Congress had no Constitutional authority to abolish slavery anywhere in the U.S. Pierce was now at a crossroads. He knew Congress was not going to act on these petitions, making them annoying and divisive, but rejecting a petition violated First Amendment rights. Pierce was present in Congress when the divisive agitation was set that would split the Union to Civil War.
Pierce stayed in U.S. politics retiring from the Senate in 1842, after his and Jane's second, Frank Robert, died of Typhoid Fever. Pierce respected the military so much, thanks to his father and brothers. After Polk was elected, he turned down a cabinet appointment since his law practice was going well. He was then nominated by Polk to be Brigadier General in NH volunteer army since Polk's leading Generals were all Whigs. This sent Pierce to the War with Mexico where his troops were sent to join Winfield Scott's troops at Vera Cruz to march to Mexico City. After the war, he breaks his promise to Jane to stay out of politics and runs for president in 1852.
Pierce would become the nation's second Dark Horse candidate but NOT because the Democrats were was divided and could not agree any anyone else. It is true that Lewis Cass, James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas would not get the 2/3 needed. But Franklin a group of politicians he had mentored over the years called the 'Concord Clique' who thought for years he would be a good presidential candidate. The clique planned his nomination by keeping it a secret and allowing the dust to settle from a divided convention. They organized VA to nominate Pierce as a test, and it went well. The country economically was doing well and in peace. The only issue was civil sectionalism such as Anti-Catholicism and Abolition. Guess who took few stands on either side? The South would be pleased with a northern, states rights Democrat. Pierce received the nomination and defeated General Winfield Scott losing only 7 states and winning the popular vote.
After Christmas with Jane's family, the Pierce's left on a train from Amherst. The car was a single car with Franklin, Jane and Benny (11). The train either hit rocks or the back wheels came off. Franklin reached in the backseat for Benny, but did not get him. The train spun and went 20 feet down a ravine. Jane and Franklin were hurt, so were others. When Franklin saw Bennie, he thought Bennie was pasted out. But the broken pieces of he wreck had cut off the back of Bennie's head. He had died instantly. This was their last surviving son. It would leave Jane with depression and grief her whole time in the white house, and I believe her death in 1863. Jane was very close to Benny through his schooling. When Bennie heard his father would run for president he wrote, "I hope he won't be elected for I should not like to be at Washington and I know you would not either."
December 9, 2020
On a personal level, it’s impossible not to feel for Franklin Pierce. Frank and Jane lost their first son just a few days after he was born, their second son at the age of 4 to typhus, and their third son at the age of 11 in a terrible train accident injury which they bore witness to. This final, brutal tragedy took place just a couple months before Frank took office, undoubtedly impacting his mental and emotional state.
Politically, Franklin Pierce is best known for his role (or lack thereof) in the Bleeding Kansas ordeal, which started on his watch in 1854. I don’t have room to get into the details here, but it created a whole slew of problems, the most public of which was a series of skirmishes between abolitionists — most prominently, John Brown — and slave owners. Pierce was pretty hands off in the whole ordeal, functionally saying that it wasn’t his place to interfere.
A common theme among these three presidents is their idea that the Constitution was the ultimate word on presidential authority. That’s fine in concept, but if you look closer, you realize that all the best presidents disregarded parts of the Constitution in order to get important things done; at the least, they read between the lines and took an “apologize later” approach. Lincoln did all kinds of things for which Constitutionalists cried foul, Theodore Roosevelt rolled with the concept that if it wasn’t explicitly forbidden then he could do it, the latter Roosevelt worked around war powers issues to help Europe at the start of WWII, etc., etc.
Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan all basically said, “Look, I’d love to do something about slavery, but it’s not practical and the Constitution says I can’t do much.” They were passive in the face of an authoritative document, when only creative disobedience towards it would have made a difference. These guys just weren’t those types of leaders, and the nation suffered for it.
To the books themselves: though published in two volumes, the total page count is well within the norm of a standard POTUS biography. Wallner does quite an admirable job keeping the narrative flowing and the prose is better than it would have to be, but he tries a bit too hard to revive Pierce’s legacy. In my opinion, Wallner actually just helps cement Frank’s place among the bottom of our American presidents. Given the difficulty in finding these two volumes, I can’t recommend them to a wider audience.
Politically, Franklin Pierce is best known for his role (or lack thereof) in the Bleeding Kansas ordeal, which started on his watch in 1854. I don’t have room to get into the details here, but it created a whole slew of problems, the most public of which was a series of skirmishes between abolitionists — most prominently, John Brown — and slave owners. Pierce was pretty hands off in the whole ordeal, functionally saying that it wasn’t his place to interfere.
A common theme among these three presidents is their idea that the Constitution was the ultimate word on presidential authority. That’s fine in concept, but if you look closer, you realize that all the best presidents disregarded parts of the Constitution in order to get important things done; at the least, they read between the lines and took an “apologize later” approach. Lincoln did all kinds of things for which Constitutionalists cried foul, Theodore Roosevelt rolled with the concept that if it wasn’t explicitly forbidden then he could do it, the latter Roosevelt worked around war powers issues to help Europe at the start of WWII, etc., etc.
Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan all basically said, “Look, I’d love to do something about slavery, but it’s not practical and the Constitution says I can’t do much.” They were passive in the face of an authoritative document, when only creative disobedience towards it would have made a difference. These guys just weren’t those types of leaders, and the nation suffered for it.
To the books themselves: though published in two volumes, the total page count is well within the norm of a standard POTUS biography. Wallner does quite an admirable job keeping the narrative flowing and the prose is better than it would have to be, but he tries a bit too hard to revive Pierce’s legacy. In my opinion, Wallner actually just helps cement Frank’s place among the bottom of our American presidents. Given the difficulty in finding these two volumes, I can’t recommend them to a wider audience.
March 6, 2017
For a president that is poorly known and even more poorly considered by historians, his life before becoming president was rendered very engaging in this book. At various points the reader grows to like Pierce and one thinks that his personality was well-suited to higher offices. From an early age he embodied that from Speaker of the New Hampshire House to the youngest Congressman and Senator in Washington.
Like any antebellum politician, slavery comes up a fair amount and while Pierce may be on the wrong side of history he is at the very least consistent in this book as to his viewpoints. He consistently expressed a fear of abolitionism as an extreme self-righteousness that he felt had no place in politics. It is also interesting that he disliked single-issue politicians such as those in support of the temperance movement. Much like Fillmore before him Pierce placed a high premium on keeping the Union intact and while he certainly tolerated slavery too much he did accurately forecast what the issue would do to the country. One chapter is devoted to his fight with Senator Nathan Hale, a Free Soil Democrat who honestly just voted his conscience and was crucified for it. In that sense Pierce was a party man who refused to allow moral issues to upset NH Democratic politics.
Pierce's Mexican War service appears exemplary but uninteresting and his post-war life is full of activity. From changing gubernatorial candidates over the Fugitive Slave Act to essentially being the least objectionable candidate for president, Pierce went from relative obscurity to national spotlight in the course of about six months. It is interesting to note he won an election in 1852 with very low voter turnout due to the lack of real economic problems.
On a personal note, one has to wonder as to Pierce's choice of wife. She may have been his compliment temperamentally but rarely seems to have supported her husband's political ambitions in this early stage. Though admittedly the Pierces experienced tons of personal heartbreak after losing children so she may deserve some benefit of the doubt.
Like any antebellum politician, slavery comes up a fair amount and while Pierce may be on the wrong side of history he is at the very least consistent in this book as to his viewpoints. He consistently expressed a fear of abolitionism as an extreme self-righteousness that he felt had no place in politics. It is also interesting that he disliked single-issue politicians such as those in support of the temperance movement. Much like Fillmore before him Pierce placed a high premium on keeping the Union intact and while he certainly tolerated slavery too much he did accurately forecast what the issue would do to the country. One chapter is devoted to his fight with Senator Nathan Hale, a Free Soil Democrat who honestly just voted his conscience and was crucified for it. In that sense Pierce was a party man who refused to allow moral issues to upset NH Democratic politics.
Pierce's Mexican War service appears exemplary but uninteresting and his post-war life is full of activity. From changing gubernatorial candidates over the Fugitive Slave Act to essentially being the least objectionable candidate for president, Pierce went from relative obscurity to national spotlight in the course of about six months. It is interesting to note he won an election in 1852 with very low voter turnout due to the lack of real economic problems.
