Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union

Franklin Pierce #2

by Peter A. Wallner

Franklin Pierce is invariably rated among the least successful presidents in U.S. history. Wallner's interpretation of the Pierce administration sheds new light on the forces at work in antebellum America which impeded the hardworking and honest 14th president, thus hastening the disintegration of the two-party system and the worsening of sectional conflict over slavery. In the process, the second volume of Franklin Pierce offers new insights into the Kansas-Nebraska Act and "bleeding" Kansas, U.S. attempts to acquire Cuba, relations with Great Britain, and the 1850s phenomena of filibusters and Know-Nothingism. The story of Franklin Pierce concludes with a complete account of his post-presidential years, particularly the reasons behind Pierce's hostility to the Lincoln administration and his opposition to the Civil War. The result is a highly readable narrative that challenges the myths which abound regarding this most misunderstood former president.

Genres: Presidents, Biography, History, American History, Us Presidents, Nonfiction, Politics

498 pages, Hardcover

First published July 4, 2007

About the author

Peter 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.

Reviews

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one sits closer to 3.5 stars than to four, I think, mostly because it is unabashedly pro-Pierce. It largely avoids talking about Pierce's drinking and puts the strongest and most noble face on Pierce's presidency, although not quite to the point of deification, since Wallner's conclusion is that Pierce "was the best the nation could have hoped for at the time".

I think I agree with Wallner that while the presidents leading up to the civil war are seen as a series of blunders, it's very possible there was no possible course that could have avoided the war. Wallner gives Pierce much credit in trying to, but I am a little more critical. While I think that Pierce's belief in the constitution (and its protection of slavery) as well as his idea of 'union' were sincerely held, I don't know that his attempts to steer a middle course in domestic matters were successful or even all that well advised. His belief that internal matters were the responsibility of the states kept Kansas at the forefront of the nation and kept the coals of chaos burning there. His possibly laudable goal of evenly distributing patronage appointments among the various democratic factions was always a bad idea, and was absolutely doomed to weaken his party and his own support.

That said, Pierce was not a president without successes, and Wallner might be correct in claiming that besides slavery, Pierce would be considered a good president. He stuck to Democratic principles in lowering the tariffs, fighting for American neutrality, and lowering the public debt. He managed some diplomatic successes including gaining fishing rights in Canada and eventually a solution to troubles in Nicaragua, even if the treaty was never passed. Those accomplishments were not done without tribulations, though, and Pierce's choices for many of his foreign appointments were poorly made. Pierre Soule was a dismal ambassador, and between offending the Spanish and the Ostend Manifesto caused nothing but problems for Pierce. Pierce's choices of messengers to Gadsden also would embarrass his administration when the treaty included government endorsement for one of the trans-isthmian companies vying for recognition from Mexico.

By far Pierce's greatest weakness, though, is displayed in the Kansas fiasco. How much of the blame lies on his shoulders, and how much of it should be explained as unavoidable, is unclear, but Pierce's choices of governors proved only to exacerbate the situation and his indecision in course only inflamed it more. He and the democrats were also outspoken critics mostly of abolitionist attempts to take over Kansas, while they took for granted that pro-slavery forces were just 'defending their rights'. Neither side was without guilt, but it was the 'free-state' forces that were most harmed by Pierce's administration, and when he did try to steer a more middle course it only succeeded in being unfair to pretty much everyone. Even the brief peace attained in 1856 was illusory.

Most disturbing about this read, though, is how difficult it is to form a permanent opinion of Pierce. He was certainly an unapologetic racist, and some of his quotes are wildly offensive to modern sensibility. He certainly would stand for slave-state rights no matter what, and not uncommonly for northern men, was rabidly white-supremacist. But at least with other Northern presidents during the war you could give them some credit for sounding like above-average moralists on the issue. Fillmore, even though he had similar constitutional defenses for slavery, was never as offensive, and even Van Buren eventually campaigned with abolitionists. Pierce never did, and even after the war wished to curtail freedmen rights.

Despite all of that, though, for a man of his time Pierce was a man of surprisingly strong convictions and loyalty, a generous friend to the like of Nathaniel Hawthorne and his children, an often empathetic soul, and a defender of religious liberty and immigrant rights. He did try to push a middle ground, and his constitutional beliefs were sincerely held, even when it pushed him to veto Democratic legislation on things like internal improvements. His cabinet was solid (according to Wallner, the only cabinet in history that had no changes in a full four-year term) and largely unselfish, pushing to reform and modernize departments and stomp out fraud. He also was a singularly tragic figure, who lost all three of his children (the oldest and last, at 11, to a train accident he had to witness) and who endured the hatred and accusations of his country during the civil war. In the end, he would die without family by his side, a victim of his own drinking. Still, he had made lifelong friends and had loyal, doting supporters, though they may have been few, that knew him personally. So was Pierce a bad man? It is difficult to say. Was he a bad president? That also is difficult to say - for his course, though ineffective, may truly have been the best we could have hoped for at the time.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

During the presidential election of 1852, the author Nathaniel Hawthorne penned a letter to Horatio Bridge about their mutual friend, Democratic nominee Franklin Pierce. In it, Hawthorne, who had recently authored a biography of Pierce on behalf of his campaign, marveled at his subject’s qualities. “What luck that fellow has,” Hawthorne declared, adding “I have come seriously to the conclusion that he has in him many of the chief elements of a great ruler, and that if he wins the election he may run a great career. . . There are scores of men in the country that seem brighter than he is; but Frank has the directing mind, and will move them about like pawns on a chess-board and turn all their abilities to better purpose than they themselves could . . .Nothing can ruin him.”

Events proved Hawthorne wrong. Four years later, Pierce was in such low regard as president that his own party denied him renomination, foreshadowing the reputation his time in office possesses today. Peter Wallner does his best in this volume to rescue his subject from this ignominy by stressing both how esteemed Pierce was by so many of his contemporaries, and by highlighting the positive aspects of his administration. Hawthorne would likely have approved of Wallner’s depiction of Pierce in these pages and his efforts to put a positive spin on his presidency. But how successful is he in reframing our understanding of America’s 14th president?

At the heart of Wallner’s effort is his insistence that Pierce was not the pro-Southern “doughface” he was accused of being by abolitionists, but a nationalist who sought a middle ground between the slave and free states of the union. To support this, he points to the president’s opposition to further territorial conquests, his attempts to stop filibustering expeditions to the Caribbean and Central America, and his efforts to establish an impartial enforcement of the law in Kansas Territory, all of which ran contrary to the aspirations of Southerners in his own party. Wallner also repeatedly notes the importance of honest administration to Pierce, and his prioritization in several instances of ability over party loyalty. These are certainly laudable points, but hardly exceptional ones. Does Pierce deserve to be redeemed simply for pursuing the bare minimum?

