What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Presidents #13
Millard Fillmore
The oddly named president whose shortsightedness and stubbornness fractured the nation and sowed the seeds of civil war
In the summer of 1850, America was at a terrible crossroads. Congress was in an uproar over slavery, and it was not clear if a compromise could be found. In the midst of the debate, President Zachary Taylor suddenly took ill and died. The presidency, and the crisis, now fell to the little-known vice president from upstate New York.
In this eye-opening biography, the legal scholar and historian Paul Finkelman reveals how Millard Fillmore's response to the crisis he inherited set the country on a dangerous path that led to the Civil War. He shows how Fillmore stubbornly catered to the South, alienating his fellow Northerners and creating a fatal rift in the Whig Party, which would soon disappear from American politics—as would Fillmore himself, after failing to regain the White House under the banner of the anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic "Know Nothing" Party.
Though Fillmore did have an eye toward the future, dispatching Commodore Matthew Perry on the famous voyage that opened Japan to the West, on the central issues of the age—immigration, religious toleration, and most of all slavery—his myopic vision led to the destruction of his presidency, his party, and ultimately, the Union itself.
In the summer of 1850, America was at a terrible crossroads. Congress was in an uproar over slavery, and it was not clear if a compromise could be found. In the midst of the debate, President Zachary Taylor suddenly took ill and died. The presidency, and the crisis, now fell to the little-known vice president from upstate New York.
In this eye-opening biography, the legal scholar and historian Paul Finkelman reveals how Millard Fillmore's response to the crisis he inherited set the country on a dangerous path that led to the Civil War. He shows how Fillmore stubbornly catered to the South, alienating his fellow Northerners and creating a fatal rift in the Whig Party, which would soon disappear from American politics—as would Fillmore himself, after failing to regain the White House under the banner of the anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic "Know Nothing" Party.
Though Fillmore did have an eye toward the future, dispatching Commodore Matthew Perry on the famous voyage that opened Japan to the West, on the central issues of the age—immigration, religious toleration, and most of all slavery—his myopic vision led to the destruction of his presidency, his party, and ultimately, the Union itself.
171 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2009
50 people are currently reading
545 people want to read
About the author
Paul Finkelman
174 books10 followersPaul Finkelman is an American legal historian. He received his undergraduate degree in American studies from Syracuse University in 1971, and his master's degree (1972) and doctorate (1976) in American history from the University of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 164 reviews
March 10, 2020
I’ve been making my way through Times Books “The American Presidents Series,” and got to the middle of the century before I found myself a president I thoroughly dislike.
There is little good to be said about Millard Fillmore, America’s 13th president. Like Lincoln, he was born into poverty, determined to educate himself and become a lawyer, but, unlike Lincoln, his hardscrabble youth—as a tenant farmer in New York’s Finger Lakes district—neither broadened his sympathies nor widened his views. Adversity only made Fillmore more distrustful and obdurate, prone to conspiracy theories and mulishly persistent even in the worst decisions.
Fillmore’s law degree soon led him into politics, where he began—speaking of conspiracy theories—as a member of the Anti-Masonic Party. After a few years, he became a Whig, and through hard work he rose in the United States Congress, eventually becoming chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Although he never would have been chosen as a presidential candidate, he was nominated as Zachary Taylor’s running mate, and, when the old general died a year and a half later, Fillmore rose to the presidency.
Although in principle he opposed slavery, Fillmore viewed the institution as an inevitable part of the American system, and, unlike his predecessor, actively pushed for the Compromise of 1850, which he then signed into law. The most evil and onerous part of this legislation was the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled escaped slaves to be returned to the south virtually without due process, and imposed harsh penalties on any citizen who aided them in their flight. Fillmore’s unrelentingly harsh enforcement of this act not only turned the Northern Whigs against him but also excited anti-slavery opposition in general, thereby moving America even closer to civil war.
Fillmore sought, but did not receive, the nomination of his party for president. (The Whig who won—General Winfield Scott—was easily defeated by Democrat Franklin Pierce.) He did, however, return to presidential politics, but this time—back in the conspiracy swamp—as the standard bearer of the nativist Know Nothings in 1856. He garnered approximately 20% of the vote, depriving Democrat James Buchanan of a majority.
I suppose Fillmore can’t really be blamed very much, even for his obvious failures. After all, the 1850’s were one of the most acrimonious and challenging periods in American history. It was, however, a time that called out for compassion and vision in its leader—two qualities that Millard Fillmore did not possess.
September 25, 2015
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...
“Millard Fillmore” by Paul Finkelman was published in 2011 and is part of The American Presidents series. Finkelman is a professor of law at Albany Law School, a legal historian and prolific author. He has written dozens of books and newspaper articles on topics ranging from Thomas Jefferson to civil rights to baseball.
This being my third experience with books from The American Presidents series, I thought I knew what to expect: a short, punchy and potent analysis of a former president. But before I even finished the first chapter I was simply astonished. Never before had I read a biography of anyone where the author was so clearly and forcefully antagonistic toward his or her subject.
From the book’s outset Finkelman makes clear his utter disdain for this former president. His prose drips incessantly with vitriol and contempt. And while Fillmore was undoubtedly on the wrong side of history on a number of issues (not unlike many people of his day) this book shows little effort to objectively evaluate his legacy. At best, it reads like a scolding op-ed essay; at worst, it is a tabloid-like impeachment of a presidency – and of a man.
Most biographers tend to sympathize with their subjects; a few are unfailingly neutral. But Finkelman’s assessment of Fillmore is breathtakingly one-sided and unbalanced. Rather than making even a token effort to view the world from Fillmore’s perspective, the author fires away like a prosecutor going in for the kill. While much of his criticism is undeniably fair, the author’s credibility is seriously strained when he is unable to find anything positive to say about this “son of a dirt farmer” who “somehow became a lawyer.”
After several chapters of this entertaining but wearisome rant I realized this is not a biography at all – it is the caricature of a warped, two-dimensional cartoon villain. And while Finkelman appropriately slams Fillmore for his support of the Fugitive Slave Act, he also criticizes him for (among many other decidedly ordinary things) trying to dress well…and joining a church!
The author is so incensed he can’t even bring himself to congratulate Fillmore for the one obvious moment in his early years as a legislator deserving of real praise: sponsoring a bill to abolish imprisonment for debtors. So it should be no surprise when Finkelman belittles Fillmore’s admission to the bar of the Supreme Court because, apparently, anyone with enough years of experience as a lawyer and the right sponsorship could have attained such a goal.
The book suffers other flaws as well. It occasionally appears hastily written and only slightly edited, as if there was a great hurry to publish a biography of Fillmore one-hundred-fifty years after the fact. Among the more tiresome of flaws is that much of the book is repetitious, as though the reader might miss a point if it isn’t repeated several times. Without this duplication the book would be quite a bit lighter.
Unfortunately, Finkelman seems unable to move past his grudge against the Founding Fathers and anyone else who ever tolerated slavery. His disgust is understandable, but misplaced. While Fillmore does deserve to be judged against an absolute standard of morality, he also deserves to be considered within the context of his time – but no such balance is evident. And on the basis of Finkelman’s standard, nearly every president from Washington through Buchanan should be sentenced to a celestial gulag, their legacies forever stripped of whatever good they may have performed.
The intrepid reader who is able to circumnavigate the author’s stream of venom and ignore the book’s repetitious passages will likely find something of value. Much of Finkelman’s analysis is thought-provoking and many of his points are appropriately provocative. His summary of the Compromise of 1850 and the background leading to its passage is excellent. And if not for its numerous distractions, this text could serve as an excellent rebuttal to Rayback’s much more generous treatment of Fillmore.
Overall, Finkelman’s analysis of Millard Fillmore is disappointing but never dull. Anyone seeking to read a biography of every president, with an emphasis on brevity, will probably find this book entirely acceptable. For a more serious scholar, this book is likely to be one of many “must reads” on Fillmore given its nuggets of wisdom. But for a reader unfamiliar with Fillmore hoping to gain deep insight into his life and presidency in a single, comprehensive biography…this is not the right place to look.
Overall rating: 2.5 stars
“Millard Fillmore” by Paul Finkelman was published in 2011 and is part of The American Presidents series. Finkelman is a professor of law at Albany Law School, a legal historian and prolific author. He has written dozens of books and newspaper articles on topics ranging from Thomas Jefferson to civil rights to baseball.
This being my third experience with books from The American Presidents series, I thought I knew what to expect: a short, punchy and potent analysis of a former president. But before I even finished the first chapter I was simply astonished. Never before had I read a biography of anyone where the author was so clearly and forcefully antagonistic toward his or her subject.
From the book’s outset Finkelman makes clear his utter disdain for this former president. His prose drips incessantly with vitriol and contempt. And while Fillmore was undoubtedly on the wrong side of history on a number of issues (not unlike many people of his day) this book shows little effort to objectively evaluate his legacy. At best, it reads like a scolding op-ed essay; at worst, it is a tabloid-like impeachment of a presidency – and of a man.
Most biographers tend to sympathize with their subjects; a few are unfailingly neutral. But Finkelman’s assessment of Fillmore is breathtakingly one-sided and unbalanced. Rather than making even a token effort to view the world from Fillmore’s perspective, the author fires away like a prosecutor going in for the kill. While much of his criticism is undeniably fair, the author’s credibility is seriously strained when he is unable to find anything positive to say about this “son of a dirt farmer” who “somehow became a lawyer.”
After several chapters of this entertaining but wearisome rant I realized this is not a biography at all – it is the caricature of a warped, two-dimensional cartoon villain. And while Finkelman appropriately slams Fillmore for his support of the Fugitive Slave Act, he also criticizes him for (among many other decidedly ordinary things) trying to dress well…and joining a church!
The author is so incensed he can’t even bring himself to congratulate Fillmore for the one obvious moment in his early years as a legislator deserving of real praise: sponsoring a bill to abolish imprisonment for debtors. So it should be no surprise when Finkelman belittles Fillmore’s admission to the bar of the Supreme Court because, apparently, anyone with enough years of experience as a lawyer and the right sponsorship could have attained such a goal.
The book suffers other flaws as well. It occasionally appears hastily written and only slightly edited, as if there was a great hurry to publish a biography of Fillmore one-hundred-fifty years after the fact. Among the more tiresome of flaws is that much of the book is repetitious, as though the reader might miss a point if it isn’t repeated several times. Without this duplication the book would be quite a bit lighter.
Unfortunately, Finkelman seems unable to move past his grudge against the Founding Fathers and anyone else who ever tolerated slavery. His disgust is understandable, but misplaced. While Fillmore does deserve to be judged against an absolute standard of morality, he also deserves to be considered within the context of his time – but no such balance is evident. And on the basis of Finkelman’s standard, nearly every president from Washington through Buchanan should be sentenced to a celestial gulag, their legacies forever stripped of whatever good they may have performed.
The intrepid reader who is able to circumnavigate the author’s stream of venom and ignore the book’s repetitious passages will likely find something of value. Much of Finkelman’s analysis is thought-provoking and many of his points are appropriately provocative. His summary of the Compromise of 1850 and the background leading to its passage is excellent. And if not for its numerous distractions, this text could serve as an excellent rebuttal to Rayback’s much more generous treatment of Fillmore.
Overall, Finkelman’s analysis of Millard Fillmore is disappointing but never dull. Anyone seeking to read a biography of every president, with an emphasis on brevity, will probably find this book entirely acceptable. For a more serious scholar, this book is likely to be one of many “must reads” on Fillmore given its nuggets of wisdom. But for a reader unfamiliar with Fillmore hoping to gain deep insight into his life and presidency in a single, comprehensive biography…this is not the right place to look.
Overall rating: 2.5 stars
June 6, 2024
Millard Fillmore In The American Presidents Series
With the 2016 election, I became fascinated again with the American presidency and read some of the book in the American Presidents Series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and Sean Wilentz, that I hadn't read earlier. Among these books is Paul Finkelman's 2011 study of Millard Fillmore. Finkelman, the William McKinley Distinguished Professor at Albany Law School, has written or edited several books about pre-Civil War American history; he specializes in legal history, constitutional law, and race.
Fillmore (1800 -- 1874), the thirteenth president, assumed the presidency in July, 1850 upon the death of Zachary Taylor. He served out the remaining 32 months of Taylor's term and was not elected to his own term in the White House. There is a great deal of literature devoted to the America of the 1840s -- 1850s, but not much devoted specifically to the life of Fillmore.
Finkelman offers a sharp, highly critical portrayal of his subject, concluding that "[I]n the end, Fillmore was always on the wrong side of the great moral and political issues of the age: immigration, religious toleration, equality, and most of all slavery." The short books in the American Presidents series are noted for offering a scholarly perspective on their subjects rather than being merely simple summaries. Thus, there is value to a focused, critical account, such as Finkleman's. Although the study bears out much of Finkelman's criticism, the book suffers from its withering, sarcastic tone, particularly for a relatively obscure president.
The book takes the reader through Fillmore's pre-presidential life including his beginnings in poverty in western New York. Fillmore gradually worked his way up to becoming a lawyer and to a political career. According to Finkelman, Fillmore was a social climber who always felt insecure over his humble origins. Fillmore served four terms in Congress and was a serious contender for the Whig vice-presidential nomination in 1844 to run with Henry Clay. Finkelman tends to downplay Fillmore's political experience which seems to me considerable. In 1848, Fillmore received the vice-presidential nomination as Zachary Taylor's running mate. He and Taylor were not close during Taylor's presidency.
When it reaches Fillmore's election as vice-president, the focus of the book shifts from his life to the serious political issues of the day. In particular, Finkelman offers a lengthy discussion of the Compromise of 1850 which began under Taylor and was enacted under the administration of Fillmore. Finkelman is scathing in his view of the Compromise, finding it a sell-out to the South and of Fillmore's role in it. Other responsible historians disagree and see the Compromise in a much more favorable light. For example, Robert Remini in his book "At the Edge of the Precipice: Henry Clay and the Compromise that Saved the Union", highly praises Henry Clay's work in securing the Compromise, and argues that the Compromise by delaying the outbreak of Civil War for ten years ultimately helped save the Union.
The Compromise of 1850 included a strong and infamous Fugitive Slave Law. Finkelman discusses the law in detail and is properly critical of it. Most of his study of Fillmore's presidency involves the history of Fillmore's draconian efforts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law and its impact on his presidency and on the future of the nation. There is much else to criticize in Fillmore's presidency, particularly in the conduct of foreign affairs. Finkelman also points out some efforts at positive achievement, including Fillmore's advocacy of a transcontinental railroad and his sponsorship of Commodore Matthew Perry's voyage to Japan which opened that nation to American commerce and diplomacy. Fillmore also deserves credit as a person for his intellectual interests. As was Lincoln, a president also born to poverty, Fillmore was an avid, omnivorous reader. He founded the White House library.
If anything, Fillmore's life after the presidency was less distinguished than his term in office. In 1856, he ran for presidency on the "Know-Nothing" ticket, a troubling party which opposed immigration and Catholicism. While he supported the early stages of the Civil War, in the latter stages of the conflict, according to Finkelman, Fillmore opposed emancipation and became an advocate of "peace at any price".
This book is marred by its overly-polemical tone. Its judgments on some of the events of its day, as suggested above, are open to question. However, Fillmore's presidency was not a success by any reckoning. Finkelman offers a short, thoughtful portrait of Fillmore and of his place in the American presidency. .It is a valuable study of a lesser-known figure and will be of interest to students of the presidency and to readers of the American Presidents Series.
Robin Friedman
With the 2016 election, I became fascinated again with the American presidency and read some of the book in the American Presidents Series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and Sean Wilentz, that I hadn't read earlier. Among these books is Paul Finkelman's 2011 study of Millard Fillmore. Finkelman, the William McKinley Distinguished Professor at Albany Law School, has written or edited several books about pre-Civil War American history; he specializes in legal history, constitutional law, and race.
Fillmore (1800 -- 1874), the thirteenth president, assumed the presidency in July, 1850 upon the death of Zachary Taylor. He served out the remaining 32 months of Taylor's term and was not elected to his own term in the White House. There is a great deal of literature devoted to the America of the 1840s -- 1850s, but not much devoted specifically to the life of Fillmore.
Finkelman offers a sharp, highly critical portrayal of his subject, concluding that "[I]n the end, Fillmore was always on the wrong side of the great moral and political issues of the age: immigration, religious toleration, equality, and most of all slavery." The short books in the American Presidents series are noted for offering a scholarly perspective on their subjects rather than being merely simple summaries. Thus, there is value to a focused, critical account, such as Finkleman's. Although the study bears out much of Finkelman's criticism, the book suffers from its withering, sarcastic tone, particularly for a relatively obscure president.
The book takes the reader through Fillmore's pre-presidential life including his beginnings in poverty in western New York. Fillmore gradually worked his way up to becoming a lawyer and to a political career. According to Finkelman, Fillmore was a social climber who always felt insecure over his humble origins. Fillmore served four terms in Congress and was a serious contender for the Whig vice-presidential nomination in 1844 to run with Henry Clay. Finkelman tends to downplay Fillmore's political experience which seems to me considerable. In 1848, Fillmore received the vice-presidential nomination as Zachary Taylor's running mate. He and Taylor were not close during Taylor's presidency.
When it reaches Fillmore's election as vice-president, the focus of the book shifts from his life to the serious political issues of the day. In particular, Finkelman offers a lengthy discussion of the Compromise of 1850 which began under Taylor and was enacted under the administration of Fillmore. Finkelman is scathing in his view of the Compromise, finding it a sell-out to the South and of Fillmore's role in it. Other responsible historians disagree and see the Compromise in a much more favorable light. For example, Robert Remini in his book "At the Edge of the Precipice: Henry Clay and the Compromise that Saved the Union", highly praises Henry Clay's work in securing the Compromise, and argues that the Compromise by delaying the outbreak of Civil War for ten years ultimately helped save the Union.
The Compromise of 1850 included a strong and infamous Fugitive Slave Law. Finkelman discusses the law in detail and is properly critical of it. Most of his study of Fillmore's presidency involves the history of Fillmore's draconian efforts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law and its impact on his presidency and on the future of the nation. There is much else to criticize in Fillmore's presidency, particularly in the conduct of foreign affairs. Finkelman also points out some efforts at positive achievement, including Fillmore's advocacy of a transcontinental railroad and his sponsorship of Commodore Matthew Perry's voyage to Japan which opened that nation to American commerce and diplomacy. Fillmore also deserves credit as a person for his intellectual interests. As was Lincoln, a president also born to poverty, Fillmore was an avid, omnivorous reader. He founded the White House library.
If anything, Fillmore's life after the presidency was less distinguished than his term in office. In 1856, he ran for presidency on the "Know-Nothing" ticket, a troubling party which opposed immigration and Catholicism. While he supported the early stages of the Civil War, in the latter stages of the conflict, according to Finkelman, Fillmore opposed emancipation and became an advocate of "peace at any price".
This book is marred by its overly-polemical tone. Its judgments on some of the events of its day, as suggested above, are open to question. However, Fillmore's presidency was not a success by any reckoning. Finkelman offers a short, thoughtful portrait of Fillmore and of his place in the American presidency. .It is a valuable study of a lesser-known figure and will be of interest to students of the presidency and to readers of the American Presidents Series.
Robin Friedman
May 30, 2011
I was quite surprised how terrible this book was. Considering how short it is, you'd think it would be jam-packed with the crucial events of Fillmore's life, a rip-roaring read. Since it's part of a distinguished series, I hoped that the book would also be enlightening and entertaining.
It's somewhat entertaining, mostly for its oddity. You wonder, what does this guy have against Fillmore? The book is an outright attack on this poor man, dead for 135 year and unable to defend himself. Finkelman, who has apparently made American slavery his big issue as a professional writer and professor, looks at Fillmore and sees nothing more than a spineless sympathizer with the southern cause, who did more to foment the civil war than any southerner.
Other than biographies of Hitler and Stalin, I've never read a bio by a man who so thoroughly hates his subject. (In his acknowledgments, Finkelman says, "Once Fillmore came to visit, he became a part of the family." A family I want not to be part of.) Fillmore, according to Finkelman, got to his position, essentially, by not having any views at all on the crucial issue of the day, slavery. He allowed people to believe that he was against extending slavery to the territories, but secretly, he wanted slavery to exist everywhere, so long as there was no civil war. We find out, repeatedly, how much of a racist Fillmore was, how he hated Catholics, and conspired with the Swiss against the Jews.
There must be more. Fillmore rose from a poor background and became wealthy and successful in law and in politics. Unlike Tyler (who he is compared to as an accidental president), he was a great believer in the Whig causes, and fought for them. He, along with the renowned Whigs Daniel Webster and Henry Clay supported the Compromise of 1850, and once the pieces of this legislation were in place, Fillmore worked hard to enforce the law.
One of the laws was the Fugitive Slave Act, and it was an essential piece of the compromise, although abhorrent to most northerners, and to our 21st Century sensibilities. And this was Fillmore's biggest sin, according to Finkelman. Finkelman attacks the Compromise as giving everything away to the south, and is harshly critical of Fillmore for enforcing the law once it was on the books. Finkelman describes numerous instances of federal marshals heartlessly attempting to catch fugitive slaves, and judges being paid to rule in the masters' favor. He describes attempts to draft northern posses to enforce the law, and then to prosecute as traitors those who refuse to help the lawmen. And Finkelman sees Fillmore as the mastermind behind it all--every waking minute trying to find a way to catch slaves, and stomp on the rights of northerners. It simply doesn't ring true.
Fillmore emerges as the personification of evil. Is he? Or was he simply a man of his times who tried to do his best as president? All I could imagine was that Finkelman got the contract to write this book, and took bits and pieces from his other scholarly work, dumbed them down, and placed them into one manuscript. The book is rife with repetition--a lot of deja vu in reading it, you think, I've heard that before, haven't I? Oh, yeah, a few paragraphs ago. He also has a rather clumsy writing style--lots of very short sentences put together, possibly tweets.
Well, I'll have to read a real bio of Fillmore sometime. This thing is mostly one nasty little diatribe.
It's somewhat entertaining, mostly for its oddity. You wonder, what does this guy have against Fillmore? The book is an outright attack on this poor man, dead for 135 year and unable to defend himself. Finkelman, who has apparently made American slavery his big issue as a professional writer and professor, looks at Fillmore and sees nothing more than a spineless sympathizer with the southern cause, who did more to foment the civil war than any southerner.
Other than biographies of Hitler and Stalin, I've never read a bio by a man who so thoroughly hates his subject. (In his acknowledgments, Finkelman says, "Once Fillmore came to visit, he became a part of the family." A family I want not to be part of.) Fillmore, according to Finkelman, got to his position, essentially, by not having any views at all on the crucial issue of the day, slavery. He allowed people to believe that he was against extending slavery to the territories, but secretly, he wanted slavery to exist everywhere, so long as there was no civil war. We find out, repeatedly, how much of a racist Fillmore was, how he hated Catholics, and conspired with the Swiss against the Jews.
There must be more. Fillmore rose from a poor background and became wealthy and successful in law and in politics. Unlike Tyler (who he is compared to as an accidental president), he was a great believer in the Whig causes, and fought for them. He, along with the renowned Whigs Daniel Webster and Henry Clay supported the Compromise of 1850, and once the pieces of this legislation were in place, Fillmore worked hard to enforce the law.
One of the laws was the Fugitive Slave Act, and it was an essential piece of the compromise, although abhorrent to most northerners, and to our 21st Century sensibilities. And this was Fillmore's biggest sin, according to Finkelman. Finkelman attacks the Compromise as giving everything away to the south, and is harshly critical of Fillmore for enforcing the law once it was on the books. Finkelman describes numerous instances of federal marshals heartlessly attempting to catch fugitive slaves, and judges being paid to rule in the masters' favor. He describes attempts to draft northern posses to enforce the law, and then to prosecute as traitors those who refuse to help the lawmen. And Finkelman sees Fillmore as the mastermind behind it all--every waking minute trying to find a way to catch slaves, and stomp on the rights of northerners. It simply doesn't ring true.
Fillmore emerges as the personification of evil. Is he? Or was he simply a man of his times who tried to do his best as president? All I could imagine was that Finkelman got the contract to write this book, and took bits and pieces from his other scholarly work, dumbed them down, and placed them into one manuscript. The book is rife with repetition--a lot of deja vu in reading it, you think, I've heard that before, haven't I? Oh, yeah, a few paragraphs ago. He also has a rather clumsy writing style--lots of very short sentences put together, possibly tweets.
Well, I'll have to read a real bio of Fillmore sometime. This thing is mostly one nasty little diatribe.
November 15, 2019
Finkelman, sometimes called a "neo-abolitionist," is not the most objective historian, but his biography of Millard Fillmore retrieves the thirteenth president from the "forgettable mediocrity" drawer in our collective memory bureau and restores to him the title of "really, really bad president." Despite a few positive achievements, like sending Admiral Perry to Japan, Fillmore should chiefly be remembered both for signing the despotic Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and for vigorously and enthusiastically enforcing it - to the point of sending federal troops after runaways and prosecuting for treason men who refused to serve on anti-fugitive posses. Fillmore also petulantly fired his predecessor's entire Cabinet upon taking office, thus crippling his administration's day-to-day conduct of business; negotiated a treaty with Switzerland that discriminated against American Jews; and in 1856 agreed to run for president again as the nominee of the xenophobic Know-Nothing Party. Fillmore was not quite as disreputable as his successors, Pierce and Buchanan, but Finkelman makes a good case for regarding all three men as "Doughface Presidents" (Northern men with Southern principles), whose aggressive defense of slave-owners' interests helped cause the Civil War.
October 16, 2021
I don’t have, and don’t plan to get, all of the books in the American Presidents series. But I have several, and I get that they’re meant to be brief, high-level biographies aimed at curious readers who are not quite curious enough to commit to a more thorough, more academic work. I’ve noted before that other books in the series tend to be somewhat superficial, are based almost exclusively on secondary sources and generally reflect pretty positively on their subject.
This book on Millard Fillmore is none of those things. So that should mean it’s actually pretty good, right?
Well, in some ways it is. Paul Finkelman is a legitimate academic who’s written extensively on the antebellum era, so his entry in this series is accessible but not at all dumbed down. He gives us the expected overview of Fillmore’s upbringing and rise to prominence, but also uses his limited space to thoroughly explain the debates and divisions of the time that Fillmore suddenly had to grapple with when he unexpectedly became president.
Sometimes the required brevity of the book shows, as when Zachary Taylor, who hadn’t even fallen ill yet, is abruptly killed off in a seven-word sentence and Fillmore is sworn in. You’re not going to get a dramatic description of how Fillmore learned the news of his ascendancy to the presidency, or get any sense of how he felt about it. And curiously, given the space constraints of a short book, Finkelman repeats himself almost verbatim a few times, as when he writes twice about the Compromise of 1850 that “Fillmore informed Taylor that if he had to break a tie vote, he would support the bill… He was fully prepared to embarrass Taylor,” and then 14 pages later Fillmore is described as “telling Taylor that if he had to break a tie in the Senate he would do so in favor of Clay’s bill… Fillmore apparently had no compunctions about embarrassing Taylor.”
But those are small complaints. The larger issue I had is that Finkelman despises Fillmore. Absolutely seems to detest him. Throughout the book, he describes Fillmore as “inept,” “oblivious,” “incompetent,” and so on. He has every right to feel that way, and I’m not suggesting that I feel Fillmore should have been put on a pedestal, but the tone felt off somehow. Such a strong point of view just seems unsuited to this series, which otherwise kind of celebrates the presidency and appeals to a mass audience who just wants to learn a little something about the men who held the office.
As one who has strong opinions about slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act in particular, Finkelman hammers away at Fillmore for signing the act into law and vigorously enforcing it. It’s certainly a blot on Fillmore’s legacy and, again, I’m not suggesting he shouldn’t be held accountable for it. But Finkleman’s attacks are relentless, and he comes back to the Fugitive Slave Act again and again to pillory Fillmore further. There’s no room for nuance, nor is any credence given to Fillmore’s hope that supporting the Compromise of 1850 would help to keep the Union intact. The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise, and it’s the one component of the Compromise that Fillmore didn’t sign right away until he was assured of its constitutionality. Many otherwise well-regarded legislators supported the Compromise, but as the executive, Fillmore had the unfortunate duty of enforcing this particular measure that he himself had signed into law.
It’s rightly a blot on whatever legacy he would otherwise have had in his short presidency. But Finkelman goes so far as to make the somewhat simplistic and unfair accusation that Fillmore was an enthusiastic appeaser who “energetically favored slavery over liberty.” He’s frequently somewhat snarky in his criticisms. And he goes on to outright eviscerate Fillmore in the book’s last paragraph.
A book that praised Millard Fillmore as a misunderstood president who was really greater than we thought would have been far worse than this, which, if nothing else, at least holds Fillmore to account for his mistakes and faults. I’m glad Finkelman didn’t just churn out a puff piece, but this just proves once again that it takes a lot more than 137 pages to get the full story of a man and his presidency.
This book on Millard Fillmore is none of those things. So that should mean it’s actually pretty good, right?
Well, in some ways it is. Paul Finkelman is a legitimate academic who’s written extensively on the antebellum era, so his entry in this series is accessible but not at all dumbed down. He gives us the expected overview of Fillmore’s upbringing and rise to prominence, but also uses his limited space to thoroughly explain the debates and divisions of the time that Fillmore suddenly had to grapple with when he unexpectedly became president.
Sometimes the required brevity of the book shows, as when Zachary Taylor, who hadn’t even fallen ill yet, is abruptly killed off in a seven-word sentence and Fillmore is sworn in. You’re not going to get a dramatic description of how Fillmore learned the news of his ascendancy to the presidency, or get any sense of how he felt about it. And curiously, given the space constraints of a short book, Finkelman repeats himself almost verbatim a few times, as when he writes twice about the Compromise of 1850 that “Fillmore informed Taylor that if he had to break a tie vote, he would support the bill… He was fully prepared to embarrass Taylor,” and then 14 pages later Fillmore is described as “telling Taylor that if he had to break a tie in the Senate he would do so in favor of Clay’s bill… Fillmore apparently had no compunctions about embarrassing Taylor.”
But those are small complaints. The larger issue I had is that Finkelman despises Fillmore. Absolutely seems to detest him. Throughout the book, he describes Fillmore as “inept,” “oblivious,” “incompetent,” and so on. He has every right to feel that way, and I’m not suggesting that I feel Fillmore should have been put on a pedestal, but the tone felt off somehow. Such a strong point of view just seems unsuited to this series, which otherwise kind of celebrates the presidency and appeals to a mass audience who just wants to learn a little something about the men who held the office.
As one who has strong opinions about slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act in particular, Finkelman hammers away at Fillmore for signing the act into law and vigorously enforcing it. It’s certainly a blot on Fillmore’s legacy and, again, I’m not suggesting he shouldn’t be held accountable for it. But Finkleman’s attacks are relentless, and he comes back to the Fugitive Slave Act again and again to pillory Fillmore further. There’s no room for nuance, nor is any credence given to Fillmore’s hope that supporting the Compromise of 1850 would help to keep the Union intact. The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise, and it’s the one component of the Compromise that Fillmore didn’t sign right away until he was assured of its constitutionality. Many otherwise well-regarded legislators supported the Compromise, but as the executive, Fillmore had the unfortunate duty of enforcing this particular measure that he himself had signed into law.
It’s rightly a blot on whatever legacy he would otherwise have had in his short presidency. But Finkelman goes so far as to make the somewhat simplistic and unfair accusation that Fillmore was an enthusiastic appeaser who “energetically favored slavery over liberty.” He’s frequently somewhat snarky in his criticisms. And he goes on to outright eviscerate Fillmore in the book’s last paragraph.
A book that praised Millard Fillmore as a misunderstood president who was really greater than we thought would have been far worse than this, which, if nothing else, at least holds Fillmore to account for his mistakes and faults. I’m glad Finkelman didn’t just churn out a puff piece, but this just proves once again that it takes a lot more than 137 pages to get the full story of a man and his presidency.
March 14, 2016
I did not have high expectations from a short biography on a roundly disliked president. The simple fact that I selected this short bio rather than a deep dive into the man and his life says a lot about my interest level. Were it not for my goal of reading a biography of every president, I'd likely never have picked this up. But I did. And I regret that I did so.
There is no doubt that Finkelman is a scholar of Fillmore's era. What he is not, however, is a fair biographer or a strong critic when it comes to Fillmore. He clearly despises the president, which is an opinion to which he is obviously entitled. What I found troubling is the way he takes Fillmore's terrible nature as a given. I get the sense that he wants to spend the little time this book allows hammering home Fillmore's failings, which leaves little room to provide a solid argument grounded in persuasive evidence. Instead, we are left with pure speculation about Fillmore's character. Finkelman writes: "Fillmore must have had some gratification that the [Fugitive Slave Act] was so quickly and successfully enforced in his home state..." (106.) This is presented with no evidence and serves only to make Fillmore appear as a villain. And, to be clear, I'm open to an argument that he might very well be a villain. But I do need you to actually make an argument.
The lack of evidence is a problem throughout the book. After a relatively lengthy discussion of his refusal to stand up to land hungry Texans, Finkelman suggests that the president is a weak man lacking in fortitude. Yet he also mentions that he stood up to the French and kept them from taking Hawaii. But unlike the Texas anecdote, there is no information provided here at all. Personally, it seems like a bolder move to stand up to France, but reading Finkelman, I'm left in the dark as to why I should think otherwise.
The most frustrating of all is the constant repetition. For such a short book, it is simply unforgivable to have the same points popping up over and over without furthering an argument. Here is one particularly egregious example: "like most vice presidents, he had been shunted off to the side. In this era, the vice president was never considered part of the president's cabinet and was not usually invited to cabinet meetings. Taylor and his cabinet had never considered Fillmore to be part of the inner circle, as was the case for virtually every vice president until the middle of the twentieth century" (73). This is essentially the same idea stated three ways across three sentences. And this is one of many examples that suggest the need for a more capable editorial hand.
All of this is a shame as Finkelman's contextual writing is quite good. This is especially true of his discussion of the Fugitive Slave Act and the surrounding controversy. Unfortunately, this strength also coincides with sections of this brief book in which Fillmore barely appears. As much as I enjoyed these moments, they serve more to highlight the book's great weaknesses in comparison.
There is no doubt that Finkelman is a scholar of Fillmore's era. What he is not, however, is a fair biographer or a strong critic when it comes to Fillmore. He clearly despises the president, which is an opinion to which he is obviously entitled. What I found troubling is the way he takes Fillmore's terrible nature as a given. I get the sense that he wants to spend the little time this book allows hammering home Fillmore's failings, which leaves little room to provide a solid argument grounded in persuasive evidence. Instead, we are left with pure speculation about Fillmore's character. Finkelman writes: "Fillmore must have had some gratification that the [Fugitive Slave Act] was so quickly and successfully enforced in his home state..." (106.) This is presented with no evidence and serves only to make Fillmore appear as a villain. And, to be clear, I'm open to an argument that he might very well be a villain. But I do need you to actually make an argument.
The lack of evidence is a problem throughout the book. After a relatively lengthy discussion of his refusal to stand up to land hungry Texans, Finkelman suggests that the president is a weak man lacking in fortitude. Yet he also mentions that he stood up to the French and kept them from taking Hawaii. But unlike the Texas anecdote, there is no information provided here at all. Personally, it seems like a bolder move to stand up to France, but reading Finkelman, I'm left in the dark as to why I should think otherwise.
The most frustrating of all is the constant repetition. For such a short book, it is simply unforgivable to have the same points popping up over and over without furthering an argument. Here is one particularly egregious example: "like most vice presidents, he had been shunted off to the side. In this era, the vice president was never considered part of the president's cabinet and was not usually invited to cabinet meetings. Taylor and his cabinet had never considered Fillmore to be part of the inner circle, as was the case for virtually every vice president until the middle of the twentieth century" (73). This is essentially the same idea stated three ways across three sentences. And this is one of many examples that suggest the need for a more capable editorial hand.
All of this is a shame as Finkelman's contextual writing is quite good. This is especially true of his discussion of the Fugitive Slave Act and the surrounding controversy. Unfortunately, this strength also coincides with sections of this brief book in which Fillmore barely appears. As much as I enjoyed these moments, they serve more to highlight the book's great weaknesses in comparison.
October 23, 2022
Please do not read this book. It would be better to remain ignorant of Millard Fillmore than to read this book. The author clearly does not like his subject and it makes for a painful read. I didn't quite make it halfway through and I could not take the author's obvious disdain for Fillmore.
September 28, 2019
At first glance, it’s hard to understand why Millard Fillmore possesses such a dismal reputation as president. Taking over in the aftermath of Zachary Taylor’s sudden death, he championed a compromise over the issue of slavery in the new territories that averted the immediate threat of Southern secession. His presidency coincided with a period of economic prosperity and he enjoyed a number of foreign policy successes, most notably the launching of an expedition that would open up relations between Japan and the rest of the world. Yet Paul Finkelman challenges any claim of Fillmore as an underappreciated executive. In this short biography, he presents Fillmore as “a thoroughly unsuccessful president” one who compromised liberty for the sake of politics, and whose political career ended ignominiously as the nominee of a political party built around bigotry.
That Fillmore even became president was unusual. Born to a family of poor farmers in western New York, he turned to a career in the law in search of better prospects. Finkelman sees Fillmore’s social ambitions as key to understanding the impetus behind his political choices, pushing him away from the more egalitarian Democratic Party and towards first the Anti-Masonic Party, then the Whigs. Yet while Fillmore quickly established himself as a Whig leader and enjoyed a successful career as a congressman, Finkelman argues that he was still a relatively obscure figure when internal party machinations made him the Whig Party vice presidential nominee in 1848. Possessing little authority or public standing, Fillmore found himself politically impotent as vice president, as he was repeatedly outmaneuvered by his chief New York rival William H. Seward.
Taylor’s death dramatically transformed Fillmore’s situation. Thrust into the ongoing debate over what became the Compromise of 1850, the new president was forced to make a series of major decisions in a short period of time. Finkelman is less than impressed with Fillmore’s leadership during this period, arguing that he caved far too readily to southern demands, resulting in a settlement that undermined the Whig Party and, ultimately, the nation. Of all the concessions, none was worse than the Fugitive Slave Act, which Finkelman excoriates for its provisions undermining liberty and the due process of law. Efforts to enforce it galvanized resistance in much of the north, to which the Fillmore administration responded with a series of legally questionable prosecutions. Though these efforts failed to win any convictions, they did win support of the southern Whigs, whose support Fillmore wanted to win for his own candidacy for the presidency. Fillmore’s efforts, however, were ultimately crippled by his own indecisiveness about running, resulting in a lengthy retirement interrupted only by a final, failed, run for office as the presidential candidate of the nativist Know-Nothings in 1856.
Concise and well-argued, Finkelman’s biography is a powerful indictment of Fillmore as president. Drawing upon his background as a legal historian, he exposes the flaws of Fillmore’s policies showing how they degraded the country and propelled the nation down the path to war. It serves as a powerful rebuttal to Robert Rayback’s efforts to rehabilitate Fillmore in his Millard Fillmore: Biography of a President, the standard scholarly biography of the 13th president. Though Finkelman’s book lacks the degree of detail that Rayback’s possesses, it offers a far more convincing assessment of Fillmore’s failings and a better understanding of the role he played in the nation’s descent into civil war. For anyone seeking to understand Fillmore and his role in American history, this is the book to read.
That Fillmore even became president was unusual. Born to a family of poor farmers in western New York, he turned to a career in the law in search of better prospects. Finkelman sees Fillmore’s social ambitions as key to understanding the impetus behind his political choices, pushing him away from the more egalitarian Democratic Party and towards first the Anti-Masonic Party, then the Whigs. Yet while Fillmore quickly established himself as a Whig leader and enjoyed a successful career as a congressman, Finkelman argues that he was still a relatively obscure figure when internal party machinations made him the Whig Party vice presidential nominee in 1848. Possessing little authority or public standing, Fillmore found himself politically impotent as vice president, as he was repeatedly outmaneuvered by his chief New York rival William H. Seward.
Taylor’s death dramatically transformed Fillmore’s situation. Thrust into the ongoing debate over what became the Compromise of 1850, the new president was forced to make a series of major decisions in a short period of time. Finkelman is less than impressed with Fillmore’s leadership during this period, arguing that he caved far too readily to southern demands, resulting in a settlement that undermined the Whig Party and, ultimately, the nation. Of all the concessions, none was worse than the Fugitive Slave Act, which Finkelman excoriates for its provisions undermining liberty and the due process of law. Efforts to enforce it galvanized resistance in much of the north, to which the Fillmore administration responded with a series of legally questionable prosecutions. Though these efforts failed to win any convictions, they did win support of the southern Whigs, whose support Fillmore wanted to win for his own candidacy for the presidency. Fillmore’s efforts, however, were ultimately crippled by his own indecisiveness about running, resulting in a lengthy retirement interrupted only by a final, failed, run for office as the presidential candidate of the nativist Know-Nothings in 1856.
Concise and well-argued, Finkelman’s biography is a powerful indictment of Fillmore as president. Drawing upon his background as a legal historian, he exposes the flaws of Fillmore’s policies showing how they degraded the country and propelled the nation down the path to war. It serves as a powerful rebuttal to Robert Rayback’s efforts to rehabilitate Fillmore in his Millard Fillmore: Biography of a President, the standard scholarly biography of the 13th president. Though Finkelman’s book lacks the degree of detail that Rayback’s possesses, it offers a far more convincing assessment of Fillmore’s failings and a better understanding of the role he played in the nation’s descent into civil war. For anyone seeking to understand Fillmore and his role in American history, this is the book to read.
July 25, 2019
An interesting summary of a not-so-interesting president. Particularly helpful were Finkleman's explanations of the Compromise of 1850 (which he argues was almost entirely in favor of the South) and Fugitive Slave Act (in which he claims Fillmore was personally and emotionally invested).
Fillmore's accomplishments include:
- NY state representative (where he did away with debt imprisonment)
- US Congressman (1833-35, 37-43)
- Vice president under Taylor (1849-50)
- President (1850-53)
- Signed the Fugitive Slave Act (1850)
- Initiated Perry's expedition to Japan
- Lost Whig nomination for president to Winfield Scott (1852)
- Ran unsuccessfully for president under the Know-Nothing Party (1856)
Finkleman paints a very negative portrait of our 13th president. I am not so concerned with a negative portrayal as I am in his lack of proof. He may be correct that Fillmore was insecure, arrogant, stubborn, and incompetent. He may very well be correct that Fillmore was against blacks, Catholics, and immigrants. But rather than proving it, he merely states it. This book is sprinkled with phrases like "perhaps," "must have been," and "most likely." This is beneath the level of The American Presidents Series. There is a lot of opinion, analysis, and conjecture in this book.
Fillmore's accomplishments include:
- NY state representative (where he did away with debt imprisonment)
- US Congressman (1833-35, 37-43)
- Vice president under Taylor (1849-50)
- President (1850-53)
- Signed the Fugitive Slave Act (1850)
- Initiated Perry's expedition to Japan
- Lost Whig nomination for president to Winfield Scott (1852)
- Ran unsuccessfully for president under the Know-Nothing Party (1856)
Finkleman paints a very negative portrait of our 13th president. I am not so concerned with a negative portrayal as I am in his lack of proof. He may be correct that Fillmore was insecure, arrogant, stubborn, and incompetent. He may very well be correct that Fillmore was against blacks, Catholics, and immigrants. But rather than proving it, he merely states it. This book is sprinkled with phrases like "perhaps," "must have been," and "most likely." This is beneath the level of The American Presidents Series. There is a lot of opinion, analysis, and conjecture in this book.
February 2, 2025
Overmatched douchebag.
July 23, 2011
This is the only book out of the American Presidents series that I did not like. Besides factual errors and repetition of points (and near entire sentences), my main complaint about this book is Finkelman's passing personal judgment on Fillmore. Instead of objectively examining Fillmore's presidency, Finkelman spent the better part of 137 pages condemning Fillmore and proclaiming him to be irrelevant besides having a unique first name. While Fillmore might not have been as enlightened or progressive as one might have wanted, he was certainly not alone in his time at having ideas or sentiments that people in the present day would by and large not agree with. Instead of trying to understand why Fillmore might have held some of the views that Finkelman accuses him of or of examining contradictions that point out that it might not be as clear-cut as Finkelman makes it out to be, he instead berates Fillmore in a way that I have not seen any other supposed historical scholar do in all of my years reading books on history. As Mr. Finkelman is a professor of law, I would advise him to stick with the law and hopefully not be as one-sided and judgmental in his legal affairs. I do not recommend this book to anyone except as an example of what not to do when writing history.
June 26, 2024
I’m only halfway done, and I’ll finish it, but halfway through I can confidently say this is the worst biography I’ve ever read. Repetitive as an undergraduate trying to hit a page limit, full of bizarre “but maybe this would have happened” counterfactual assertions with no argument to to stand on, contemptuous of its subject in genuinely bizarre ways (he was largely self taught and for this he’s not lauded as driven or ambitious but criticized for being “uneducated;” he “dressed well” which is somehow a character flaw) and just wrong in its characterization of parts of the Mexican American war. What’s worse, if I bring any prejudices to this part of my presidential biography quest they’re the same as the author’s—but man, I haven’t been this bent out of shape by someone ultimately agreeing with me but doing it in all the wrong ways since I left academia.
So, if you find yourself a discouraged aspiring author—read this and take heart. There’s hope for anyone.
So, if you find yourself a discouraged aspiring author—read this and take heart. There’s hope for anyone.
December 30, 2015
Really loved the book. Very well written. Fillmore left a less than shining legacy as a president. He seemed to be a nice person personally but when it came to politics, well, to put it bluntly he really really sucked.
June 1, 2011
This is the Presidential biography I've been waiting for!
Seriously, no library here had a bio of Fillmore that wasn't meant for kids.
Now I can move on to Franklin Pierce.
Seriously, no library here had a bio of Fillmore that wasn't meant for kids.
Now I can move on to Franklin Pierce.
July 23, 2021
“Gradually (Fillmore) became the recognized leader of the Whig party in western New York. He was almost perfect in the role: a kind, gentle, and generous husband and father; an orthodox Unitarian; a citizen immersed in his community’s efforts at self-improvement; and an ardent and effective advocate of the best interest of his constituents…The bare facts of Fillmore’s political career in New York only scratch the surface of the intelligence, character, determination, and hard work that it had required.” Elbert Smith (The Presidencies of Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore)
“…I expected to find that Millard Fillmore was a weak and pompous President, for tradition had painted that portrait of him. When, instead, my investigation revealed that he possessed extraordinary strength of character and an enviable tenacity of purpose as well as well as an admirable personality I was startled.” Robert Rayback (Millard Fillmore, Biography of a President)
“Fillmore, whatever his other flaws, was often capable of quite perceptive political analysis.” Michael F. Holt (The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War).
“An 1860 historian wrote of Fillmore’s administration: “Mr. Fillmore retired from the presidential chair, bearing with him the respect of his political opponents, and the confidence and admiration of his political friends.” Robert J. Scary (Millard Fillmore)
The above praise does not find a home in Paul Finkelman’s Millard Fillmore. From the opening pages, Where Fillmore is inexperienced, obscure, a possible “pretender” who lacks solid leadership, to the final page where Finkelman dedicates the book to a good friend who has little in common with the failed Fillmore, the reader encounters a President Fillmore through the acerbic, even vitriolic pen of the author.
In chapter one, he states that Fillmore was inexperienced and virtually unknown when nominated for the vice-presidency in 1848. Yet previously, former president John Quincy Adams publicly praised Fillmore’s service in congress and hoped that he’d return (Scary, chapter 9). Also, the Daily Union, an anti-Whig newspaper, called Fillmore “a man of considerable talent” when reporting of his nomination (Robert W. Merry A Country of Vast Designs, 448).
Finkleman also comments that Fillmore “is remembered as a thoroughly unsuccessful president who catered to the South at the expense of the North.” While valid as the author’s own viewpoint, other writers, such as those above, do not have this viewpoint, even remotely. And, of the five parts of the Compromise of 1850, signed into law by President Fillmore, it was only the Fugitive Slave Act that endorsed slavery.
Also, Finkelman states that (Fillmore), “Desperate to regain the presidency, in 1856…ran as the candidate of the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American party-better known as the Know-Nothings. His campaign as the candidate of the ethnic and religious bigotry ended in abysmal failure.” This is a commandeering of facts to validate the authors a priori dislike of Fillmore. By 1856 the American Party under Fillmore consisted mainly of conservative Whigs who, by removing the party of much of its xenophobia and religious intolerance leadership, and also keeping it from moving into the abolitionist camp, attempted mainly to create a national party to reunite the country (Holt, Whig Party, 914). Fillmore’s own campaign speeches- a rarity in 19th century politics-focus on the impending crisis and are not anti-foreign or anti-Catholic diatribes. This is weak scholarship by Finkelman to lead the reader down a pre-prescribed path.
Finally, for this review, the author believes that Fillmore…”and his leadership, or lack thereof, did little to either solve the nations’ problems or reduce its tensions.” Yet overall the country was pleased with the Compromise of 1850. It grew more prosperous. Franklin Pierce vowed to maintain it and praised Fillmore in his inauguration message. Though considered to be on the wrong side of history today, in its time it was viewed as final and, importantly, ended the threat of Texas battling the US Government. The final months of Fillmore’s administration and the opening of Pierce’s were calm, until the Kansas-Nebraska act forced the north and south into their fighting corners.
A running theme of this book is Paul Finkelman’s non-stop criticism of Fillmore. Some seem valid to the reader, but a number are slanted, some close to petty. The truer picture of Fillmore is found elsewhere.
John Crawford’s Millard Fillmore, A Bibliography, suggests that Fillmore represents Albert J. Von Frank’s proposition in The Trials of Anthony Burns, about the fugitive slave escaped to Boston and forcibly returned to Virginia through the use of the Fugitive Slave Act. Von Frank’s insight is that “What is marginalized is always secretly at the center.” That is, the accepted position of the Compromise Measures was that slavery was constitutional in the respective states and through the genius of political compromise both sectional peace and prosperity could continue. Yet, by this, blacks were sacrificed for this continued security. Via Pierce and Buchanan, the “repressible” conflict under Fillmore became irrepressible. By the end of the blood drenched Civil War, Fillmore’s time of patience, moderation, negotiation and maintaining the Union as is, was not only replaced, but could not be returned to: it had been proven non-workable. Yet, as historian Thomas Rowland has pointed out, using the works of Robert Remini, the “Compromise of 1850 came about because a majority of Americans demanded it... only a minority of them opposed a settlement.” (Rowland, The Limits of Compromise, 101).
The Civil War yielded a before and after America, and watershed in this was the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln’s freeing the slaves in the deep south in January, 1863. Previously, in his annual message to Congress in December, 1862, he stated that “the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present,” and that the United States was “the last best hope of earth.” These oft-quoted words are side by side with Lincoln’s desire for gradual emancipation, for the colonization of the freed slave outside of the US. In the message the Fugitive Slave Act is not villainized. These were opinions shared by President Fillmore. In August, 1862, Lincoln said, "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Fillmore, in 1850, wrote, “God knows I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil, for which we are not responsible, and we must endure it and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the constitution, till we get rid of it without destroying the last hope of free government in the world.” Indeed, these two leaders were searching for answers, at times in the same direction.
William Elliot Griffis’ oft-forgotten first post-presidential biography of Fillmore, published in 1915 and easily hagiographic, concludes that, while Lincoln passed to glory, Fillmore passed into obscurity, but hoped that time would elevate Fillmore to some higher level of public esteem. Of course, Lincoln was great, but Fillmore was good. The two, as capable leaders, struggled with how to save the union. One, in war, pursued a new birth of freedom, while the other, serving in the former constitutional order, those quiet dogmas of a peaceful, yet ultimately unworkable America of 1851-52, eventually found that sectional peace, compromise, could not last. The Fugitive Slave Act showed that what was marginalized was secretly at the center.
Does Fillmore matter? Certainly the present suggests that at least his times do. How does a society deal with institutional racism? How does it struggle with nativism? What are the limits of compromise, and are those who practice it-products themselves of their own time and culture- really bound to what a “woke”, future generation might opine? How should a president be viewed who made decisions then deemed constitutionally correct yet now are declared to be on the wrong side of history? What does matter is to present Millard Fillmore via facts, healthy interpretation, and good historiography. As a scholar on Fillmore, Finkelman not only stands apart from other scholars, he stands alone. His historical narrative is concise and helpful, and some of his interpretations are thought-provoking and worth further study. Yet he subjugates this to an irritability, a jaundiced view of the subject that largely diminishes the book as a vehicle for quality study.
“…I expected to find that Millard Fillmore was a weak and pompous President, for tradition had painted that portrait of him. When, instead, my investigation revealed that he possessed extraordinary strength of character and an enviable tenacity of purpose as well as well as an admirable personality I was startled.” Robert Rayback (Millard Fillmore, Biography of a President)
“Fillmore, whatever his other flaws, was often capable of quite perceptive political analysis.” Michael F. Holt (The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War).
“An 1860 historian wrote of Fillmore’s administration: “Mr. Fillmore retired from the presidential chair, bearing with him the respect of his political opponents, and the confidence and admiration of his political friends.” Robert J. Scary (Millard Fillmore)
The above praise does not find a home in Paul Finkelman’s Millard Fillmore. From the opening pages, Where Fillmore is inexperienced, obscure, a possible “pretender” who lacks solid leadership, to the final page where Finkelman dedicates the book to a good friend who has little in common with the failed Fillmore, the reader encounters a President Fillmore through the acerbic, even vitriolic pen of the author.
In chapter one, he states that Fillmore was inexperienced and virtually unknown when nominated for the vice-presidency in 1848. Yet previously, former president John Quincy Adams publicly praised Fillmore’s service in congress and hoped that he’d return (Scary, chapter 9). Also, the Daily Union, an anti-Whig newspaper, called Fillmore “a man of considerable talent” when reporting of his nomination (Robert W. Merry A Country of Vast Designs, 448).
Finkleman also comments that Fillmore “is remembered as a thoroughly unsuccessful president who catered to the South at the expense of the North.” While valid as the author’s own viewpoint, other writers, such as those above, do not have this viewpoint, even remotely. And, of the five parts of the Compromise of 1850, signed into law by President Fillmore, it was only the Fugitive Slave Act that endorsed slavery.
Also, Finkelman states that (Fillmore), “Desperate to regain the presidency, in 1856…ran as the candidate of the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American party-better known as the Know-Nothings. His campaign as the candidate of the ethnic and religious bigotry ended in abysmal failure.” This is a commandeering of facts to validate the authors a priori dislike of Fillmore. By 1856 the American Party under Fillmore consisted mainly of conservative Whigs who, by removing the party of much of its xenophobia and religious intolerance leadership, and also keeping it from moving into the abolitionist camp, attempted mainly to create a national party to reunite the country (Holt, Whig Party, 914). Fillmore’s own campaign speeches- a rarity in 19th century politics-focus on the impending crisis and are not anti-foreign or anti-Catholic diatribes. This is weak scholarship by Finkelman to lead the reader down a pre-prescribed path.
Finally, for this review, the author believes that Fillmore…”and his leadership, or lack thereof, did little to either solve the nations’ problems or reduce its tensions.” Yet overall the country was pleased with the Compromise of 1850. It grew more prosperous. Franklin Pierce vowed to maintain it and praised Fillmore in his inauguration message. Though considered to be on the wrong side of history today, in its time it was viewed as final and, importantly, ended the threat of Texas battling the US Government. The final months of Fillmore’s administration and the opening of Pierce’s were calm, until the Kansas-Nebraska act forced the north and south into their fighting corners.
A running theme of this book is Paul Finkelman’s non-stop criticism of Fillmore. Some seem valid to the reader, but a number are slanted, some close to petty. The truer picture of Fillmore is found elsewhere.
John Crawford’s Millard Fillmore, A Bibliography, suggests that Fillmore represents Albert J. Von Frank’s proposition in The Trials of Anthony Burns, about the fugitive slave escaped to Boston and forcibly returned to Virginia through the use of the Fugitive Slave Act. Von Frank’s insight is that “What is marginalized is always secretly at the center.” That is, the accepted position of the Compromise Measures was that slavery was constitutional in the respective states and through the genius of political compromise both sectional peace and prosperity could continue. Yet, by this, blacks were sacrificed for this continued security. Via Pierce and Buchanan, the “repressible” conflict under Fillmore became irrepressible. By the end of the blood drenched Civil War, Fillmore’s time of patience, moderation, negotiation and maintaining the Union as is, was not only replaced, but could not be returned to: it had been proven non-workable. Yet, as historian Thomas Rowland has pointed out, using the works of Robert Remini, the “Compromise of 1850 came about because a majority of Americans demanded it... only a minority of them opposed a settlement.” (Rowland, The Limits of Compromise, 101).
The Civil War yielded a before and after America, and watershed in this was the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln’s freeing the slaves in the deep south in January, 1863. Previously, in his annual message to Congress in December, 1862, he stated that “the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present,” and that the United States was “the last best hope of earth.” These oft-quoted words are side by side with Lincoln’s desire for gradual emancipation, for the colonization of the freed slave outside of the US. In the message the Fugitive Slave Act is not villainized. These were opinions shared by President Fillmore. In August, 1862, Lincoln said, "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Fillmore, in 1850, wrote, “God knows I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil, for which we are not responsible, and we must endure it and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the constitution, till we get rid of it without destroying the last hope of free government in the world.” Indeed, these two leaders were searching for answers, at times in the same direction.
William Elliot Griffis’ oft-forgotten first post-presidential biography of Fillmore, published in 1915 and easily hagiographic, concludes that, while Lincoln passed to glory, Fillmore passed into obscurity, but hoped that time would elevate Fillmore to some higher level of public esteem. Of course, Lincoln was great, but Fillmore was good. The two, as capable leaders, struggled with how to save the union. One, in war, pursued a new birth of freedom, while the other, serving in the former constitutional order, those quiet dogmas of a peaceful, yet ultimately unworkable America of 1851-52, eventually found that sectional peace, compromise, could not last. The Fugitive Slave Act showed that what was marginalized was secretly at the center.
Does Fillmore matter? Certainly the present suggests that at least his times do. How does a society deal with institutional racism? How does it struggle with nativism? What are the limits of compromise, and are those who practice it-products themselves of their own time and culture- really bound to what a “woke”, future generation might opine? How should a president be viewed who made decisions then deemed constitutionally correct yet now are declared to be on the wrong side of history? What does matter is to present Millard Fillmore via facts, healthy interpretation, and good historiography. As a scholar on Fillmore, Finkelman not only stands apart from other scholars, he stands alone. His historical narrative is concise and helpful, and some of his interpretations are thought-provoking and worth further study. Yet he subjugates this to an irritability, a jaundiced view of the subject that largely diminishes the book as a vehicle for quality study.
May 27, 2024
It’s hard to find a serious study of Millard Fillmore, especially through a fairly modern lens, so this book is inherently valuable. I was impressed by the depth which Finkleman was able to write with in relatively few pages. The editor of the American Presidents series (of which this book is a part), Arthur Schlesinger, writes in the introduction that the goal of the series is ”to present the grand panorama of our chief executives in volumes compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, authoritative enough for the scholar.” That is an *extremely* lofty goal, but Finkleman does as good a job as one can imagine living up to that high standard. It is well and intelligently written.
It should be noted that I have never read a biography in which the author so clearly despises their subject as this. There are points in the book where you can almost hear Finkleman screaming about Fillmore and how awful he was. You really can’t blame Finkleman for that, as he was awful. The book would be better off if that was not the case. Again, it is hard to argue with the idea that Fillmore was a failure, but at points Finkleman’s criticisms border on unprofessional. It makes for a more entertaining read, but it is something to keep in mind.
In my opinion, Fillmore’s failure was more influenced by his stupidity; he was simply too dumb to be an effective president. Finkleman’s argument is that Fillmore’s failures were a result of him being a generally bad guy with bad intentions, which is a more than reasonable argument, just one I slightly disagree with. I think Finkleman’s blistering hatred of Fillmore as described earlier led to that conclusion, which naturally raises questions about the whole book and whether or not it’s too biased or not. I don’t think it is too biased, but the book does lose something from that question having to be asked.
I would recommend this book to anybody who wants to learn more about Millard Fillmore. If you have literally any other purpose for thinking about reading this book, however, you are much better off spending your time elsewhere. That is not a criticism of the book itself, but rather its subject. Millard Fillmore the man is just kind of irrelevant. Those interested in Antebellum politics are much better off reading about his actions in a wider context, off the top of my head I would recommend a book like The Impending Crisis by David Potter. If your purpose for reading this is to curl up by the fireplace and entertain yourself, I don’t know what you are doing here.
This book is what it is: a biography of Millard Fillmore. It does a good job of being a biography, and a great job in being brief yet thorough and serious. If for some reason you wanted to learn more about Millard Fillmore, this is the book for you. Two thumbs up.
It should be noted that I have never read a biography in which the author so clearly despises their subject as this. There are points in the book where you can almost hear Finkleman screaming about Fillmore and how awful he was. You really can’t blame Finkleman for that, as he was awful. The book would be better off if that was not the case. Again, it is hard to argue with the idea that Fillmore was a failure, but at points Finkleman’s criticisms border on unprofessional. It makes for a more entertaining read, but it is something to keep in mind.
In my opinion, Fillmore’s failure was more influenced by his stupidity; he was simply too dumb to be an effective president. Finkleman’s argument is that Fillmore’s failures were a result of him being a generally bad guy with bad intentions, which is a more than reasonable argument, just one I slightly disagree with. I think Finkleman’s blistering hatred of Fillmore as described earlier led to that conclusion, which naturally raises questions about the whole book and whether or not it’s too biased or not. I don’t think it is too biased, but the book does lose something from that question having to be asked.
I would recommend this book to anybody who wants to learn more about Millard Fillmore. If you have literally any other purpose for thinking about reading this book, however, you are much better off spending your time elsewhere. That is not a criticism of the book itself, but rather its subject. Millard Fillmore the man is just kind of irrelevant. Those interested in Antebellum politics are much better off reading about his actions in a wider context, off the top of my head I would recommend a book like The Impending Crisis by David Potter. If your purpose for reading this is to curl up by the fireplace and entertain yourself, I don’t know what you are doing here.
This book is what it is: a biography of Millard Fillmore. It does a good job of being a biography, and a great job in being brief yet thorough and serious. If for some reason you wanted to learn more about Millard Fillmore, this is the book for you. Two thumbs up.
May 5, 2020
It must be difficult to write biography of someone whom the author thoroughly detests. The historical background was insightful and gave me ample reason to share the author's opinion of Fillmore. However I rated this as a 3.5 for 2 reasons: a) abrupt end to any detail of the lame duck part of his presidency and b) the absolute harshness of his portrait of the man. But Professor Finkleman gave the best description of the horror of the Fugitive Slave Act that I have ever read. mu history major notwithstanding. Now on to the next doughface!
May 2, 2018
If you know nothing else about Fillmore, know that he was not a nice person. He was pro slavery, anti-immigrant, and stubborn. (I will refrain from drawing any parallels to today's politics). An accidental president, there are many reasons he never won a presidential election.
The biography itself doesn't cover much of his private life, which was disappointing.
The biography itself doesn't cover much of his private life, which was disappointing.
August 16, 2025
THIS is how you write a Presidential biography. No apologies, no justifications, just calling out all the horrific behaviour and decisions for what they are. The additional context surrounding the Presidency was also greatly appreciated.
October 4, 2020
I found out a lot
Interesting book. I really didn't know much about Fillmore. I found out what a doughheaded President is. I've enjoyed reading this series of books
Interesting book. I really didn't know much about Fillmore. I found out what a doughheaded President is. I've enjoyed reading this series of books
October 16, 2023
This reads more like a series of related essays than a biography, and it separately and repeatedly explains the same concepts on multiple occasions, even reusing the same anecdotes. For instance, the Prigg v. Pennsylvania case is described at length in several chapters, as are personal liberty laws. But the individual essays are strong, venturing into hypothetical counterplans that Fillmore could have run. It’s just a shame they weren’t edited into a cohesive whole.
May 8, 2017
Fillmore was a doughface Copperhead president who vigorously enforced the Fugitive Slave Act while dismissing genuine treason by American filibusterers in Cuba. Anti-Mason, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Foreigner, Anti-abolitionist. Yet led the way in opening trade with Japan and securing Hawaii.
November 23, 2020
I absolutely love this biography. The writing is sharp, informative, humorous, and takes into account our present moment in politics. Every page has wonderful research and captivating vignettes. While the author is no fan of the sinister mediocrity, Millard Fillmore, I think this book illustrates how we need much more investigation into the loathsome and bad presidents of our past as well as less blind adulation for the good ones. We need history, not hagiography. We need to know the worst of what our rulers can be, if only to warn us about what we could be stuck with in the future. “It can’t get any worse” is a phrase I’ve heard recently and in the Bush years. Well, you need only look at this amazingly written biography to realize, yes it can get worse.
March 28, 2021
While Zachary Taylor never wanted to be president but ended up being an okay one, Millard Fillmore desperately wanted to be and was terrible. At least that is the impression I got after reading this biography by Finkelman. It is clear that Finkelman doesn’t like Fillmore at all, which is understandable given Fillmore’s bad presidency, and while it was kind of funny to see him get trashed it really ended up not teaching me a whole lot about who Fillmore was. Fillmore was the last Whig president and the second to succeed due to the death of the president.
Finkelman does a good job of bringing out how Fillmore was a visionary (transcontinental railroad, opening Japan, dominating Hawaii, and the Suez Canal) but points out how none of this was actually accomplished by him. He laid the groundwork but didn’t do much else. Most of his time was spent bungling domestic policies and failing to unite an increasingly divided nation.
That’s probably where this was most interesting, while I didn’t learn much about Fillmore I did learn about the Fugitive Slave Act. I remember learning about it in school but Finkelman had a really thorough analysis of it here. Lots of small parts about it that I didn’t know about. It was a bad law in many ways and Fillmore’s insistence on following it to the point of dragging people into court for treason was idiotic.
Despite his faults though there had to be something interesting/redeeming about the guy, as there are all with all humans, and there was none of that in this book. Very little description of his personal life. So it is a book that succeeds at being a critique of his presidential decisions, but is a mediocre biography.
Finkelman does a good job of bringing out how Fillmore was a visionary (transcontinental railroad, opening Japan, dominating Hawaii, and the Suez Canal) but points out how none of this was actually accomplished by him. He laid the groundwork but didn’t do much else. Most of his time was spent bungling domestic policies and failing to unite an increasingly divided nation.
That’s probably where this was most interesting, while I didn’t learn much about Fillmore I did learn about the Fugitive Slave Act. I remember learning about it in school but Finkelman had a really thorough analysis of it here. Lots of small parts about it that I didn’t know about. It was a bad law in many ways and Fillmore’s insistence on following it to the point of dragging people into court for treason was idiotic.
Despite his faults though there had to be something interesting/redeeming about the guy, as there are all with all humans, and there was none of that in this book. Very little description of his personal life. So it is a book that succeeds at being a critique of his presidential decisions, but is a mediocre biography.
December 21, 2011
A solid entry in "The American Presidents" series, a series originally under the editorship of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and, later, under Sean Wilentz.
Millard Fillmore was from Buffalo. He developed a political career and, accidentally, became President after his selection as Vice President with Zachary Taylor at the top of the ticket.
This volume traces his career and explores his presidency. One word that aptly expresses his performance: dreadful. He ended up having the Whigs reject him as a candiate for president; Fillmore ran as a "Know-Nothing," he was pro-alvery as the Civil War began to develop.
Solid biography of one of our lesser lights as President.
Millard Fillmore was from Buffalo. He developed a political career and, accidentally, became President after his selection as Vice President with Zachary Taylor at the top of the ticket.
This volume traces his career and explores his presidency. One word that aptly expresses his performance: dreadful. He ended up having the Whigs reject him as a candiate for president; Fillmore ran as a "Know-Nothing," he was pro-alvery as the Civil War began to develop.
Solid biography of one of our lesser lights as President.
January 10, 2016
Millard Fillmore was a racist and a bigot, not just against enslaved black Americans but also against the Irish. He was also an awful politician and a poor military tactician. While he's one of the worst U.S. presidents, it's amazing that he's not the worst.
September 26, 2011
A very good biography of a very bad president.
August 25, 2015
Fillmore was subpar, but this treatment is the furthest thing from even-handed.
January 8, 2019
Not a history book -- just a brief screed from a historian against a bad president.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 164 reviews