On a personal note, one has to wonder as to Pierce's choice of wife. She may have been his compliment temperamentally but rarely seems to have supported her husband's political ambitions in this early stage. Though admittedly the Pierces experienced tons of personal heartbreak after losing children so she may deserve some benefit of the doubt.
March 9, 2010
This is the first of a two-volume biography of Franklin Pierce, America's 14th president. This volume chronicles the time between Pierce's birth and his inauguration as president.
The author portrays Pierce as a very capable politician who was less focused on personal glory than on preserving the union and keeping the Democratic party united during a time of growing sectional conflict leading up to the civil war. While his argument seems reasonable in many ways, there are a few unconvincing parts; for example, the author glosses over the fact that Pierce seems to have been an armchair general, despite the fact that his only personal military service (during the Mexican-American War) was only marginally distinguished. Still, the fact that someone as poorly trained as Pierce was able to be at all effective as a general does speak to his leadership ability.
The author's writing is quite good, and it's obvious that he examined a lot of primary source material. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about Franklin Pierce.
Now on to the second volume, Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union...
The author portrays Pierce as a very capable politician who was less focused on personal glory than on preserving the union and keeping the Democratic party united during a time of growing sectional conflict leading up to the civil war. While his argument seems reasonable in many ways, there are a few unconvincing parts; for example, the author glosses over the fact that Pierce seems to have been an armchair general, despite the fact that his only personal military service (during the Mexican-American War) was only marginally distinguished. Still, the fact that someone as poorly trained as Pierce was able to be at all effective as a general does speak to his leadership ability.
The author's writing is quite good, and it's obvious that he examined a lot of primary source material. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about Franklin Pierce.
Now on to the second volume, Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union...
March 3, 2017
I will do a longer review once I read the second volume of Peter A. Wallner's Franklin Pierce biography, "Martyr for the Union." This volume covers Pierce's early years and heritage and ends at him taking the oath of office in Washington. I've read a lot of presidential biographies recently (15 on 14 presidents) and my initial take away was that Wallner does as a good of job as he can with making Pierce interesting and conveying information. The problem is that Pierce didn't do enough in his early life to justify a two volume study. Whereas somebody like John Quincy Adams had vast accomplishments prior to and after being president, Pierce was relative unknown before being elected. He retired shortly after serving his only term in the Senate, and was strictly a party man while in the House of Representatives. At the state level, for the years leading up to his nomination he was the unofficial head of the Democrat party in New Hampshire, well known among the politicians but not exactly a household name. He was best known for being an attorney, drawing crowds in his area due to his skills with language. By far the most interesting aspects of Pierce was the tragedy in his home life, which I'll get into more in the full review after volume two.
Read
November 27, 2018An interesting man whose political life was based on preserving the union. This book only covers Pierce's life up to his inauguration. Although it took me six months to read I found the book compelling. Pierce was our 14th president and the youngest president up until his time. The previous biography of Pierce prior to Wallner's book was published in 1931 and Wallner uses new sources and modern research to describe the life and times of Pierce. Here are a couple quotes from the introduction.
"The reality of the man did not seem to fit the reputation, and maybe it is the reputation that needs to be reconsidered in light of the reality of Franklin Pierce's life and career."
"His failings in these early years, and they were many, are consistent with the inability of the second party system to deal with the single-issue movements such as abolitionism and temperance and their moralistic, divisive, and often extralegal propensities."
The most tragic thing about Pierce's life is that he and his wife had three children all of whom died before he became president. The most horrifying death was that of his ten year old son Benny who was killed in a train accident on the way to Washington for the inauguration.
"The reality of the man did not seem to fit the reputation, and maybe it is the reputation that needs to be reconsidered in light of the reality of Franklin Pierce's life and career."
"His failings in these early years, and they were many, are consistent with the inability of the second party system to deal with the single-issue movements such as abolitionism and temperance and their moralistic, divisive, and often extralegal propensities."
The most tragic thing about Pierce's life is that he and his wife had three children all of whom died before he became president. The most horrifying death was that of his ten year old son Benny who was killed in a train accident on the way to Washington for the inauguration.
February 4, 2012
Wallner provides an excellent biography on the life of Franklin Peirce however this book does not include his time as president. It provides an excellent overview on how Pierce attained the presidency and his turbulent if unknown political career came to fruition. The book clearly assesses his role in helping to shape many political outcomes in New Hampshire and focuses a little on his time in the congress. What is truly impressive about Pierce and his attainment of the presidency is that he does not spend his entire life in public office. In fact he is out of office and serving mores a party leader than anything else for much of the time. As the author points out he is often in the right place at the right time. For those who want to learn a little more about Pierce the man this is a great place to start. Wallner's second book will take the reader into the presidency.
March 25, 2018
One down, one to go. The first of two volumes about our 14th president, Franklin Pierce. Even though the politics were extensively described and I lost track of many of Pierce's Democratic colleagues, I found this biography moved along quickly. A superb lawyer, he probably should have remained a power in his home state and left national politics alone. His married life is dreary and sad. His only surviving son had a tragic accident. The author implies that Pierce was not one to toot his own horn but quietly harbored great ambition.
May 24, 2011
Great first volume in a two-volume series on our fourteenth president. This one focuses on Pierce's early life up to his first night in the White House. Very insightful in its examination of Pierce's rise to power. I greatly enjoy Wallner's writing style and pacing -- detailed yet not clunky, very easy flowing.
October 24, 2013
The author of this book faced the daunting task of taking one of our more obscure presidents and making him interesting. At times he over reaches and also over excuses his subject. Aside from that he does a good job of showing his rise to prominence. He comes across as a man of some skills that is able to rise to the presidency by being the least objectionable choice.
September 14, 2009
the best book i ever read about franklin pierce's early life. can't wait to read the sequel! blows away any biography of lincoln.
August 10, 2012
My review in AND Magazine: http://www.andmagazine.com/content/an...
October 27, 2016
1st of a 2-volume bio. Interesting and a pretty easy read. Liked it enough to move on to volume 2.
August 4, 2016
It could have been shorter.
December 29, 2019
It has been nigh on to 100 years since there was a complete biography of Franklin Pierce published and in that time there have been many changes in the way historians look at things. Revisionism and Counter-Revisionism and all sorts of isms have swept through the historical community but until now no one has thought to take another look at Franklin Pierce. Back in my college days I sat through classes during which the professors only mentioned Pierce in a negative light and in one class I had as a textbook a book that was very hard on Pierce and the notion that he was a horrible president and person just never seemed to be challenged. Finally in this book those notions are beginning to be challenged and in a forceful and thought provoking way.
The basis for most of the Pierce bashing comes from the idea that he was not only pro Southern but also pro-slavery and neither could be farther from the truth. Of course this book doesn't deal with his presidency or the Civil War but just with his life up until his first night in the White House but the author proves quite satisfactorily that Pierce only supported the South in matters where he believed that the Constitution was on their side and that he deplored slavery but felt that it was protected by the Constitution and to Pierce nothing was more sacred than the Constitution. The Constitution in Pierce's mind was the only thing that stood between the common man and absolute domination of the country by the rich and powerful and he wasn't willing to sacrifice that for any cause no matter how noble.
The author also does an excellent job of explaining Pierce's dislike for abolitionists above and beyond the fact that he felt that they were a threat to the Union. Pierce spent most of his life fighting for the common man and especially for religious liberty including a court case where he put his popularity on the line to defend the Shaker sect from persecution. Many of the people who sought to persecute the Shakers were abolitionists and also many abolitionists were violently anti-Catholic and Pierce began to see most abolitionists as religious bigots, which in fact many of them were. In Pierce's mind racial bigotry and religious bigotry were equally noxious and he came to detest all abolitionists because of their association with this intolerant attitude. To Pierce those who chose to lie down with dogs most certainly got up with fleas.
Mr. Wallner has done an excellent job with this book and although he has to some extent fallen into the biographer's trap of becoming too enamored by his subject he has at least backed up all of his ascertains with good research. This is a well-written and very enjoyable book that gives the reader a good look at Franklin Pierce's pre-presidential life both private and public. A lot of President Pierce's policies may look bad in hindsight but thanks to Mr. Wallner one can easily see where his core beliefs came from. Any student of the presidency will want to pick up this book as will any Civil War buff but just keep in mind that while history has not been kind to Pierce Mr. Wallner may have been a bit too kind to him. I very much look forward to volume two.
The basis for most of the Pierce bashing comes from the idea that he was not only pro Southern but also pro-slavery and neither could be farther from the truth. Of course this book doesn't deal with his presidency or the Civil War but just with his life up until his first night in the White House but the author proves quite satisfactorily that Pierce only supported the South in matters where he believed that the Constitution was on their side and that he deplored slavery but felt that it was protected by the Constitution and to Pierce nothing was more sacred than the Constitution. The Constitution in Pierce's mind was the only thing that stood between the common man and absolute domination of the country by the rich and powerful and he wasn't willing to sacrifice that for any cause no matter how noble.
The author also does an excellent job of explaining Pierce's dislike for abolitionists above and beyond the fact that he felt that they were a threat to the Union. Pierce spent most of his life fighting for the common man and especially for religious liberty including a court case where he put his popularity on the line to defend the Shaker sect from persecution. Many of the people who sought to persecute the Shakers were abolitionists and also many abolitionists were violently anti-Catholic and Pierce began to see most abolitionists as religious bigots, which in fact many of them were. In Pierce's mind racial bigotry and religious bigotry were equally noxious and he came to detest all abolitionists because of their association with this intolerant attitude. To Pierce those who chose to lie down with dogs most certainly got up with fleas.
Mr. Wallner has done an excellent job with this book and although he has to some extent fallen into the biographer's trap of becoming too enamored by his subject he has at least backed up all of his ascertains with good research. This is a well-written and very enjoyable book that gives the reader a good look at Franklin Pierce's pre-presidential life both private and public. A lot of President Pierce's policies may look bad in hindsight but thanks to Mr. Wallner one can easily see where his core beliefs came from. Any student of the presidency will want to pick up this book as will any Civil War buff but just keep in mind that while history has not been kind to Pierce Mr. Wallner may have been a bit too kind to him. I very much look forward to volume two.
January 20, 2020
In March, 1853, the fourteenth and youngest United States president yet elected made his inaugural speech on a raw, wintry morning. His platform pledged commitment to the classical principles of Jacksonian Democracy: limited government instead of a vast federal machinery, the rights of the common man instead of deference to corporations and commerce, and defense of the union instead of capitulation to reformers and fanatics. The new president from New Hampshire represented the rising hopes of Young America, and a belief in the greatness that lay ahead for a nation healed by the Compromise of 1850. By the end of Franklin Pierce's single term of office, the unity of the nation lay in tatters, bloodshed on the frontier between pro- and anti-slavery forces a mere symbol of the horror that would engulf the nation barely four years later.
For seventy years, the only scholarly biography of Pierce cemented this nearly-forgotten president's reputation as a vacillating non-entity beset by psychological turmoil and characteristic weakness. Wallner's biography is something of a rehabilitative work, bringing a welcome balance to this portrait. In this first volume of Wallner's helpful work, Pierce emerges from the shadows of a blasted reputation as the quintessential American success story: born into poverty and educated at Bowdoin College, he was a self-made man of great personal charm, a masterful lawyer and state party leader, the scion of Young America and only the second "dark horse" presidential candidate capable of uniting all the factions of his riven Democratic Party and leading it to landslide victories at every level in the election of 1852.
Wallner also lays the groundwork for understanding why such a man could win a presidency and lose an administration. Pierce's experience in New Hampshire state politics hardened his loathing for reformers whose single-issue obsessions (such as slavery) threatened both party and national unity. In addition, though Pierce was experienced at enforcing party purity within the parochial limits of a single state, forging a truly unified national party at a time of rising and irreconcilable faction would have taxed even the powers of a Washington. In a different and calmer time, the tremendous personal appeal of the Granite State's favorite son may have propelled him to a place in the sun of American history. As it is, you'd be hard-pressed to find many Americans who know the nation ever had a promising young president named Franklin Pierce.
For seventy years, the only scholarly biography of Pierce cemented this nearly-forgotten president's reputation as a vacillating non-entity beset by psychological turmoil and characteristic weakness. Wallner's biography is something of a rehabilitative work, bringing a welcome balance to this portrait. In this first volume of Wallner's helpful work, Pierce emerges from the shadows of a blasted reputation as the quintessential American success story: born into poverty and educated at Bowdoin College, he was a self-made man of great personal charm, a masterful lawyer and state party leader, the scion of Young America and only the second "dark horse" presidential candidate capable of uniting all the factions of his riven Democratic Party and leading it to landslide victories at every level in the election of 1852.
Wallner also lays the groundwork for understanding why such a man could win a presidency and lose an administration. Pierce's experience in New Hampshire state politics hardened his loathing for reformers whose single-issue obsessions (such as slavery) threatened both party and national unity. In addition, though Pierce was experienced at enforcing party purity within the parochial limits of a single state, forging a truly unified national party at a time of rising and irreconcilable faction would have taxed even the powers of a Washington. In a different and calmer time, the tremendous personal appeal of the Granite State's favorite son may have propelled him to a place in the sun of American history. As it is, you'd be hard-pressed to find many Americans who know the nation ever had a promising young president named Franklin Pierce.
March 16, 2021
Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire's Favorite Son is the first of a two-volume biography on the life of 14th president Franklin Pierce by Peter A. Wallner. This book covers Pierce's life up to his inauguration, with the second book (I presume, as I haven't read it yet) covering his presidency and post-presidential life. It's not clear to me why this needed to be broken up into two volumes, other than perhaps to double sales on the publication. Neither book is especially long.
Published in 2004, this is the first new biography of Pierce in several decades. One can see why. Pierce is, bluntly, quite boring. He grew up in a fairly normal family, went to college, practiced law and went into politics. He fought in the war with Mexico, but that was brief and likely more exciting at the time than when the story is told. He was not a particularly ideological, philosophical, or otherwise interesting guy. A thoroughly competent and likeable party loyalist.
One issue with this book, if you can call it that, is that the author presumes familiarity with Jacksonian and antebellum American history. Matters like Jackson's war on the Bank, the Wilmot Proviso, and the Mexican-American War are referenced with little explanation. Now, chances are, if you are the sort of person reading a two-volume biography of Franklin Pierce, this will not be a problem for you. And certainly, we don't need an in-depth discussion of such issues unless and only to the extent to which they relate to Pierce, but I think the book would have been improved somewhat with a little introduction or contextualization.
Really, there is nothing particularly worthwhile to recommend about this book. If you're looking for a bio on Franklin Pierce, this will do. But there's not really any reason to want a bio on Pierce other than that he was a U.S. President.
Published in 2004, this is the first new biography of Pierce in several decades. One can see why. Pierce is, bluntly, quite boring. He grew up in a fairly normal family, went to college, practiced law and went into politics. He fought in the war with Mexico, but that was brief and likely more exciting at the time than when the story is told. He was not a particularly ideological, philosophical, or otherwise interesting guy. A thoroughly competent and likeable party loyalist.
One issue with this book, if you can call it that, is that the author presumes familiarity with Jacksonian and antebellum American history. Matters like Jackson's war on the Bank, the Wilmot Proviso, and the Mexican-American War are referenced with little explanation. Now, chances are, if you are the sort of person reading a two-volume biography of Franklin Pierce, this will not be a problem for you. And certainly, we don't need an in-depth discussion of such issues unless and only to the extent to which they relate to Pierce, but I think the book would have been improved somewhat with a little introduction or contextualization.
Really, there is nothing particularly worthwhile to recommend about this book. If you're looking for a bio on Franklin Pierce, this will do. But there's not really any reason to want a bio on Pierce other than that he was a U.S. President.
February 7, 2022
Let me first start off by saying this is not a book about his presidency.. It goes through the history of his family all the way to his inauguration speech.
If you want a very detailed book about the rise of Franklin Pierce this is your book of choice. This book foreshadows the problems he will experience during his presidency. Also, details one of the most if not the most tragic death of a family member of a president ever to hold office. This will spiral Pierce's composure out of control heading into his presidency.
I will say this book made me try to look at a different view specially when talking about the "higher law" doctrine. The view that God should have authority over some laws but that would fly in the face of religious freedom which Pierce fought hard for but ultimately failed in New Hampshire. Pierce was a straight by the book type of politician, this was one of the reasons he fought to rid the religious test requirement in New Hampshire state constitution.
5/5
In conclusion.. if you want a summary of the President's life this book is not for you but if you want a detail and thoughts as he rides the ups and downs of his prepresidential life this is the book for you..
If you want a very detailed book about the rise of Franklin Pierce this is your book of choice. This book foreshadows the problems he will experience during his presidency. Also, details one of the most if not the most tragic death of a family member of a president ever to hold office. This will spiral Pierce's composure out of control heading into his presidency.
I will say this book made me try to look at a different view specially when talking about the "higher law" doctrine. The view that God should have authority over some laws but that would fly in the face of religious freedom which Pierce fought hard for but ultimately failed in New Hampshire. Pierce was a straight by the book type of politician, this was one of the reasons he fought to rid the religious test requirement in New Hampshire state constitution.
5/5
In conclusion.. if you want a summary of the President's life this book is not for you but if you want a detail and thoughts as he rides the ups and downs of his prepresidential life this is the book for you..
July 15, 2022
The 23rd book in the line of succession - This is part 1 of a 2 part series about Franklin Pierce. This book focuses on Pierce's life leading up to his presidency, ending with him going to bed after his inauguration. Wallner does an excellent job of painting Pierce's life. We get a bit of his ancestral history at the beginning and plenty of his personal life and feelings. Obviously we know how this goes from history, but it's clear by the end, and the expert job Wallner does of summing everything up, that Pierce was a nice, decent guy, who chose the middle road that doomed the country. The reluctant hero, Pierce mainly chose to remain behind the scenes at home in New Hampshire as well as in Washington. Integrity mattered more to him than fame. He did his best to balance his cabinet with members from all parties and all walks of life. Even Jefferson Davis, future president of the Confederacy, had a place in his cabinet. I'm sure the second book will tell us how it all fell apart, but I can see how it sounds good on paper. So, if you're looking for a thorough examination of Pierce's life - this 2 part series seems to be the one you're looking for!
March 4, 2021
This biography of Franklin Pierce covers his childhood, up to his election as the 14th president of the United States. He attended Bowdin College and remained life-long friends with so many of his classmates, including Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry Longfellow.
He was active in New Hampshire politics, and was a strong Unionist, defender of the Constitution, supporter of the Compromise of 1850, and the fugitive slave act. He was against abolishing slavery, because he felt it would destroy the Union.
He had his share of personal tragedies as well. While traveling to DC for the inauguration, the was a horrific train accident that killed his 11-year-old son. Such a sad start to his presidency.
While pointing out Pierce's weaknesses, this book was a largely positive look at his early life.
He was active in New Hampshire politics, and was a strong Unionist, defender of the Constitution, supporter of the Compromise of 1850, and the fugitive slave act. He was against abolishing slavery, because he felt it would destroy the Union.
He had his share of personal tragedies as well. While traveling to DC for the inauguration, the was a horrific train accident that killed his 11-year-old son. Such a sad start to his presidency.
While pointing out Pierce's weaknesses, this book was a largely positive look at his early life.
June 30, 2020
Reading this as part of my bucket list of reading a biography on every American President.
This book give a detailed insight into Pierce, up to his first night in the White House.
The growing issue of the day was obviously slavery, which was an issue that he was on the side of keeping the union together, no matter the cost.
On the one hand he fought for religious freedom. But like so many others of his day could not see he way forward to seeing the freedom of slaves.
In reading about him I think of issues we face today and can’t seem to find our way through. Even though some day I think people will look back and shake their heads at us.
This book give a detailed insight into Pierce, up to his first night in the White House.
The growing issue of the day was obviously slavery, which was an issue that he was on the side of keeping the union together, no matter the cost.
On the one hand he fought for religious freedom. But like so many others of his day could not see he way forward to seeing the freedom of slaves.
In reading about him I think of issues we face today and can’t seem to find our way through. Even though some day I think people will look back and shake their heads at us.
May 25, 2022
3.75 stars
Very well written bio of relatively unknown President. Numerous insights into personal life. Covers FP’s life up to election as President in 1852 (volume 2 covers rest of life)
Best of several great quotes is this one from FP during campaign in 1852, reacting to partisan attacks on him personally: “Is it not sad that scoundrelism can obtain access to columns of respectable papers? That those whose very breath taints the air they breathe with falsehood can be received anywhere where a respect for truth is maintained.”
Not much has changed in 170 years has it?
Very well written bio of relatively unknown President. Numerous insights into personal life. Covers FP’s life up to election as President in 1852 (volume 2 covers rest of life)
Best of several great quotes is this one from FP during campaign in 1852, reacting to partisan attacks on him personally: “Is it not sad that scoundrelism can obtain access to columns of respectable papers? That those whose very breath taints the air they breathe with falsehood can be received anywhere where a respect for truth is maintained.”
Not much has changed in 170 years has it?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews