What do you think?
Rate this book
Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills
Franklin Young Hickory of the Granite Hills. Franklin Pierce - the fourteenth President of the United Sates - - has existed in the public mind as a stereotype rather than as a many-sided human being. The predominate picture that we have of him is that of a weak and shallow man, a "mediocrity" who left little imprint upon the history of the United States. Indeed, his personality was complex, made up of varying strengths and conflicting inadequacies, while his life, full of inner turmoil, had an aspect of overwhelming tragedy. This authoritative biography makes available a full-scale study of an unusually interesting human being. With the same thoroughness and intensity that have distinguished all if his historical writing, Roy F. Nichols follows Pierce's life from his earliest years in New Hampshire, though his college career at Bowdoin, his marriage into the distinguished ranks of an established New England family, his rise in politics, his services as a brigadier general of volunteers in the Mexican War, and his election to the Presidency as a "dark Horse" candidate of the Democratic Party. Mr. Nichols minutely examines all the domestic and international crises that beset Pierce's administration - the growing conflict between North and South that was to erupt within a decade into civil war, the abortive attempt to annex Cuba, the troubled relations with England, the filibustering activities of such men as William Walker which aroused much resentment in Central America toward the United States. Not only does the author refashion the exciting events of these critical days in American history, but he also unfolds, with sympathy and compassion, the tragic developments that dogged Pierce in his personal life - his difficult marriage, his wife's illness, the death of three sons, the final bleak years of obscurity before he passed away, almost forgotten by the nation he had served.
643 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1931
12 people are currently reading
99 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
October 4, 2022
I typically don’t read vintage biographies when there are newer ones available. But in this case, I’d already read Peter Wallner’s two-volume Franklin Pierce biography some years ago. So given the dearth of other Pierce biographies out there, it’s back to 1931 and Roy Nichols’ Young Hickory of the Granite Hills I go.
And for an 80-year-old book, written within the lifetime of some who had met and known Pierce personally, it actually holds up reasonably well. Sure, the writing is a little old-fashioned and can get a bit flowery and ornate, but not too distractingly so. And it’s pretty well balanced in telling it like it is, without unfairly condemning or undeservedly praising Pierce.
One can argue about which president seemed least suited to the office, but Pierce certainly seemed to have one of the least distinguished pre-presidential careers. He entered state politics as a Daddy’s boy to his governor father, went on to an unremarkable career in Congress, and ultimately became one of the unlikeliest of dark horse presidential nominees. Nichols quotes one of Pierce’s own friends as remarking how Pierce had come so far so fast, "with no very remarkable talents.”
Nichols himself is rather unforgiving in his judgement of Pierce’s service in the U.S. House and Senate. Pierce "seemed unable to do anything effective... was too amiable and obliging, too much the follower,” he writes. Pierce showed a “lack of imagination and originality” and “did favors instead of making bargains." Pierce seemed to spend most of his time on committee work and wasn't too involved in the big debates of the day, so the lasting legacy of his congressional career was "several hundred reports on individual pension cases," Nichols scoffs.
At least a couple of times, Nichols displays an odd habit of prefacing sections by saying much of what will follow is unimportant. One period of Pierce’s life, during which he debated whether to retire as Senator, is described as "of little interest or importance biographically", while "biographically, in the light of future events," the years following his congressional career are described as "important only as they picture Pierce's new political interest.” And after teeing up how uninteresting this is going to be, Nichols goes on to tell us all about these times of his life anyway.
At about this point in the book, it becomes increasingly apparent that this story of Pierce’s life is told largely from the viewpoint of Pierce himself. We rarely get any broader context about what was happening in the country as a whole; anything that Pierce wasn’t personally involved in or witnessed himself is only touched on briefly. This is even true when it comes to the 1852 convention that nominated him for president. Little about the convention itself or how the tide turned in his favor is described - instead we’re only told what Pierce himself was told about how his nomination came about, when he’s informed of the outcome.
I also found myself wondering whether Nichols originated the “Jane Pierce fainted when she found out her husband had won the nomination for president” story. It sounds like the inventive, embellished kind of detail that a book written in the 1930’s would include - anywhere else I’ve seen this story, it sources Nichols book, or doesn’t source the story at all, and I haven’t been able to find any reference to this fainting incident prior to the publication of this book. (Edit: I have since found this story related, albeit secondhandedly, in an 1874 memoir by a Pierce associate. That still doesn't mean it's true, it just means the story predates Nichols's telling!)
The story makes for an easy shorthand way to describe how Pierce’s reserved, sickly wife never wanted him to be president and begrudged his political ambitions, particularly after their son died shortly before his inauguration. But Nichols does manage to set aside the simplistic story that Jane Pierce spent the entirety of her husband’s presidency isolated upstairs in the White House mourning her son and resenting her husband, as he describes several occasions in which she did participate in some social events and went on vacations with Pierce. Still, the Pierces certainly seemed like a terribly mismatched couple, and it’s probably safe to say she wasn’t fun at parties.
Nichols is very good at setting scenes, describing the sights and sounds of mid-19th century Congress, the White House, and Washington itself. Once Pierce becomes president, however, much of the narrative can get excessively detailed, as, for example, many of the day-to-day activities of his Cabinet secretaries are chronicled, and it can become difficult to distinguish the important events among the many more routine administrative functions that are described.
The book touches only lightly on Pierce’s struggles with alcohol, during his Congressional career and again late in life. But throughout the book, there are perceptive nuggets about Pierce’s personality and management style hidden among the sometimes dull details of governance. Pierce “was fond of detail” and took “miscellany very seriously,” showing an "exactness in administering rules and laws,” Nichols observes. But he floundered in matters when his own judgment was called for. He seemed not to want to disappoint anyone, and “had such difficulty in making up his mind that often when he had made it up he sought to unmake it."