These points also gloss over Pierce’s main focus throughout his presidency, which was on maintaining party unity. His primary means for doing so was through patronage, and Wallner devotes several pages to chronicling the president’s efforts to use it to heal recent divisions over slavery. Yet the wounds proved too raw for Pierce’s efforts to be appreciated. In particular, many Democrats in New York objected to seeing patronage go to the antislavery “Barnburners” who bolted the party just four years previously to support Martin Van Buren’s third-party run, and these “Hardshells” or “Hards” made it impossible for Pierce to mend the organization in the electorally vital state.

Similar, though less high-profile, struggles in other Northern state parties demonstrated the damage the recent controversy over slavery had done to party unity. Pierce had profited during his election from the voters’ desire to move on from the crisis spawned by California’s application in 1850 to enter the union as a free state. Political ambition made this impossible, however, as when the new Congress convened in December 1853 Stephen Douglas, the Illinois senator and presidential aspirant, introduced legislation designed to enhance his chances for the nomination. While many of its measures addressed such traditional Democratic priorities as lower tariffs, among them was a provision to organize the remaining territory of the Louisiana Purchase so as to clear the way for a transcontinental railroad route to pass through it reopened the issue once more. Faced with the intractable opposition of his Southern counterparts to having a route sited in territory from which slavery was prohibited, Douglas could only win their support for his bill by amending it to allow settlers to decide whether their territory would permit the “peculiar institution.”

Douglas’s measure, which promised the repeal of the Missouri Compromise that had blocked the expansion of slavery into the region for over a generation, immediately reopened the debate over it and the sectional divisions it fed. Having pledged during the campaign not to upset the uneasy calm that had settled on the nation after the fight over California’s admission, the president could have intervened to shut down the bill. Instead, after meeting on January 22, 1854 with a group of influential proslavery legislators, Pierce threw his weight of his office behind the legislation. Wallner attempts to justify this choice by noting that his opposition to the bill would have triggered the resignations of the cabinet members from the Southern states and jeopardized several diplomatic nominations awaiting Senate confirmation. Most importantly, he adds, it would have fractured the Democratic Party nationally, effectively dooming Pierce’s presidency. Faced as he was with the greatest challenge yet to his efforts to maintain party unity, Pierce abandoned his efforts to soft-pedal the slavery controversy and supported instead the dearest ambitions of the Southerners in his party.

Now supported by the administration, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed through Congress and became law with Pierce’s signature. The price for maintaining party unity proved electoral rejection, however. Wallner details the subsequent bloodbath suffered by the Democrats at the polls in the North, as voters abandoned the party in favor of newly-emergent alternatives. While Wallner plays up the challenge posed to the Democrats by the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing movement, he is unable to ignore Pierce’s own efforts to have Northern Democrats campaign on their support for Kansas-Nebraska, which only underscores the role it played in their rejection. While the Democrats maintained their majority in the lagging Senate, they lost control of the House to a fractious Republican-dominated coalition united only in their opposition to Pierce’s agenda.

By now, however, Congress proved the least of Pierce’s problems. Emboldened proslavery activists were now pushing to expand the institution by any means available, regardless of its legality. While efforts to clamp down on filibusters were largely successful, far less so was the management the growing crisis in Kansas Territory, where pro- and antislavery groups vied for control. Wallner’s attempts to defend Pierce from charges of weakness in his management of the Kansas crisis are belied by his own narrative, as he shows that the violent competition was entirely predictable. Yet Pierce’s first two appointees to the territorial governorship failed to live up to the standards Wallner credits Pierce with maintaining for his nominees, with the first blatantly corrupt and the second so pro-slavery as to undermine any pretense of impartiality. It was only at the end of his presidency that Pierce named someone who was able to bring the violence under some control, though by then he had already been rejected by his own party for another term in office.

Wallner cites the opposition at the convention of New York “Hards” as the main reason for Pierce’s defeat. This leaves unaddressed the broader abandonment of his candidacy by the Northern delegates, reflecting the president’s political toxicity among the voters of his own region. Though his name was mentioned by some as a nominee four years later, Pierce confined his political activities in the years before his death in 1869 to speeches and conversations with friends expressing his growing bitterness with the course of subsequent events. If Pierce expressed responsibility in any way for them goes unnoted by his biographer, who after chronicling the achievements of his administration musters a final effort to absolve him of any blame for its failure:

In other times the Pierce administration might have been celebrated for its accomplishments . . . But only one issue mattered, and by supporting the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Pierce administration had precipitated a political crisis over slavery that could not be resolved except by civil war. The peace that Pierce inherited on the slavery issue following the Compromise of 1850 was illusory, at best, considering the determination of abolitionists to upset it. Therefore, any forward-looking proposal—for example, the annexation of Cuba or Nicaragua, a Pacific Railroad bill, a larger grant of land from Mexico, even a homestead bill—could have provoked a reaction similar to that touched off by the Kansas bill. Pierce was not to blame for slavery, and no president or statesman could solve the issue, or even maintain the “repose” for long, not with moralistic abolitionists and ultrasensitive southerners ready to seize on any issue to press for the “higher law” or for their “rights.” By the 1850s sectional peace could not be maintained as long as slavery existed, slavery could not be abolished without changing the Constitution, and constitutional amendments could not be approved as long as the slave states remained in the Union.

Whether this debatable speculation is valid or not, nothing in it justifies Pierce’s support for Kansas-Nebraska or excuses him of the consequences of that support in bringing about the confrontation that took place. That Wallner fails to acknowledge this is the most glaring flaw in a book that, for all of his effort to rehabilitate its subject, falls well short of refuting the outstanding charge against him.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

In explaining the subtitle of this second volume of his Franklin Pierce biography, Wallner writes that by speaking out against President Lincoln’s actions, policies and conduct of the Civil War, the embattled and forsaken former president Pierce ���was resigned to becoming a martyr to his vision of the Union and the Constitution." Hence the book’s subtitle “Martyr for the Union.”

But martyrdom implies righteousness, while what Pierce demonstrated was more like stubbornness and inadaptability. “Lincoln was a pragmatist,” Wallner acknowledges, “while Pierce remained rigidly inflexible once he had established a position." Pierce’s vision of the Union and Constitution contributed to the decades of failed compromises over slavery, while pragmatism and flexibility - together with a devastating civil war that the compromisers had long hoped to avoid - is what it ultimately took to break the back of the slavocracy for good.

Like the first volume, the second is also sympathetic to Pierce. Unlike the first volume, though, which seemed to ignore or put a positive spin on any criticisms of Pierce, the second volume contains enough context and evidence that even if you disagree with Wallner’s conclusions, you’re sufficiently informed to be able to reach your own.

The book picks up right where volume one left off, at the very beginning of the Pierce administration. It’s a somewhat slow start, since the process of making appointments to lesser offices and other day-to-day administrative tasks that normally fall in the middle of most single-volume presidential biographies are right at the beginning here.

As the book progresses, though, Wallner provides a thorough account of Pierce’s presidency and offers a fair but not fawning analysis of his successes and failures. Pierce preferred to let Congress drive the country’s domestic agenda, but at a time when the country could have used strong executive leadership on domestic issues. His reputation of being indecisive was not for “want of character or ethics, but too much sensitivity in trying to avoid hurt feelings,” Wallner attempts to explain.

But sectional strife and Pierce’s acquiescence to the Kansas-Nebraska Act defined his presidency and, largely, his legacy. “In other times the Pierce administration might have been celebrated for its accomplishments,” Wallner notes. “But only one issue mattered, and by supporting the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Pierce administration had precipitated a political crisis over slavery that could not be resolved except by civil war."

Wallner portrays Pierce as being in a no-win situation. In agreeing to Kansas-Nebraska, “Pierce acted on his constitutional principles and on his loyalty to his party," he explains, noting that had Pierce opposed it, he would have lost the support of his Congressional allies altogether and his presidency would have become paralyzed. And besides, he suggests, the end of the Second Party System and civil war probably would have happened anyway. I wasn’t convinced by this explanation that read like an excuse, back when Roy Nichols offered it in his “new” epilogue to Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills, and I also found it to be a weak defense of Pierce’s actions when Wallner made the same argument.

But I try not to knock off stars from my ratings just because an author has a different opinion than I do, unless they’re just woefully wrongheaded about it. The way Wallner writes and presents his evidence, you can choose to take it or leave it when he offers his analysis. He considers it a positive when he writes that, instead of acting decisively to stop the violence in Kansas and set aside the territory’s fraudulent proslavery elections, Pierce “hoped the strength of his words would convince the public that agitation of the slavery issue could produce nothing but conflict and violence." But a careful reader with a different opinion could easily come away with a different impression, that Pierce’s reliance on “the strength of his words” is, again, more of an excuse for inaction than an explanation.

The book is very well-written and readable, and devotes considerably more time and attention to Pierce’s post-presidency than Nichols did. Wallner examines Pierce’s relationships with his wife Jane and with friend Nathaniel Hawthorne, and offers a very good epilogue that analyzes Pierce’s personality and policies, and where and why he fell short.

Ultimately, Wallner argues that the problem of slavery could not have been solved without disunion and war, so "the Pierce administration's honest, efficient, legalistic, nationalistic stewardship was the best the nation could have hoped for at the time." So the Pierce presidency, the book seems to conclude, was effective in almost every way - except on the one thing that mattered. Faint praise for a largely forgotten president, but an informative and enlightening read nonetheless.

[Jerry Landry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This ranks up there as one of the best presidential biographies I've had the privilege of reading. I really liked Wallner's pacing and chronological presentation of events. Some biographers group subjects together outside of chronological order while others keep the order but don't present the details clearly to the reader, often leaving the reader disoriented with the subject. This work by Wallner had the perfect touch. As to Pierce, while I didn't necessarily agree with all of Pierce's views on the issues of the day, I've found myself coming to respect this often-forgotten president much more. He wasn't a perfect man by any means, but he strove to be honest and to weed out corruption in his administration. He made the arguments for civil liberties that needed to be made during the Civil War despite the fact that they weren't popular. He remained loyal to his friends, be they impoverished writers or former rebel leaders. He was a man who tried to do right in the face of extreme circumstances. I tip my hat to both President Pierce and Mr. Wallner.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...

Peter Wallner’s two-volume biography is the most recent comprehensive look at Pierce’s life and presidency. “Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union” is the second volume of the series and was published in 2007. 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 second volume covers Pierce’s life from his first day in the White House until his death in New Hampshire at the age of sixty-four. The four years of Pierce’s presidency were undoubtedly less satisfying than Pierce had hoped they would be; he left the White House unpopular and largely unappreciated. The years of his presidency and retirement are also less exciting for the reader of this volume than Wallner’s account of Pierce’s first forty-eight years (chronicled in the first volume).

As was true with the first volume in this series, the second volume proves exquisitely researched, extremely thorough and appropriately detailed. No relevant aspect of Pierce’s political life (and few of his personal life) seem to have escaped Wallner’s attention. Only Pierce’s sad spiral into alcoholism in the last years of his life seems underemphasized in this account. Happily, Wallner liberally sprinkles interesting observations and conclusions throughout the text which makes digestion of the enormous array of facts and details more manageable.

Also true in this volume, Wallner proves more forgiving of Pierce’s conduct as president than most historians. Where many see Pierce’s actions relating to slavery as blindly ignoring a fundamental miscarriage of justice (or, worse, actually stoking the fire) Wallner sees the antebellum president searching for a middle ground, trying to carve a path satisfactory to both pro- and anti-slavery forces. Although Pierce failed in his efforts, Wallner sees an attempt to preserve the Union rather than an effort to perpetuate and expand slavery.

The most common criticism of this biography is that Wallner attempts too forcefully to redeem Franklin Pierce’s political legacy. Ironically, the most useful aspect of this volume for me is the author’s thoughtful and well-argued defense of Pierce’s tenure as president. And rather than masking his opinions as facts, Wallner makes it easy to distinguish between the two. Although he is clearly sympathetic to the former president’s plight (Pierce’s skill set was lacking given the demands of that era, and his timing in office was unfortunate) Wallner skillfully challenges conventional wisdom relating to Pierce’s legacy.

In contrast to his first volume, however, Wallner is unable to cover the last years of Pierce’s life (political and otherwise) in a consistently interesting and engrossing way. The four years of Pierce’s presidential term coincided with a complicated, volatile and important time for the country. But absorbing the details of this antebellum term is often difficult and occasionally tedious. Long sections devoted to important topics such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Cuba seem unending at times; it was occasionally all I could do to avoid skipping ahead to the next chapter.

Overall, however, this second volume of Peter Wallner’s series on Franklin Pierce is an impressive, sweeping and thoughtful analysis of Pierce’s presidency and retirement (though it is unclear why Pierce’s life required division into two volumes). Although Wallner convincingly demonstrates that history’s view of Pierce is one-dimensional and superficial, less persuasive is the author’s claim that Pierce was a “martyr for the Union.” But while this second volume is not often entertaining, it is consistently penetrating, thought-provoking, insightful, humanizing and extremely scholarly.

Overall rating: 3¾ stars

[Brent Ecenbarger · Rating 3 out of 5]

From 1860 to 1865, half of America went to war against the other half, and nearly three quarters of a million people died in the process, In 2017, Donald Trump asked why the Civil War could not have been avoided. I bring up both of those facts because finishing up the second part of this biography series on Franklin Pierce spends a great deal of time on the eight years leading up to the Civil War, four of which Pierce was in office as president. Certainly there is plenty to be found here in terms of causes for the Civil War.

In rankings of the best to worst presidents, guys like Pierce, Fillmore, and Buchanan are justifiably ranked near the bottom, however each came into office with issues that presented choices that would anger one half of the country into possible battle. I mentioned in my Millard Fillmore review that northern presidents of this era came off worse than southern ones in historical retrospect and that continues significantly here. The reason for that is that each compromise the presidents took to preserve “harmony” was to appease the southern slave states. Pierce went well beyond Fillmore in his support for the south however, and through fourteen presidents he was by far the worst individual to hold office (though Buchanan looks to be even worse).

Here’s how he scores up on my presidential ratings rubric:

Born into – Pierce’s father was a Revolutionary War soldier who made himself successful farmer afterward and then a tavern owner. Pierce had several siblings, but was born to his father’s second wife (named Anna Kendrick, who was also referenced in Scrappy Little Nobody which I read while I was reading the first volume of this biography set), who gave birth to Franklin Pierce as the 5th of eight children. Pierce’s father eventually became sheriff, and used that as a platform to eventually become governor of New Hampshire (while Pierce was in college). 2/5

Pre-President – Pierce was not a great student at first, being last in class after two years at Bowdoin College, before buckling down and finishing 5th out of 17. Like so many presidents before him, he became a lawyer after college. His political career began when he was elected to state legislature, becoming the youngest ever speaker of House in New Hampshire. While in the House, he voted to curtail a number of news papers that had been funded by the government to print laws; in actuality this measure was actually a shrewd manner of eliminating non-Democrat news papers. Pierce would continue to act with the best interests of the Democrat party ahead of those of the people in his state in country throughout his political career. Pierce also spent some time in the military during the Mexican American War, which provided no moments of great account for Pierce and possibly some aspersions of cowardice that would follow him around throughout his career.

Pierce followed his state service up with eight years in United States House of Representatives. While there he did not support Gag Order on discussing slavery, even though he was against abolition. I mention this because this is pretty much the only time in his political career he did something that was not the prime wishes of the southern democrats. Like Andrew Jackson, Pierce was involved in a duel that killed another member of the House of Representative, however rather than fighting in it he assisted in finding “a second” for the duel. Due to his limited role, he managed to escape the wrath of congress afterward unlike the rest of the participants.

Pierce became a Senator next, but retired partially into his only term as he wanted to go back home. His only real impact as Senator was involvement in vetting claims for Revolutionary War Pensions. Back in New Hampshire, Pierce focused on directing the path of the state Democrat party. While there his main political rivalry was with John Hale. Hale (an idealist, willing to break from party on issues if needed) versus Pierce (follow the party position on all matters) was the most interesting contrast of politicians in the first volume by Wallner. It was still fairly amazing he emerged as presidential candidate after years as the unofficial leader of Democrat party in New Hampshire, and as a dark horse candidate he even puts famous dark horse Polk to shame. Essentially it happened by Pierce becaming a compromise pick, everybody’s second choice at Democrat convention. None of the front runners saw him coming and he secured nomination rather quickly once he was presented as a candidate. As the candidate, he won in a landslide victory winning all but four states, albeit with a very low voter turnout. 3/5.

Presidential Career – Pierce’s first acts were all attempts to represent all factions of the Democratic Party in his cabinet. I thought this was admirable, not quite as much as Washington or Monroe welcoming different party views, but admirable still. Those that he ended up selecting ended up being the only cabinet (as of the writing of book) to remain the same for entire presidency. Pierce gave more responsibilities to his attorney general that had previously been done (those had belonged to Secretary of State) and created the modern justice department as a result. His first crisis/headline involved a man named Koszta who lived in America but was wanted by Hungary for his role in inciting a revolution; Pierce held strong and Hungary eventually relinquished their demand for him.

Pierce’s policy of spreading out appointments and patronage began losing him favor immediately; it cost him support particularly in New York where the “Hard” portion of the party’s appointed leader disregarded Pierce’s instructions and screwed the “Soft” and “Barnburner” democrat portions. Pierce set precedent by removing the culprit with that as the cause. Often Pierce’s ideas were good but the execution was poor. In one instance he sent an individual to finalize the Mexican border with Santa Anna; the problem being the man he sent was also an interested party in a citizen claim affected in that area. The man of course leveraged his claim into the treaty and insinuated that was Pierce’s wish as well, however Pierce did have that portion removed before submitting it to the Senate for approval. The Senate (rife with corruption and special interests at the time) reinstated it plus added other private claims.

The most famous act in Pierce’s presidency is the Kansas Nebraska act. Overturning the Missouri compromise, the act could lead to the first expansion of slavery into the north. It was supported by Pierce, which contradicted his inaugural statements that he would not agitate the slavery question. Wallner argues that non-support of the act would have had same effect towards Civil War. Pierce did not just support the act, he bribed it into existence by promising jobs to 13 House of Representatives members if they changed their vote. In the mid-terms, twelve of the thirteen were voted out of office as a result and needed them (a theme for the entire Democrat party in the midterms). Pierce also returned more fugitive slaves than any other president during his four years in office (although the length of his term versus everybody but Polk from this era makes this an unfair statement). Kansas remained the biggest issue throughout Pierce’s term. Called “Bleeding Kansas” by the press, pro and anti-slavery groups moved to the territory to try and establish a voting block on the slavery issue, and violence and voter fraud issues were common. For a time, two separate governments ended up being set up in the territory.

Pierce continued his bribing ways when he authorized $5,000 for use to persuade Canadians for a favorable settlement in a fisheries dispute. Secretary of State William Marcy was troubled by this as however Pierce did not hesitate. Once again miscommunication was a problem, as the Canadian ambassador ended up spending tens of thousands more than authorized. Another instance of this was an ambassador sent to Spain did not understand what was meant by “detaching” Cuba from Spain and failed to present the option that Pierce had intended.

Pierce focused much of his attention on foreign affairs, probably to deflect from his poor handling of issues at home. The Crimean War was occurring in Europe at the same time, but had little effect for Pierce aside from him authorizing sending three military officers to observe military tactics of multiple European armies. Pierce focused the most on British involvement in Nicaragua in speeches and inside the office. This may have had to do with Pierce’s view of the office of presidency, as he vetoed so many bills for internal improvements (which were then overturned by congress) that foreign policy was one of the only areas left for a president to make an impact. The result for all this intrigue was the Dallas-Clarendon treaty which would have Great Britain exit central America with the exception of Belize. However after all the time spend on the issue, the treaty was not passed until Pierce was out of office, at which point it was modified so much that Britain rejected it. Pierce did support the transatlantic cable, one of his positive legacies in addition to building additional Navy ships and modernizing the army prior to exiting office.

Some interesting random notes from during his presidential years.
• William Atherton (one of Pierce’s best friends and a loyal politician) died unexpectantly and left $8,000 in his will to Pierce. Scholars later found out it was for the care of his secret family and lovechild. Certainly an oddity for a sitting president to have to deal with.
• Brigham Young was appointed Territorial governor of Utah and caused problems by showing his power was greater than that of the national government, even colluding with Indians against the army. Pierce made the political move of appointing somebody else to take Young’s place that would end up declining the offer, thus not showing endorsement of Young or polygamy but also not removing him from power in Utah either.
• Pierce lost the presidential nomination to James Buchanan and never had any momentum in his favor. He is the only president who sought reelection to be denied nomination by his party. 1.5/5

Vice President – Vice president William R. King died very early in office, was never replaced as there was no mechanism for it at that time. .5/5

First Lady – Jane Appleton was one of the most intriguing first ladies, but not in a good way. Wallner did not seem to be a fan of her, citing statements that Jane Appleton Pierce’s only redeeming quality was keeping Pierce sober. More than anything, she seemed a tragic figure. Jane and Franklin had three children, one died at three days old, one died at four years old, and the last died at eleven years old. The last one was particularly sad, as he died when Pierce was on way to Washington with his family via train. The train crashed, and Pierce’s son Benjamin was thrown. When Pierce went up to him he thought he was unconscious but discovered the back of Benjamin’s head was missing. This drove his wife into grieving, and led to a fight 48 hours before inauguration where she told him not to worry about politics. She also decided not to give him lock of hair from Benjamin to wear at inauguration which she had previously saved. Jane remained in mourning for entire first year. In addition to being described as sad she was also mentioned as controlling, known for criticizing Pierce for his mannerisms (i.e. keeping his hands in his pockets) or for inability to resist alcohol at dinner. After he death, Pierce made comments to a writer about his wife indicating his favorite thing about his wife that that she needed him to take care of her due to always being ill. Interestingly enough, Pierce’s friendship with writer Nathaniel Hawthorne seemed more emotional than his relationship with his wife (or siblings). I’ll give her a decent score here for being memorable, though she stayed out of any roles as a First Lady. 3.5/5.

Post Presidency – Pierce didn’t take any official roles in politics after he left the office of president. Instead he spent time traveling with his wife across American and Europe. Pierce’s cabinet stayed loyal to him after office he left office, particularly Jefferson Davis. Unlike prior presidents that I’ve read about, there was a story of Pierce drinking all night with a friend and spending $30 unaccounted for in area known for gambling and brothels. It seems like every president that’s been alive four years after their loss has been asked to run again, and Pierce was no exception after the disaster of the Buchanan administration. Pierce continued to make “pro-National” speeches, chastising abolitionists. Wallner glosses over his repeated statements that whites and Africans are not equals regardless of how the law characterized them. This went on throughout the Civil War, as Pierce and other democrats remained critical of Lincoln and abolition until victory in Atlanta assured Lincoln victory. 1.5/5

Book itself – I enjoyed the second volume of Wallner’s biography better than the first, as it focused more on this fascinating time in American history. Throughout the two volumes however, there were some things that did not work as well other biographies that I’ve read. Stories of Pierce as a lawyer were full of hyperbole (there was even a part talking about how everybody would be weeping after his closing arguments were finished). Wallner also frequently made excuses for Pierce, such as his frequent use of bribes (“it shows how important Pierce felt the issue was”) or using patronage to sway votes (“what president before or after would not have done the same thing?”). However Wallner also includes some fun critical comments of Pierce such as the critics of his drinking’s nickname for Pierce as the “Hero of many well-fought bottle.” Possible military cowardice was also mentioned, however like Pierce’s drinking Wallner mainly mentions that the critics said it more than analyzing how much truth there was to it. Overall as good as can be expected on the subject, but not one of the best presidential biographies I’ve read so far.3/5

[Mark Roth · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book, the second volume of a two-volume biography of Franklin Pierce, covers the time between Pierce's election as president and his death. Like the first volume, it was well written and paints a clear picture of Pierce and his life and times.

I was impressed to learn that Pierce's administration was extremely focused on eliminating corruption, most of which was considered normal by nineteenth century standards. He had strict views on proper ethical behavior for government employees, and he showed this by both appointing people with the same ethical standards and dismissing those that failed his standards. At the time, his views were seen as preventing government workers from the kind of abuse that was then seen as an expected perk of the job.

Where the norm in his era was to use the presidential appointment power to reward his supporters, Pierce tried to hold the Democratic party together by rewarding all factions of the party equally. Unfortunately, this resulted in all factions resenting him equally, which contributed to his single-term presidency. Pierce remains the only incumbent U.S. president to seek his party's nomination for a second term to be denied that nomination. (He is also the only president to retain his entire cabinet intact for his entire term, which speaks to his ability to command personal loyalty.)

Unfortunately, Pierce does have a reputation as a fairly weak president. The author attempts to combat this view, but is only partially successful. While he makes a compelling case that Pierce's political views were consistent throughout his life and that he never wavered from them under any pressure, he is less convincing about Pierce's ability to handle personal conflict. There are several points where it is noted that Pierce's opponents often came away from a conversation with him thinking that he agreed with them, when that was not in fact the case; this leaves me with the impression that he was strongly driven by a desire to please people, and was not as willing to disagree with them as he should have been.

The major failing of the Pierce administration was the violence in Kansas (referred to as "bleeding Kansas" in high school history books). While the author does make a reasonable case that this was not entirely Pierce's fault, it does seem clear that a major contributing factor to the violence was Pierce's poor choices for the first two territorial governors. He seems to have made a better choice for the third governor after the first two made a mess of the situation, but by then it was far too late.

Pierce's stance of slavery was on the wrong side of history, although of all the pro-Southern politicians of the era, I can respect Pierce's views the most. He was not really pro-slavery (in fact, he did regard it as an evil); he was simply pro-Union, and he believed that the Constitution clearly granted the individual states the right to decide the question of slavery for themselves. While he considered slavery an evil, he felt that the abolitionist activism of the North was threatening the Union, and for Pierce, the evil of civil war outweighed the evil of slavery.

Pierce died alone after many years of public disdain, due to his refusal to support Lincoln's approach to the civil war.

This book was well written and paints a vivid picture of Pierce's life and times. I would recommend it to anyone interested in learning about Pierce and his era.

[Nathan Casebolt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Franklin Pierce's single term of office as the 14th President of the United States is remarkable for the fact that few remember it. He entered office as American's youngest president to date, determined to shrink and reform a corrupt and venal federal government. So dedicated and loyal was his Cabinet that it remains the only presidential cabinet in America history that saw no turnover in its four years of existence. However, after the Kansas-Nebraska act obliterated the Missouri Compromise and tore open the floodgates of rivalry between North and South, Pierce achieved the dubious distinction of being the only president in American history to seek his party's renomination for a second term without success. The Democratic Party nominated Buchanan to replace its own president. Pierce's reformist administration was followed by one of the most corrupt in the republic's history; and his opposition to abolition, disunion, and to the Lincoln administration earned him eternal contempt from his own former supporters.

It's fashionable today to use the past as a bludgeon in the present, either to dismantle and destroy or to whitewash and idolize. Pierce's grim opposition to abolitionism certainly tempts the reader to engage in such pleasant sport. If you can lay that natural human tendency aside, Pierce is a study in what happens when the tides of history leave a man behind. He was a legacy of the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian age, a man who believed passionately in limited federal government, fiscal conservatism, the dangers of banks and corporate greed, the rights of the common man, and in compromise and toleration of any principled difference for the sake of the Union. By the time he was elected, however, the spirit of the times had moved on. The federal government had metastasized into a trough of money for the well-connected, waste and corruption threaded its rot throughout the body politic, corporate greed was a hallowed American virtue, the common man wanted his share of the spoils, and compromise and toleration held no attraction to a populace fracturing over whether or not the nation's house would stand free or slave. Despite his relative youth, Pierce was a relic; and his determination to treat all comers fairly and equally earned him suspicion, contempt, and hatred from a society at war with itself.

Is there truly a place for a principled moderate in extreme times? However one answers this persistent historical question, one thing is clear: for Pierce, his place was not in the pantheon of American greats. He chose a middle path at a time when the middle was disintegrating, and whatever hopes he held of an historical legacy disintegrated with it. He never regretted his choice to stand on principle, and for his trouble is remembered only as a failed president, on the rare occasion when he is remembered at all.

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm still fascinated to the max by U.S. history from the 1820s through 1850s. Franklin Pierce was a man of integrity who seemed deeply committed to consistency, honesty, and ridding government of corruption. Needless to say, this pissed off a lot of political players. Also, this book makes you understand Jefferson Davis on a new level, as well as the slavery issue in general, an issue which most of us could stand to learn more about. The development of New Hampshire politics was interesting to read as well. Although I wished I could have found a one volume Pierce bio, I'm glad I read Wallner's writings.

[Mary D · Rating 4 out of 5]

So glad I worked so hard to fond a copy of this 2nd volume. It seems none of the IA libraries who participate on inter-library loan had one. Pierce was an interesting man whose reputation was trashed during the civil war. He was an advocate of states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution. He strongly objected to Lincoln's extensions of executive authority and infringement of civil liberties, for which he was labeled a traitor and suspected of treasonous activity. His wife died shortly after he left office and his binge alcoholism became more chronic; he died of complications of liver failure.

[Tom Rowe · Rating 3 out of 5]

At times dull. However, I now know about Franklin Pierce, the 14th President of the US. He is someone I knew nothing of before this book. He seems to be a very principled man who failed to change with the times. I have found things to both respect and deplore in the man. RIP Franklin Pierce.

[Jeremy Anderberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

What if I described a president that addressed such issues as control of emigration, the fight of imposition of religious agendas into the political process, the proper role of the federal government in people's lives, the assumption of vast power by the president in times of national emergency, the limits of dissent and the place of Bill of Rights in war time and America's role in defending and spreading democracy around the world? These issues would be things people would pull for today. What if I told you that Franklin Pierce was that president?

That's the shock I found myself as I read into the final volume of the 2 volume series that revolved around his presidency and post presidency life. Pierce was a man of integrity and fought against corruption in politics and unfortunately this was the exact opposite time to have that type of person.

Patronage/the Spoils System Challenged - Right out of the gate after forming his cabinet(which holds the record of having no one leave the cabinet for a president serving a full term) he begun to dispense patronage as party wide and based on integrity. This immediately started the hate affair as his own party members were looking to swindle money from their offices into their personal checking accounts. Especially the NY port office which people were keeping revenue themselves.(Pierce ended this practice)

Foreign Affairs - he wanted to expand America's dominance and democracy but not at the cost of war or filibustering. Did the benefit outweigh the setback with the Gasden purchase having American companies getting money from the treaty? I believe so,, as it took America's obligation to settle Indian affairs along the boarder and gave a distinct boundary line.
British affairs were at a disaster level after the treaty under(Taylor/Fillmore) that didn't really require anything of the British in Central America and the fisheries were under hostile attack around Canada.. Pierce was able to resolve the Canadian Fisheries issue while not perfect and later replaced it ended the threat of armed commercial ships. The Central America issue was resolved once issues were put to the British public but that treaty was left to the Buchanan residency and ultimately rejected by Britain.
The Cuban crisis was a let down from the start due to a disappointment by the fanatical Soule. The one positive out of this came from the constant prosecution of filibusters that tried to invade Cuba, Mexico and the Central Americas. These were widely popular in the North and the South so most were never convicted by a jury.

Domestic Crisis - multiple issues happened under Pierce that was cause of concern in the territories. The Mormons were causing issues and Brigham Young needed to be removed but due to the Mormons populating most if not all of the Utah Territory this would be essentially impossible for anyone else to be accepted and look the other way. Pierce also had one of the VERY best Indian affairs agent in Moneypenny. He treated Native Americans with dignity and actually went after politicians and business men who took advantage of them.. This would cause yet an other problem for the Pierce admin in their own party as party members were looking for kick backs on illegally sold Indian lands.

Kansas/Nebraska - yes, this could of gone under Domestic Crisis but I think it deserves it's own section. The main issue here is did the Compromise of 1850 invalidate the Missouri Compromise and I believe the answer is yes. While I don't believe the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, I do think this was completely out of the hands of Peirce. I again think he missed the mark on the original appointees of the territory ie the first governor. The first governor was more into speculation and gaining his pocket book than running the territory. I believe bloodshed would have been avoided if he would have ordered the census right away and not allowed the initial voting to take place which included voter intimidation and caused the initial outrage of the fake legislature. As soon as Governor Walker reigned a politician that was much more concerned with governering the territory peace resided in Kansas until it took a turn in Buchanan's admin as he replaced Walker. Again, the aggressiveness to settle the violence in Kansas by calling a special session even during a presidential nomination year gained no support from his friends in the Democratic party who wanted Pierce to show favoritism to the slaveholders.

Closing remarks on presidency: Pierce did battle with alcoholism throughout his life but when by Jane he avoided this pitfall. Due to this I don't think he ran into this issue during his presidency. He did oppose all -isms such as anti-cathlotism, anti-imigrationism and abolitionism. Not because he loved slavery but he was a strict constitutionalist. The constitution at that point did allow slavery and was impossible to get the slave states to amend the constitution without a civil war. This rigidity and unwillingness to change when his mind was set maybe due to his personal list troubles from his mother to the death of his children and Jane. The black eye on this forefront was his attorney general silencing a news paper in Mississippi discussing abolitionism.

Summary: I believe Pierce did the best he could with the country sitting on a powder keg from the developments of the compromise of 1850. Bleeding Kansas was a black eye on the administration on an otherwise honest administration that had multiple bright points. Governor Walker appointed at the beginning would of made all the difference.

Final Grade: 69.6 -> 70 C*
*I feel like I have to make a caveat on this one as I know most rank Pierce at the bottom. I rank presidents based on their own time and how one must have felt then. I do not rank presidents based on today's standards backtracking.

Book Grade: 5 stars

I won't go into the personal life of Pierce but to say it is one of the saddest presidents life I've read about to date. When you die with no family around and majority of your close if not all friends are dead is extremely sad. Also, I won't delve into his post presidency politics life as he did have a busy political behind the scenes life. I will say his speech to the angry mob after Lincoln's death moved me. It can still stand today that just because you aren't waiving American flags doesn't mean you are not a steadfast patriot to the cause.

[Eric · Rating 2 out of 5]

Part way through the book I realized how much the title, Martyr for the Union (He wasn't) reflected how much of Franklin Pierce's life and work had been sanitized and how much hero worship was involve in writing the second volume of his life (I haven't read it, and don't intend to). Peter Wallner takes a president, who placed more importance on his party over the United States, Native Americans and slavery, and used the Constitution as justification. He is sited as not wanting people to benefit from political appointments, but was not above using it to forward his agenda. Additionally, the author states that “...Pierce faces unscrupulous and corrupt politicians, comically inept diplomats...fraud...and speculation within an increasingly divided nation...” forgetting that the majority of those mentioned failures were placed there by Pierce himself. Pierce was a racist, but none of that is put to print until a brief reference, and coupled with justification that Lincoln "was as well" (from a speech made when he was younger). This isn't a history, so much as it is a sales job to elevate Franklin Pierce as more than a place holder in the book of presidents.

[Elyse · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like this second volume better than the first. As a matter of fact, I found it somewhat of a page turner in parts. I especially liked the bit describing the formation of a camel corps used in the American southwest until the 1860's. Even though Pierce was a racist I see what he was trying to do as a strict Constitutionalist. According to the Constitution at that time, slavery was legal and he was trying to keep the country all in one piece by pacifying the southern states. During his years living through the Civil War I respect Pierce's distress when Lincoln waived people's civil rights. It was a confusing time in American history. As a person living in the 21st century I may disagree with Pierce's views on race and his critique of Lincoln's tactics but I'm blessed with more accurate information than he had and the gift of hindsight.

[Daniel Farabaugh · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has two failings that took away from my enjoyment. First, the author works so hard to lionize Pierce and justify what he did that he needs to do verbal gymnastics to rationalize it. Pierce was on the wrong side of history with slavery and failed to address it meaningfully. The author constantly lionizes his principles but those are meaningless without effective execution. Taking a principled stand is not good if those principles are not worth it nor able to be put into practice.

The other problem is that Pierce's Presidency is not that significant. His time was dominated by Congress and his issues other than Kansas were not that important. Unfortunately, you cannot give weight to events that do not have them.

[R. Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book starts with Pierce's presidency, and ends with his death. That's fitting for a sequel, and I can't fault Wallner for not retreading area he already covered in his first book. However, I still felt like I was missing some crucial information about the personality and character of our fourteenth president. The book also had a tendency to cover every detail of his presidency. This certainly makes it the definitive book on Franklin Pierce, but it's easy to get lost in such a vast sea of information.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book on the presidency of Franklin Pierce. He spend 25 years in public life before becoming president and was a great politician, but also man of integrity. He was well-liked among those who knew him. Pierce believed in union and in the Democratic party. After election, he utilized the patronage system putting into his cabinet and federal positions Democrat politicians. But is was not just his friends. Pierce wanted to represent the different factions of the Democrats, which were already very divided. [I remember Washington's first administration he set up to represent differing views. It went so badly that Washington remarked that he would not do that again. His second term was all Federalist who supported him.] I understand why voters get mad at this. But like Jackson said, "To the victors belong the spoils." The executive still has to accomplish his duties, and it is much easier when you have support.

His presidency is largely defined by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which Pierce supported. Stephen A. Douglas led this act to get cheap land for northern farmers and a transcontinental railroad with federal land grants. All of this required organizing the land west of Iowa and Missouri. Douglas had to have support in the South but the South hated the Missouri Compromise restricting slavery above 36'30. The real opposition to the act came when Samuel P. Chase wrote Appeal of the Independent Democrat once popular sovereignty was put into the act. “All questions pertaining to slavery in the territories and in the new states to be formed therein are to be left to the people residing therein, through the appropriate representatives” repleaded Missouri Compromise. Pierce, a Jacksonian Democrat, believed in popular sovereignty. Ironically, this act was done for northerners but became another issue with slavery - especially when the Southern Whigs voted for the bill becoming the final death blow to the party. The Whigs never knew what they were anyway, which I find funny.

Pierce, along for the ride, did not see the domestic division happening with this bill. I'm glad it was pointed out the southerners who moved into this territory moved on their own. But I forget the organization in New England that funded abolitionists to move into the territory. In the end, that did not matter because both pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups fought each other for the next few years. Kansas was bad because it being west of Missouri, everyone felt it would go slavery. Nebraska would likely not. It was difficult for Pierce to appoint governors of the territory due to the division. In the end, Mr. Wallner pointed out that in August of 1856, 56 people died in brawls in Kansas. That sounds like a lot. But during the same time, 800+ died in California. The newly formed Republicans used this propaganda for their power and converted the Know-Nothings to Republican. Ultimately, it was downhill to the Civil War after the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

There was so much more that went on during his time. Pierce did a great job with foreign policy with the canal in Panama and fight against British control. This paved the way for the use of the Panama canal long after. Pierce was very honest and got rid of the corruption in the federal government, especially through customs. His generation was the 'plundering generation.' Virtually every administration from Taylor to Grant had serious corruption, except for Pierce. Pierce looked at all situations from a Constitutional perspective. He had a great secretary of state William Marcy who shared Pierces conviction of the Constitution, limited Federal government and states rights.

Pierce was such a 'doughface' that many thought he was pro-slavery. Pierce was not pro-slavery and believed it to be immoral. He did not sympathize with the South. After the Civil War began, Pierce did sympathize with the North when Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus along transportation routes between NY and Washington as well as imposing Martial Law throughout the North, "If the vital principles and guarantees of the Constitution are to be disregarded and destroyed... It matters little to our people whether that is done by open rebellion under the lead of Jefferson Davis, or by the arbitrator use of usurped power under the direction of Abraham Lincoln."

Pierce was the first president to maintain his entire cabinet through his term. He was the first president to not be re-nominated by the party after being elected. He was the first to lose all of his children. Pierce was the youngest Senator at age 31, and the youngest President of his time at age 48. Based on Mr. Wallner's research, I believe Pierce may be the first President to be a born-again Christian. Shortly before he died, he wanted to be baptized in the Episcopal Church. His struggles with attending church were the result of Methodist and Congregationalist preachers preaching Abolition from the pulpit. Before being baptized, Pierce acknowledged his sin and need of forgiveness. But it was Pierce's quote in 1843 while his son was dying of Typhus that makes me think his faith was with God:

"I am conscious that within in the last two years particularly my prevailing feeling has been that we were living for our children. In all my labors, plans and exertions in them was the center of all my hopes, they were in all my thoughts. We should have lived for God and have left the dear ones to the care of Him who alone is able to take care of them and us… My mind has long been impressed with the fact that if our present life is not probationary in its character, if we are not placed here, as the blessed word of God teaches, to prepare for another and more exalted state of being, we are destined to waste our energies upon things that are unsubstantial, fleeting, passing away and that can bring no permanent peace - can give no calm hope that is as an anchor to the soul. And yet with that conviction constantly recurring few have been more entirely absorbed in the whirl of business and cares purely of a worldly character than I have."

[Anthony Bergen · Rating 5 out of 5]

My review in AND Magazine: http://www.andmagazine.com/content/an...

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read and very through with Pierce's political life in NH and in the White House. Highly recommend both volumes.

[Dave Benner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the best work on Pierce, although not fantastic.

[Christian Dibblee · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Pierce administration makes for frustrating and fascinating reading all at the same time. On the fascinating side, Pierce was perhaps one of the more consistent presidents when it came to his Constitutional interpretation. Described often in this book as a "civil libertarian", Pierce refused to let -isms take over his administration. As a result, he is often deemed one of the worst Presidents in history due to his unwillingness to get more involved as it pertained to the extension of slavery. Wallner couches Pierce's support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act as something he did to keep the Democratic party together. While in hindsight that appears to be a lame excuse, Wallner makes a compelling case that Pierce firmly believed that prohibiting slaveowners from bringing their slaves into the territories would deprive them of certain rights. He certainly was incorrect in this belief, but he held it.

Another thing for which Pierce deserves recognition is his willingness to use the patronage power to appease all factions of his party. While a different author likely would present a different story, Pierce appears to have fallen victim to petty squabbles between Democrats in states like New York when he worked hard to make everybody happy.

Now to the frustrating...Wallner clearly feels compelled to rescue Pierce's historical reputation and therefore spends some chapters on events totally unrelated to slavery such as annexing Cuba and determining a policy on filibusters to Central America. While those undoubtedly must have been important, there is so much emphasis on those policy areas that the reader gets bored easily. While I think Wallner supports well his argument that Pierce was fair to all sides (i.e. he supported Southern Democrats on Kansas but refused to follow them on issues like acquiring Cuba), more space could have been devoted to Pierce's machinations on the slavery issue. Unlike Wallner's first volume, this book moves a bit too slowly as a result.

Given all that I found the book to be okay. Informative to be sure and Wallner does do Pierce a service in portraying him as a champion of limited govt who refused to compromise on that. He remained a very pro-Union man, much like Fillmore before him. But one can't help but think that even after this sympathetic treatment that he deserves his place as one of our least effective Presidents. Considering the emphasis Wallner placed on secondary issues, the book frustrated me for the most part.

[The Logophile · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book 2 of 2

I'm finding it harder & harder to review these biographies as I slowly draw closer to the Civil War. My 21st-century sensibilities are offended by a lot of what Pierce did & said. I don't agree with the argument that everyone was a racist at that time, so it's OK. Even if it was true (and I don't believe it was), it was NEVER ok. I don't think I came out of this biography liking Franklin Pierce. That being said, I understand why a lot of people did. Despite this dislike, I have to say it was an amazing book. I enjoyed reading every page & should point out it has one of the best epilogues I have ever read.

I would also like to thank New Hampshire & New England Booksellers (Plaidswede Publishing Co.) for my copy. I searched everywhere for book #2 (local stores, universities, public libraries, Amazon, BnN, Thriftbooks, etc.) & couldn't get a copy. After having read book #1 already, you can imagine how anxious I was believing I would never finish his story. Thankfully, my husband thought to look-up bookstores in Pierce's home state of New Hampshire, something I should've thought of, but never did. I will be forever indebted to them & my husband.

[Jdb · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.75 stars
This is volume 2 of 2 of Wallner’s bio, covering FP’s presidential term thru his death.
FP’s reputation is low among historians. Ideologically motivated by his philosophy of Union preservation & strict interpretation of the Constitution, he signed the Nebraska-Kansas and Fugitive Slave Acts to avoid war. But preserving the Union while keeping slavery put him directly at odds with abolitionists and the Lincoln administration, tarnishing his legacy.
His administration reduced the national debt, reorganized the army, instituted ‘merit’ for promotion in the navy, negotiated Canadian fishery rights with G.Britain, opposed US filibusters (private armies) in Cuba, and eliminated corruption within the Treasury department.
A man of integrity, a competent lawyer, and with a respectable military record in Mexican war, Pierce deserves more respect as someone caught in the whirlwind of his time.

[Lesley Squire · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was volume two of the biography. The first volume, New Hampshire’s Favorite Son, was just as good. I’m reading biographies of all the U.S. presidents in order, and several of these approaching the mid 19th century have been tough. There aren’t very many—unlike Washington or Lincoln, whose lives have been documented by many authors, some of the 19th century presidents may have one or two old, boring biographies available. They have been kind of like trudging through mud to finish. Not Peter Wallner’s two part series. These books were engaging and easy to read. Plenty of details and analysis, but in an approachable style. I actually enjoyed reading them! Franklin Pierce was a very interesting person and president, and I learned new things on some of the perspectives of the time. A worthwhile read for anyone interested in both presidential history and the Civil War—he was obviously out of office before the war began, but he spent much of his political life trying to prevent the war he suspected was coming from happening. I learned a lot.

[Diane]

Well written and engaging look at the administration and final days of our 14th president. Does a pretty good job of persuading the reader that Pierce was a more effective president than given credit for--a good man who stuck to his ideals and accomplished some goals regarding civil service reform and foreign policy. His policy regarding Kansas-Nebraska territory, while ineffective and doing nothing to decelerate the country's descent into Civil War, was at least consistent with his beliefs. (Hence the "Martyr to the Union" subtitle.) One of the better, more interesting presidential bios I've read.

[Sydney · Rating 5 out of 5]

In addition to the comprehensive history, I loved reading about Pierce's friendship with Nathanial Hawthorne - and how he helped out his struggling author friend by giving him high-paying government positions. So while it's discouraging to see that authors have always struggled financially, I loved reading about this long relationship. Still just kills me that Hawthorne is now read in almost every high school - and never got to experience that sort of huge success.

[Lynda Spring · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating history of issues forced upon a president.
Pierce was portrayed as scrupulously honest , focused and thoughtful in his decisions.
His own tragedies and Ill health were downplayed.
His devotion to his wife was admirable.
Wallner did extensive research and I found an interview he gave on C-span that was quite interesting.
Enjoyed learning about this President and his place in history.

[Tom Mobley · Rating 5 out of 5]

To be clear, Pierce was not a good President, but then again, given where our country was at that point in time not sure anyone could have lead us.

Half the country made up of slaves states, half the northern states wanting status quo and the other half wanting abolition, but not on the same page.

But, the books do a good job telling the story of his life and explains the history.

[Marcy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was seriously interesting! It was well written and I now know so much that I wouldn't otherwise. I saw so many parallels to what is going on today.