Ultimately, Pierce’s "great weakness as a statesman" was his "optimistic and indecisive" outlook, Nichols concludes. Pierce seemed to take nationalism, patriotism and unionism for granted, assuming that everyone else felt as strongly about preserving the Union as he did, so he believed compromise and not confrontation was the best course. He thought of the Compromise of 1850 as a permanent solution that would keep slavery out of politics for good - and then, after he was talked into supporting the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thought the same about that, without realizing that at this stage in the struggle over slavery, compromise had consequences.
I read the revised 1958 edition of the book, which includes a new final chapter reassessing Pierce’s legacy. I initially took this to mean that Nichols added a new chapter at the end, but only later learned that he threw out his original final chapter and replaced it with a rewritten one. Now I want to read his original concluding chapter, because apparently after 27 years of reflection, Nichols started to feel bad for Pierce, as the “new” final chapter is drastically different in tone from the rest of the book. In trying to explain and understand Pierce’s behavior as president, he comes awfully close to making excuses for him.
For one, Nichols posits that the death of Pierce’s son and his difficult marriage impacted his ability to govern. Had he had "a happy, normal family life" and "the confidence which his great victory should have supplied," he may well "have risen to the challenge of the presidency,” Nichols speculates. He goes on to put much of the blame for Pierce’s missteps as president on his Cabinet, and on his inability to court positive press. He says the Pierce administration agreeing to the Kansas Nebraska Act was simply "the price they had to pay" in order to get congressional support for Pierce’s presidency. And he defends Pierce’s actions regarding slavery and compromise as "upholding a time-honored constitutional interpretation created by the Founding Fathers to promote the stability of the Republic."
It is true that it’s easy for us to condemn Pierce and other antebellum presidents from our perspective in the present day. What could any of them have done, after all, to eliminate slavery without breaking up the Union, short of going to war? Nichols says Pierce was president "at a moment when probably no one was prepared for it or when no one could have occupied it successfully... It is difficult to discover any formula of success which Pierce and his associates might have created and applied."
It’s a fair enough assessment, but Nichols seems to go overboard in this final chapter in giving Pierce the benefit of the doubt - after some 500 pages of describing Pierce as somewhat out of his depth and his own worst enemy as president, he concludes that Pierce was “one of democracy’s most unfortunate victims.” Perhaps Pierce doesn’t deserve to be condemned, but he doesn’t deserve to be given a pass and characterized as a “victim” either. This is a good, fair book up until the end. If you can find an original 1931 edition - and I’ll be looking for one - I’d recommend reading the original last chapter alongside the revised one, to see which one holds up the best.
And for an 80-year-old book, written within the lifetime of some who had met and known Pierce personally, it actually holds up reasonably well. Sure, the writing is a little old-fashioned and can get a bit flowery and ornate, but not too distractingly so. And it’s pretty well balanced in telling it like it is, without unfairly condemning or undeservedly praising Pierce.
One can argue about which president seemed least suited to the office, but Pierce certainly seemed to have one of the least distinguished pre-presidential careers. He entered state politics as a Daddy’s boy to his governor father, went on to an unremarkable career in Congress, and ultimately became one of the unlikeliest of dark horse presidential nominees. Nichols quotes one of Pierce’s own friends as remarking how Pierce had come so far so fast, "with no very remarkable talents.”
Nichols himself is rather unforgiving in his judgement of Pierce’s service in the U.S. House and Senate. Pierce "seemed unable to do anything effective... was too amiable and obliging, too much the follower,” he writes. Pierce showed a “lack of imagination and originality” and “did favors instead of making bargains." Pierce seemed to spend most of his time on committee work and wasn't too involved in the big debates of the day, so the lasting legacy of his congressional career was "several hundred reports on individual pension cases," Nichols scoffs.
At least a couple of times, Nichols displays an odd habit of prefacing sections by saying much of what will follow is unimportant. One period of Pierce’s life, during which he debated whether to retire as Senator, is described as "of little interest or importance biographically", while "biographically, in the light of future events," the years following his congressional career are described as "important only as they picture Pierce's new political interest.” And after teeing up how uninteresting this is going to be, Nichols goes on to tell us all about these times of his life anyway.
At about this point in the book, it becomes increasingly apparent that this story of Pierce’s life is told largely from the viewpoint of Pierce himself. We rarely get any broader context about what was happening in the country as a whole; anything that Pierce wasn’t personally involved in or witnessed himself is only touched on briefly. This is even true when it comes to the 1852 convention that nominated him for president. Little about the convention itself or how the tide turned in his favor is described - instead we’re only told what Pierce himself was told about how his nomination came about, when he’s informed of the outcome.
I also found myself wondering whether Nichols originated the “Jane Pierce fainted when she found out her husband had won the nomination for president” story. It sounds like the inventive, embellished kind of detail that a book written in the 1930’s would include - anywhere else I’ve seen this story, it sources Nichols book, or doesn’t source the story at all, and I haven’t been able to find any reference to this fainting incident prior to the publication of this book. (Edit: I have since found this story related, albeit secondhandedly, in an 1874 memoir by a Pierce associate. That still doesn't mean it's true, it just means the story predates Nichols's telling!)
The story makes for an easy shorthand way to describe how Pierce’s reserved, sickly wife never wanted him to be president and begrudged his political ambitions, particularly after their son died shortly before his inauguration. But Nichols does manage to set aside the simplistic story that Jane Pierce spent the entirety of her husband’s presidency isolated upstairs in the White House mourning her son and resenting her husband, as he describes several occasions in which she did participate in some social events and went on vacations with Pierce. Still, the Pierces certainly seemed like a terribly mismatched couple, and it’s probably safe to say she wasn’t fun at parties.
Nichols is very good at setting scenes, describing the sights and sounds of mid-19th century Congress, the White House, and Washington itself. Once Pierce becomes president, however, much of the narrative can get excessively detailed, as, for example, many of the day-to-day activities of his Cabinet secretaries are chronicled, and it can become difficult to distinguish the important events among the many more routine administrative functions that are described.
The book touches only lightly on Pierce’s struggles with alcohol, during his Congressional career and again late in life. But throughout the book, there are perceptive nuggets about Pierce’s personality and management style hidden among the sometimes dull details of governance. Pierce “was fond of detail” and took “miscellany very seriously,” showing an "exactness in administering rules and laws,” Nichols observes. But he floundered in matters when his own judgment was called for. He seemed not to want to disappoint anyone, and “had such difficulty in making up his mind that often when he had made it up he sought to unmake it."
Ultimately, Pierce’s "great weakness as a statesman" was his "optimistic and indecisive" outlook, Nichols concludes. Pierce seemed to take nationalism, patriotism and unionism for granted, assuming that everyone else felt as strongly about preserving the Union as he did, so he believed compromise and not confrontation was the best course. He thought of the Compromise of 1850 as a permanent solution that would keep slavery out of politics for good - and then, after he was talked into supporting the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thought the same about that, without realizing that at this stage in the struggle over slavery, compromise had consequences.
I read the revised 1958 edition of the book, which includes a new final chapter reassessing Pierce’s legacy. I initially took this to mean that Nichols added a new chapter at the end, but only later learned that he threw out his original final chapter and replaced it with a rewritten one. Now I want to read his original concluding chapter, because apparently after 27 years of reflection, Nichols started to feel bad for Pierce, as the “new” final chapter is drastically different in tone from the rest of the book. In trying to explain and understand Pierce’s behavior as president, he comes awfully close to making excuses for him.
For one, Nichols posits that the death of Pierce’s son and his difficult marriage impacted his ability to govern. Had he had "a happy, normal family life" and "the confidence which his great victory should have supplied," he may well "have risen to the challenge of the presidency,” Nichols speculates. He goes on to put much of the blame for Pierce’s missteps as president on his Cabinet, and on his inability to court positive press. He says the Pierce administration agreeing to the Kansas Nebraska Act was simply "the price they had to pay" in order to get congressional support for Pierce’s presidency. And he defends Pierce’s actions regarding slavery and compromise as "upholding a time-honored constitutional interpretation created by the Founding Fathers to promote the stability of the Republic."
It is true that it’s easy for us to condemn Pierce and other antebellum presidents from our perspective in the present day. What could any of them have done, after all, to eliminate slavery without breaking up the Union, short of going to war? Nichols says Pierce was president "at a moment when probably no one was prepared for it or when no one could have occupied it successfully... It is difficult to discover any formula of success which Pierce and his associates might have created and applied."
It’s a fair enough assessment, but Nichols seems to go overboard in this final chapter in giving Pierce the benefit of the doubt - after some 500 pages of describing Pierce as somewhat out of his depth and his own worst enemy as president, he concludes that Pierce was “one of democracy’s most unfortunate victims.” Perhaps Pierce doesn’t deserve to be condemned, but he doesn’t deserve to be given a pass and characterized as a “victim” either. This is a good, fair book up until the end. If you can find an original 1931 edition - and I’ll be looking for one - I’d recommend reading the original last chapter alongside the revised one, to see which one holds up the best.
February 5, 2014
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2014/...
“Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills” is Roy Nichols’s 1931 biography of the fourteenth U.S. president. Nichols was a historian, a longtime professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a Pulitzer Prize winning author. He was particularly well known for his analysis of nineteenth-century American political history. Nichols died in 1973.
Until recently, Nichols’s biography of Franklin Pierce was the only complete, full-scale work available on this former president. That changed about ten years ago with the publication of Peter Wallner’s two-volume biography (which I’m reading next). But with seventy-six chapters and nearly fifty pages of notes and bibliography it is hard to imagine anything incomplete about Nichols’s work.
Due to the expense involved in obtaining this text – and to the obscurity of Pierce himself – this biography is seldom read anymore, and even less-often reviewed. Nonetheless this longstanding classic receives high marks for its magisterial examination of Pierce’s complex and misfortune-filled life.
A critical element in diagnosing this former president’s failings involves understanding his background, personality and private life. Fortunately Nichols is up to this task and these factors are intricately woven into the discussion of Pierce’s political career. By the time I completed this biography I was more familiar with the personality and psychological profile of Franklin Pierce than with any former president since Andrew Jackson.
More broadly, Nichols’s biography is exceedingly comprehensive, exceptionally scholarly and meticulously detailed. Much of the book, in fact, reads as though the author was a historian resident on Capitol Hill during Pierce’s many years in Washington as a member of the House, the Senate and as President of the United States.
The highlight of this biography, however, is its final chapter which was written for the book’s second printing about fifty years ago. Here Nichols provides a lengthy, insightful and balanced examination of Pierce’s life and legacy. He dissects the issues and circumstances that affected (and afflicted) Pierce with remarkable dexterity.
Unfortunately for the unsuspecting reader, the level of detail Nichols provides in this biography is overwhelming at times. Only a true scholar (or extremely zealous fan) of Pierce will fully appreciate the astonishing mass of facts presented. That reader will probably find this book a treasure trove of interesting nuggets.
A more casual student of history, however, is likely to find the detail excessive, dull and frequently tangential. Fortunately, between the significant sections of impressive but seemingly unimportant details are periodic bursts of exceptional wisdom and brilliant insight. Those moments make this book occasionally magnificent.
Of less importance, the author’s writing style is obviously dated, though not quite ancient. The text itself flows smoothly and is easy to read but requires intensity of focus to consistently understand. Numerous sections of the book require two passes for full comprehension – something only an extremely faithful reader will tolerate. Paragraphs, it may be noted, routinely approach a full page in length.
Overall, however, Nichols’s biography of Franklin Pierce deserves excellent marks for its scholarly, comprehensive and sober analysis of Pierce and his presidency. For an academic audience, these qualities may define the nearly perfect examination of Pierce. But for most readers, the book’s density, dated style of writing and occasionally superfluous observations make this an informative but plodding, rather than exciting, biography.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
“Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills” is Roy Nichols’s 1931 biography of the fourteenth U.S. president. Nichols was a historian, a longtime professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a Pulitzer Prize winning author. He was particularly well known for his analysis of nineteenth-century American political history. Nichols died in 1973.
Until recently, Nichols’s biography of Franklin Pierce was the only complete, full-scale work available on this former president. That changed about ten years ago with the publication of Peter Wallner’s two-volume biography (which I’m reading next). But with seventy-six chapters and nearly fifty pages of notes and bibliography it is hard to imagine anything incomplete about Nichols’s work.
Due to the expense involved in obtaining this text – and to the obscurity of Pierce himself – this biography is seldom read anymore, and even less-often reviewed. Nonetheless this longstanding classic receives high marks for its magisterial examination of Pierce’s complex and misfortune-filled life.
A critical element in diagnosing this former president’s failings involves understanding his background, personality and private life. Fortunately Nichols is up to this task and these factors are intricately woven into the discussion of Pierce’s political career. By the time I completed this biography I was more familiar with the personality and psychological profile of Franklin Pierce than with any former president since Andrew Jackson.
More broadly, Nichols’s biography is exceedingly comprehensive, exceptionally scholarly and meticulously detailed. Much of the book, in fact, reads as though the author was a historian resident on Capitol Hill during Pierce’s many years in Washington as a member of the House, the Senate and as President of the United States.
The highlight of this biography, however, is its final chapter which was written for the book’s second printing about fifty years ago. Here Nichols provides a lengthy, insightful and balanced examination of Pierce’s life and legacy. He dissects the issues and circumstances that affected (and afflicted) Pierce with remarkable dexterity.
Unfortunately for the unsuspecting reader, the level of detail Nichols provides in this biography is overwhelming at times. Only a true scholar (or extremely zealous fan) of Pierce will fully appreciate the astonishing mass of facts presented. That reader will probably find this book a treasure trove of interesting nuggets.
A more casual student of history, however, is likely to find the detail excessive, dull and frequently tangential. Fortunately, between the significant sections of impressive but seemingly unimportant details are periodic bursts of exceptional wisdom and brilliant insight. Those moments make this book occasionally magnificent.
Of less importance, the author’s writing style is obviously dated, though not quite ancient. The text itself flows smoothly and is easy to read but requires intensity of focus to consistently understand. Numerous sections of the book require two passes for full comprehension – something only an extremely faithful reader will tolerate. Paragraphs, it may be noted, routinely approach a full page in length.
Overall, however, Nichols’s biography of Franklin Pierce deserves excellent marks for its scholarly, comprehensive and sober analysis of Pierce and his presidency. For an academic audience, these qualities may define the nearly perfect examination of Pierce. But for most readers, the book’s density, dated style of writing and occasionally superfluous observations make this an informative but plodding, rather than exciting, biography.
Overall rating: 3½ stars
November 21, 2023
Franklin Pierce is one of the most obscure and least remembered Presidents. In this book Nichols expertly navigates Pierce's life and career.
Pierce was the son of a Revolutionary War veteran and governor of New Hampshire. Growing up Pierce hoped to follow in his father's footsteps and have a successful military career. While Pierce never found the military glory he craved he became one of the most powerful politicians in local and state politics. His time in the U.S. Congress, first as a Congressman and later as Senator, was largely indistinguishable.
Pierce's family life was mostly tragic, he lost both his parents month apart while serving as a U.S. Senator and all three of his children died prior to his becoming President, the most tragic was his youngest son who was killed in a train accident before his parents' eyes.
As President Pierce tried to balance his appointments and policies among the different factions of the Democratic party. Unfortunately for Pierce this often backfired on him and his administration. In foreign policy Pierce pursued a policy of trying for territorial expansion yet was unable to purchase Cuba or annex Hawaii but was able to acquire a section of land in the Southwest in modern day Arizona & New Mexico that includes modern day Tucson. He also achieved trade reciprocity with Canada and secure the use of ports in Russian Alaska fir U.S. shipping. Pierce's biggest challenge was dealing with Great Britain over the question of settlements in Nicaragua alongvthe Mosquito Coast.
In domestic policy Pierce largely dealt with the clamor for new railroads and disputes in the many territories. Utah, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon territories all represented challenges for Pierce but his biggest challenge was in the Kansas Territory. After signing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri compromise, into law Kansaa became the site of intense fighting between residents of Kansas, residents of Missouri and various settlers from other areas. "Bleeding Kansas" as it came to be known undermined Pierce's efforts to seek renomination and contributed to the rise of a new oppostion political party known as the Republicans. Ultimately Pierce became the first, and to date only, President to be denied renomination by his own party.
Nichols doesn't pull any punches and often faults Puerce for his failures and shortcomings in his life and career. Overall his book easily is one of the best biographies ever written about a President and one of my favorites.
Pierce was the son of a Revolutionary War veteran and governor of New Hampshire. Growing up Pierce hoped to follow in his father's footsteps and have a successful military career. While Pierce never found the military glory he craved he became one of the most powerful politicians in local and state politics. His time in the U.S. Congress, first as a Congressman and later as Senator, was largely indistinguishable.
Pierce's family life was mostly tragic, he lost both his parents month apart while serving as a U.S. Senator and all three of his children died prior to his becoming President, the most tragic was his youngest son who was killed in a train accident before his parents' eyes.
As President Pierce tried to balance his appointments and policies among the different factions of the Democratic party. Unfortunately for Pierce this often backfired on him and his administration. In foreign policy Pierce pursued a policy of trying for territorial expansion yet was unable to purchase Cuba or annex Hawaii but was able to acquire a section of land in the Southwest in modern day Arizona & New Mexico that includes modern day Tucson. He also achieved trade reciprocity with Canada and secure the use of ports in Russian Alaska fir U.S. shipping. Pierce's biggest challenge was dealing with Great Britain over the question of settlements in Nicaragua alongvthe Mosquito Coast.
In domestic policy Pierce largely dealt with the clamor for new railroads and disputes in the many territories. Utah, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon territories all represented challenges for Pierce but his biggest challenge was in the Kansas Territory. After signing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri compromise, into law Kansaa became the site of intense fighting between residents of Kansas, residents of Missouri and various settlers from other areas. "Bleeding Kansas" as it came to be known undermined Pierce's efforts to seek renomination and contributed to the rise of a new oppostion political party known as the Republicans. Ultimately Pierce became the first, and to date only, President to be denied renomination by his own party.
Nichols doesn't pull any punches and often faults Puerce for his failures and shortcomings in his life and career. Overall his book easily is one of the best biographies ever written about a President and one of my favorites.
March 25, 2017
Nichols salvages Franklin Pierce’s reputation from history’s depths, giving fair play to a man who took the reins of the country when any man would have struggled to guide it. Nichols presents the facts, making no excuses until taking aim at the stereotype in the final chapter. There is very extensive coverage of Pierce’s presidency compared to some biographies of his immediate predecessors. Pierce’s lack of allies in Washington, his life full of illness and tragedy, and the aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska decisions led me to think the book could be sufficiently subtitled by three words taken from Chapter 67: “Heat, Malaria, and Kansas.” Barely did Nichols mention Pierce’s experience with alcohol, and then only to discredit the claims of its frequency and effects on him. Pierce is revealed as a very human character, misplaced in history and in his time—a Northerner fighting for Southern rights—breaking from political importance in his own state just as the nation was breaking itself apart. In trying to please both sides, Pierce pleased neither; in his efforts to save the Union, he only kindled the fire.
August 8, 2007
This thick, 600 page, biography of Pierce goes into painstaking detail and historians will appreciate the effort but most readers will find this a very difficult read.
One wishes that Nathanial Hawthorne, Pierce's college friend, had taken up the effort.
One wishes that Nathanial Hawthorne, Pierce's college friend, had taken up the effort.
January 23, 2022
Never did I expect to cry over Franklin Pierce. Masterfully written.
January 27, 2017
Comprehensive work on our 14th President. Excellent research that begs for 5 stars, but you just can't bring the subject matter above 3 stars.
I'm caught in the middle on Pierce. On the one hand, he was a well-intentioned president who tried to thread the needle between factions in probably the most raucous time in our country's history. I don't think any president could have been truly successful in the 1850s. We were headed toward a clash no matter how hard anyone tried to make compromise.
On the other hand, he wasn't a very good leader...in the sense that he was not successful in most of his initiatives. It seems he just wasn't tough enough.
Regardless of the person, thiugh, reading this book is a great refresher on some of the events that lead to the Civil War: Bleeding Kansas, Missouri Compromise, Popular Sovereignty, etc. That made it interesting enough for a Civil War nerd such as myself.
For someone not so interested, you may want a more concise biography to check this president off the list.
I'm caught in the middle on Pierce. On the one hand, he was a well-intentioned president who tried to thread the needle between factions in probably the most raucous time in our country's history. I don't think any president could have been truly successful in the 1850s. We were headed toward a clash no matter how hard anyone tried to make compromise.
On the other hand, he wasn't a very good leader...in the sense that he was not successful in most of his initiatives. It seems he just wasn't tough enough.
Regardless of the person, thiugh, reading this book is a great refresher on some of the events that lead to the Civil War: Bleeding Kansas, Missouri Compromise, Popular Sovereignty, etc. That made it interesting enough for a Civil War nerd such as myself.
For someone not so interested, you may want a more concise biography to check this president off the list.
September 30, 2019
For studies on our 14th president you will find none better than Roy Franklin Nichols book on Franklin Pierce. Due to his background and singular devotion to his father Revolutionary War hero
Benjamin Pierce, Franklin Pierce was not the man for the 1850s to be in the White House. But no one
suspected.
Pierce was the son Benjamin Pierce's second wife and he was born in 1804. His teen years were during the War of 1812 where his father supported the war and fought back against New England
separatists who gathered at the Hartford Convention. For ever and after and the rest of his life
Pierce saw the dying Federalists and the Whigs as traitors. They were trying to split the Union and his
friends were among the southerners and westerners. It's how he saw the agitation against slavery
that as president he had to deal with.
But before that his higher education was at Bowdoin College where he met and married the daughter of the college president Jane Means Appleton. Look at pictures of her, she's a formidable
sort. She was strictly religious in a puritan manner, hated politics and wished her husband would
just practice law. They had three boys, none of then survived childhood. She was in a fragile mental state when she became first lady.
Pierce was elected to the New Hampshire state legislature. He served two terms in the House of
Representatives 1833-1837 then the US Senate 1837-1842. This was the Webster-Clay-Calhoun
Senate with a few other leading figures and Pierce was an amiable backbencher, barely noticed.
Jane wanted him home and he resigned before his term was up and settled down to practice law
in Concord. He only left to go to war as leader of a volunteer regiment in the Mexican War. He
might have stayed in obscurity except that in 1851 Supreme Court Justice Levi Woodbury died
suddenly.
The 1852 Democratic convention was shaping up as a deadlocked convention which it turned out to
be. Woodbury was going to be the New England candidate. Pierce all of a sudden looked good to
president makers and he did emerge as the Democratic candidate in 1852 and won against ironically
his wartime commander Winfield Scott in an electoral college landslide.
Before taking the oath of office Franklin and Jane were involved in a railroad wreck and emerged
unscathed. But they saw their last child Bennie age 11 crushed to death. No president ever entered"the White House under worse personal circumstances.
So with a man convinced the southerners were in the right and dealing with unspeakable tragedy he
was exactly the wrong man for the time. He signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which repealed the
Missouri Compromise and opened the territories as to who could establish themselves in the area
the quickest,pro or anti-slavery forces. That set off the border wars there, preliminary to the Civil
War. It was getting into high gear when James Buchanan took over from Pierce in 1857. Buchanan
defeated Pierce for renomination, the only time an incumbent president was denied renomination
when he sought it.
By that time Pierce had become an alcoholic too. He died in 1869 pretty much forgotten.
This was the story of the wrong man at a critical course in history. We'd have to wait until 1860
for the right one.
Benjamin Pierce, Franklin Pierce was not the man for the 1850s to be in the White House. But no one
suspected.
Pierce was the son Benjamin Pierce's second wife and he was born in 1804. His teen years were during the War of 1812 where his father supported the war and fought back against New England
separatists who gathered at the Hartford Convention. For ever and after and the rest of his life
Pierce saw the dying Federalists and the Whigs as traitors. They were trying to split the Union and his
friends were among the southerners and westerners. It's how he saw the agitation against slavery
that as president he had to deal with.
But before that his higher education was at Bowdoin College where he met and married the daughter of the college president Jane Means Appleton. Look at pictures of her, she's a formidable
sort. She was strictly religious in a puritan manner, hated politics and wished her husband would
just practice law. They had three boys, none of then survived childhood. She was in a fragile mental state when she became first lady.
Pierce was elected to the New Hampshire state legislature. He served two terms in the House of
Representatives 1833-1837 then the US Senate 1837-1842. This was the Webster-Clay-Calhoun
Senate with a few other leading figures and Pierce was an amiable backbencher, barely noticed.
Jane wanted him home and he resigned before his term was up and settled down to practice law
in Concord. He only left to go to war as leader of a volunteer regiment in the Mexican War. He
might have stayed in obscurity except that in 1851 Supreme Court Justice Levi Woodbury died
suddenly.
The 1852 Democratic convention was shaping up as a deadlocked convention which it turned out to
be. Woodbury was going to be the New England candidate. Pierce all of a sudden looked good to
president makers and he did emerge as the Democratic candidate in 1852 and won against ironically
his wartime commander Winfield Scott in an electoral college landslide.
Before taking the oath of office Franklin and Jane were involved in a railroad wreck and emerged
unscathed. But they saw their last child Bennie age 11 crushed to death. No president ever entered"the White House under worse personal circumstances.
So with a man convinced the southerners were in the right and dealing with unspeakable tragedy he
was exactly the wrong man for the time. He signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which repealed the
Missouri Compromise and opened the territories as to who could establish themselves in the area
the quickest,pro or anti-slavery forces. That set off the border wars there, preliminary to the Civil
War. It was getting into high gear when James Buchanan took over from Pierce in 1857. Buchanan
defeated Pierce for renomination, the only time an incumbent president was denied renomination
when he sought it.
By that time Pierce had become an alcoholic too. He died in 1869 pretty much forgotten.
This was the story of the wrong man at a critical course in history. We'd have to wait until 1860
for the right one.
April 13, 2023
Roy Nichols' biography of Franklin Pierce is decidedly antiquarian in its prose and focus on Pierce and his troubled administration as beset more by circumstances than the chief executive's reluctance to embrace a new birth of freedom for his nation. Pierce has been consigned to the dustbin of history for his uneven White House years, culminating in the bloody events in Kansas and the hardening of political positions in both the North and South. The essential problem with Pierce is that he derived the wrong lesson from America's founding: the role of compromise. Yes, the Founding Fathers compromised in the Constitutional Convention, putting off hard decisions on slavery for the short-term gain of political stability and governmental centralization. But before that, in the days of the Declaration of Independence, compromise was not so much a state to achieve as a roadblock to independence: Adams of Massachusetts and the Lees of Virginia work hard to prevent the colonists from rolling over into the laps of Parliament and Crown. Compromise, at that point, would have led to submission.
The same holds for the 1850s, as compromises were proposed, and even passed, but did no more to stitch the Union back together than the efforts of Dickinson to avert bloodshed in a war against Great Britain. Compromise is not an American ideal; principles are. What Franklin Pierce missed in his short, storied political career is that principles broadly accepted and trending towards greater freedom are the things which move Americans together and in unison. Compromise for the sake of expediency is little better than submission to the darker angels of American politics.
The same holds for the 1850s, as compromises were proposed, and even passed, but did no more to stitch the Union back together than the efforts of Dickinson to avert bloodshed in a war against Great Britain. Compromise is not an American ideal; principles are. What Franklin Pierce missed in his short, storied political career is that principles broadly accepted and trending towards greater freedom are the things which move Americans together and in unison. Compromise for the sake of expediency is little better than submission to the darker angels of American politics.
November 27, 2017
This book does a very fine job of giving a balanced, nuanced look into the life and political career of a little-known and even less-respected president. The traditional take on Pierce is that he is one of the worst presidents in American history, if not THE worst. This author does a fine job of detailing his strengths as well as his weaknesses, although to my taste he is a little too forgiving of Pierce's political hostility to any suggestion of opposing slavery. Still, it isn't as if the issue is ignored or hidden; it's openly detailed. And it's probably true that had he been less pro-south, pro-slavery, he would never have been elected in the first place, and we'd never have heard of him or be reading a biography of him. But his support of the southern position doesn't see to have been forced by political expediency; it seems that he genuinely believed that it was against the intentions of the founders to limit it in any way, and therefore unpatriotic and immoral. There's no suggestion of his being personally opposed to slavery but accepting that there was nothing that he could do about it. As such, I feel that the author's defense of his position is too kind, but that is the only objection that I have, and even that is mitigated by the fact that the author openly describes Pierce's attitude and doesn't attempt to whitewash it.
December 30, 2016
Nichols sets this book up really neatly. It begins with a little background, 38 total pages of early life, then gets into Pierce's political life straight away. All the chapters are short and sweet, so it feels like you're moving along swiftly, which I appreciated in a 600+ page book. I would have appreciated a little more depth when Pierce becomes president, I felt Nichols explained more about Pierce's mental state upon inauguration than his thinking behind the big stuff during his tenure. Nichols talks a lot *about* the Kansas-Nebraska situation without actually explaining the situation. I will admit to skipping the whole chapter on his exploits during the Mexican War because I'm not big on war history. But I liked the last chapter where Nichols talked a lot about "recasting the stereotype" of Pierce, he was definitely in office during a really tense time, and while I still think he leaned too much towards favoring the south, Nichols offered some cool insights.
February 1, 2021
This one is tough, it's a book about an Antebellum American president written in 1931, every hallmark of a snoozer, and it was. However, I must qualify that the reason this book is a snoozer is the absolute insane wealth of information dumped on you, this book certainly was well researched and lovingly crafted by the author.
The thing that saves this book from going into the bad category entirely is the last chapter, the author had revised the book 38 years later to include a survey of the publics attitude and general history's perspectives on Pierce and it really wrapped it up nicely, so much so it made it 3 stars rather than 2.
Unfortunately, I still have Buchanan to go, however it's with a sigh of relief I can say I'm ALMOST out of the Antebellum era.
The thing that saves this book from going into the bad category entirely is the last chapter, the author had revised the book 38 years later to include a survey of the publics attitude and general history's perspectives on Pierce and it really wrapped it up nicely, so much so it made it 3 stars rather than 2.
Unfortunately, I still have Buchanan to go, however it's with a sigh of relief I can say I'm ALMOST out of the Antebellum era.
May 30, 2018
For a book written in the 1930s (and updated in the 1950s), I was impressed with the readability and relevance. There is no text as thorough in its analysis of the life and presidency of Franklin Pierce. A little detail-heavy for parts of his tenure in the White House, it paints an insightful portrait of one of the least powerful men to occupy the position of POTUS. (Pierce was a Northern who not only supported slavery but was even against the North during the Civil War, damaging his relationship with his native New Hampshire for about half-a-century.)
September 29, 2020
This is a very detailed accounting of our 14th president almost painstakingly so. There are times where there is so.kuch detail it is difficult to read and keep track with lists of names and events. Pierce was a northerner from NH who did everything he could to protect the union and angering both sides. It was an interesting book on a president I knew almost nothing about.
June 12, 2020
Holy smokes. This was a real dud. Pierce is so bland and irrelevant in ways that I want sure what to expect. Interestingly, with the frame of Trump as president it was interesting to read the actions of the "worst President ever".
March 22, 2023
I found this to be a slog, with a lot of minutiae that would most likely be of interest to the historian instead of the casual reader like myself.
Having said that, I though the summary chapter at the end was outstanding.
Having said that, I though the summary chapter at the end was outstanding.
February 25, 2024
Not as difficult a read as its almost-century-old age would have you believe, but Nichols does sometimes feel like he's forcing an erudite sort of writing style that he can't quite make natural, and Pierce as a man just isn't that compelling, sorry to say.
February 10, 2020
Good overview of the life of Pierce. Extremely dry.
December 3, 2021
It reads just as you would expect a biography of a lesser known president from the 18th century published in the 1930's would red
July 8, 2019
Written and published in an era free of all the vitriolic politically-correct biases of the early 2000s. I thought Author Roy F Nicholas’s presentation of President was eminently fair. He, like all men, had his strengths and his weaknesses. As President, he had a few successes and a few moments of hesitation or reluctance for making decisions or charting a course. But overall all he was a good, decent, kind-hearted man. This tome was very well written, an enjoyable read. 4 stars.
April 21, 2012
I have the 2nd edition, which I believe is editorially the same as the APB first.
Pierce is viewed as a failure, but given the times I doubt anybody would have fared much better. The nation was going in different directions - massive migration westward and into the industrializing cities of the northeast while the South wasn't really moving at all. Pierce was what we'd today call a strict constitutionalist. Slavery was a right of the states and the federal government couldn't take it away. In this light, Pierce viewed the abolitionists as evil: it was their fault the nation was coming apart at the seams.
From political and policy standpoints, Pierce was ineffective. He wasn't the leader of his party and personal tragedy led him to govern with his cabinet as a team rather than as a strong executive. But his team was made of diverse elements, unable to agree on positive measures; only able to agree what they wouldn't do. Primarily, what they wouldn't do was innovate. Nichols spends more time than other presidential biographers on the works of the cabinet members. This leads me to the conclusion that Pierce and his cabinet were, for the most part, able administrators and thus not complete failures.
I understand the tendency of biographers to be sympathetic to their subjects, but I feel Nichols presents the story evenhandedly, waiting until a final summary chapter before giving us his verdict.
I believe the first edition was published in 1939. I find it interesting how language changes - our vocabularies today are noticeably smaller today than a century ago, and many words have different meanings. For example, Nichols uses "filibuster" in a completely different way than I'd ever encountered before. Not only are there differences in language between the author's time and mine, there are the differences between Pierce's and the author's.
Pierce is viewed as a failure, but given the times I doubt anybody would have fared much better. The nation was going in different directions - massive migration westward and into the industrializing cities of the northeast while the South wasn't really moving at all. Pierce was what we'd today call a strict constitutionalist. Slavery was a right of the states and the federal government couldn't take it away. In this light, Pierce viewed the abolitionists as evil: it was their fault the nation was coming apart at the seams.
From political and policy standpoints, Pierce was ineffective. He wasn't the leader of his party and personal tragedy led him to govern with his cabinet as a team rather than as a strong executive. But his team was made of diverse elements, unable to agree on positive measures; only able to agree what they wouldn't do. Primarily, what they wouldn't do was innovate. Nichols spends more time than other presidential biographers on the works of the cabinet members. This leads me to the conclusion that Pierce and his cabinet were, for the most part, able administrators and thus not complete failures.
I understand the tendency of biographers to be sympathetic to their subjects, but I feel Nichols presents the story evenhandedly, waiting until a final summary chapter before giving us his verdict.
I believe the first edition was published in 1939. I find it interesting how language changes - our vocabularies today are noticeably smaller today than a century ago, and many words have different meanings. For example, Nichols uses "filibuster" in a completely different way than I'd ever encountered before. Not only are there differences in language between the author's time and mine, there are the differences between Pierce's and the author's.
August 20, 2010
Poor Franklin Pierce. He was in a no win situation with his Presidency. His election as the 14th President as a compromise candidate was due to his prior competence in the Senate and military AND because he did not stick his neck out on any issue that opponents could effectively use against him. The nation was in turmoil and needed strong leadership but the only leadership that could be agreed upon was someone who was not strong. Complicating Pierce's effectiveness as a President was the death of his only son before Pierce's eyes in a train wreck just before he took office. His son's death was the only fatality of the crash.
Roy Nichols does a very thorough job in this very well organized biography. About half is devoted to the Presidency and the rest discusses his path to the Presidency from childhood through his retirement from public service in 1848 after serving one term as a New Hampshire Senator to his eventual election in 1852. The last 10% is devoted to his time after his service and a synopsis. These parts are very well written.
The sections on his Presidency are for some reason not very well written. Multiple times I had to go back and reread a section before I could figure out what Nichols was trying to communicate, and sometimes even that didn't work. There is at least one section that I know was repeated (a discussion of the Cuba issue) and multiple times I felt like I was having deja vu.
Unless you are really interested in Franklin Pierce or the United States in the mid 1850's I'd recommend a shorter Pierce bio. 5 stars because of Nichols thoroughness and clarity for most of the book. Minus one star because of the lack of clarity while discussing his Presidency.
Roy Nichols does a very thorough job in this very well organized biography. About half is devoted to the Presidency and the rest discusses his path to the Presidency from childhood through his retirement from public service in 1848 after serving one term as a New Hampshire Senator to his eventual election in 1852. The last 10% is devoted to his time after his service and a synopsis. These parts are very well written.
The sections on his Presidency are for some reason not very well written. Multiple times I had to go back and reread a section before I could figure out what Nichols was trying to communicate, and sometimes even that didn't work. There is at least one section that I know was repeated (a discussion of the Cuba issue) and multiple times I felt like I was having deja vu.
Unless you are really interested in Franklin Pierce or the United States in the mid 1850's I'd recommend a shorter Pierce bio. 5 stars because of Nichols thoroughness and clarity for most of the book. Minus one star because of the lack of clarity while discussing his Presidency.
October 24, 2009
Way back when, I read the book
Star-Spangled Men
, a book about the worst Presidents in American history. It was that book that inspired me to embark on my presidential biography reading list. Anyway, I forget if that book had pegged Franklin Pierce as the worst president ever, or if he was merely one of the contenders for the distinction. Either way, his reputation was somewhat lacking. Heck, even in this book, Mr. Nichols--someone who is sympathetic to the 14th president--has to admit that he made some significant mistakes. This biography takes the stand that Franklin Pierce was a principaled man who had the misfortune to make the wrong political decisions. He appealed to his countrymen's sense of fair play, only to learn that they, for the most part, weren't interested in playing fair.
As for the book itself, the 1930's style adds a slight challenge to reading it, but it does flow rather smoothly. It does seem to be written for the scholar, as Mr. Nichols habitually refers to people by their last names after their initial introduction. Or maybe he was just expecting the reader to pay close attention to what they were reading. If that was the case, I, like Franklin Pierce, fell a bit short.
As for the book itself, the 1930's style adds a slight challenge to reading it, but it does flow rather smoothly. It does seem to be written for the scholar, as Mr. Nichols habitually refers to people by their last names after their initial introduction. Or maybe he was just expecting the reader to pay close attention to what they were reading. If that was the case, I, like Franklin Pierce, fell a bit short.
December 15, 2016
This was an interesting and informative biography. I don't agree with Pierce's positions or care for him as a person (ie. accusing Northern abolitionists of fomenting the Civil War, arguing that the election of Lincoln was "an assault on property," etc.). I disagree with the author as well, as he tried to defend Pierce against charges of being "weak-willed." However, the book provided enough information and original source material for me to make up my own mind. The first half of the book, as Pierce climbs the political ranks, is quite insightful into Pierce as a person and into the times in which he lived. The second half, when Pierce served as President, isn't as strong. The book gets bogged down in too much detail and the author over-identifies with Pierce. Yet I would recommend this book to someone interested in U.S. presidential or pre-Civil War history.
July 15, 2016
Biographies of minor presidents tend to be much more informative than those of major names to have held the office. This is an excellent and well written introduction to 1850s America. The scourge of slavery was tearing apart the nation while the railroad was just beginning to imagine bringing it together. Pierce was chosen to run for president largely because he was expected to stay away from the slavery question, thus postponing the inevitable. He did as expected and Stephen Douglas blew the whole thing up anyway by ramrodding the Kansas-Nebraska Act through the Congress. No better way to learn about politics than to follow the play of the game when no single great figure dominates, when the process is shown in all of its glory and shame.
December 8, 2012
Not my favorite political biography, but there aren't a lot of choices when it comes to Franklin Pierce. The book was helpful to understanding his time, but contained more detail about local politics and regional politics than I expected. This information was presented in a cumbersome manner and many individuals were introduced once only to be referenced by last name only throughout the remainder of the book. I found myself constantly referring back to previous chapters to sort out Pierce's friends from his opposition. This was not a light, fast read, but was truly informative.
Currently reading
September 24, 2008A few years ago I set out to read the biography of every president, starting with George Washington. Now I'm up to Pierce, the 14th, and perhaps the worst president ever. It's fascinating to see how he became president, and how his presidency slowly turns into a disaster.
November 19, 2011
Interesting read about a guy most people seem to be surprised to find was a President. This is really the only major work on Pierce that's available and therefore recommended. It would be great, however, if a newer analysis would come along someday.
February 29, 2016
A lot of info & a very dry read. A succession of presidents put on blinders to the evil and national destructiveness of slavery. Using the Constitutional compromise and states right as an exscuse not to confront the problem and to keep pushing it off into the future hoping it would just go away.
September 19, 2011
adequate biography that covered the major issues, but I wished to get more of pierce's thoughts & reactions. They may just be unavailble
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews