Franklin Pierce: The American Presidents Series: The 14th President, 1853-1857

In the 24 years between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, there were a total of 8 U.S. presidents. Many, if not all of them were people that most have never heard. Franklin Pierce was one of them. Why so many unspectacular presidents in such a short time? Well, a lot of reasons, but I would offer the hypothesis that our country was going through such an unbridled time in our young history, that virtually no one was cut out for such a high profile, demanding job.As I write this review, Donald Trump is the current U.S. president, and many are calling for the 25th amendment to be enacted because they believe Trump is incompetent. I bring this up because as bad as things seem to be, we seem to be in much better shape than the 25 years prior to the U.S. Civil War. The reason for this divide? Slavery. It’s as simple as that. Both sides of the fence are bloodily hostile towards each other, and no one seems to be able to unite the country. There was even an instance where a Southern Congressman attacked a Northern Congressman with his cane during a congressional session – knocking him unconscious for several days.Franklin Pierce was a bit of an odd choice back in 1853. We must remember that presidents became candidates for president very differently than they do today. Nowadays, candidates make it well known before the election year, begin campaigning, debate rivals, and choose their running mate for vice-president long before their respective convention even begins. Think about this: When was the last time we had a Republican or Democratic convention where we didn’t know who the nominee would be by the time the convention started?Back then, presidents were chosen by delegates. Vice presidents too. Whoever was selected by the party’s delegates as presidential nominee had no input as to who their ‘running mate’ would be. So how did delegates choose the candidate for their party? Well, to answer that question, it would require its own book. Lots of backroom deals, shady promises, quid pro quo, stabbing of backs, and, of course, the ability to beat the other party (or parties) rival in the general election. Franklin Pierce was not the Democratic Party’s first choice. With all of the turmoil between the Democrats, Whigs, and the Northern and Southern factions of these parties, there was simply too much chaos for any kind of clear front-runner. So Pierce is selected by default, basically. Not many knew who he was back then either.The American President’s series of books on the U.S. Presidents is handy when one wants to read about some of the lesser known presidents. Tomes on these individuals are quite rare and hard to come by, so the American President books make nice, somewhat quick readings. They’re never as detailed as the more famous ‘legitimate’ bios, but for president’s like Pierce, they really don’t need to be.In fact, I would argue that there really isn’t much that Franklin Pierce is known for – before, during, or after his presidency. Although he didn’t consider himself pro-slavery, he was a strict constitutionalist, so he therefore believed that abolition of slavery wasn’t constitutional. This made him favorable to many yet deplored by many as well. When he took office, the country was still reeling over The Compromise of 1850 which was designed to placate both sides of the slavery issue. What the compromise seemed to do, however, is infuriate both sides. It was not a welcome compromise by anyone. Then, with the Kansas territories leaning towards statehood, the familiar question again arises: slavery or no slavery? Without going into much detail, The Kansas-Nebraska Act essentially had the same repercussions as The Compromise of 1850. Neither side was happy, and it simply pushed the country closer to the brink of war.So that’s about it. An unspectacular person unexpectantly becomes president during a tumultuous time in our country’s history which leads to a very mediocre, if not unfavorable, rating by most historians. History tells us not too many good things, but I honestly have to wonder if many could have done much better. We were simply too akin to a tinderbox at this time. This book provides a nice compact history of the man, and it really seems that such a work is really all that is needed.

Along with many others, I am reading biographies of former presidents in chronological order. It's difficult to find a decent biography of some of the lesser known presidents. I'm glad I discovered the Presidents Series of which this book is a part. It's a concise and well-written bio of Pierce (and others) that gets the job done.

This is a concise biography of Franklin Pierce. Not a lot of insight or depth in describing Pierce, the man. He has been ranked as one of the least effective presidents and this was the theme of the book from beginning to end.It is interesting that history repeats itself. Pierce was in a range of short-lived or ineffective, weak presidents (Van Buren to Buchanan) who struggled with the issue of race. Able to see the similarities to today. We seem to be living through a similar range of presidents who also struggle with that issue and will probably not be ranked among the greats.

It’s tempting to say Franklin Pierce was the second coming of John Tyler (Tyler II) but that would be unfair to John Tyler. Both considered themselves as men of principle who would not compromise an inch—pragmatism be damned. As presidents, both became so unpopular their parties disowned them and they were not reelected. In Tyler’s case, he tried to walk a middle line between Northern and Southern interests, and might have fared better had he supported the policies of the party that elected him—the Whigs. Pierce, on the other, was a “doughface,” a northerner with southern sympathies, and spent his presidency trying to appease the South. In doing so, he lost the support of the North. As far as the South, there was little chance he was going to satisfy their voracious appetite for more territory in which to spread slavery, or to keep from insulting their hypersensitive pride and honor. Tyler couldn’t do it, and he was a Virginian. Pierce, from New Hampshire, made every effort to support Southern interests and made himself look foolish in trying. Worse, he brought the nation a step closer to civil war.I like the author Michael F. Holt. He’s a fine writer but his subject is hopeless. Writing a book about Franklin Pierce surely must have been tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig. As president, Pierce made one mistake after another, and as things grew worse he blamed everything on the abolitionists. Pierce’s biggest blunder was supporting the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which violated the Missouri Compromise of 1820. To justify his action, Pierce went so far as to say the Missouri Compromise was of “doubtful constitutionality.” The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed settlers in those territories to decide whether or not to allow slavery. To influence the decision, Pierce appointed a pro-slavery governor. A fraudulently-elected proslavery territorial legislature resulted which brazenly deprived northern settlers of Kansas of fundamental civil rights, and so angered the abolitionists that a local civil war broke out. Kansas became “Bloody Kansas.” What’s ironic is Pierce was a firm believer in states’ rights, except when it came to slavery. Had he held to his principles, it’s doubtful there would have a been a “bloody Kansas,” as most settlers in the territory opposed slavery. The result of Pierce’s meddling in Kansas’s affairs hastened the coming of the Civil War.Pierce was, by all accounts, handsome and charming. But he was also weak and indecisive, what today we would call an “empty suit.” The author says his purpose in writing the book “has been to try to explain why Pierce did what he did. And rather than see personal weaknesses as the source of his missteps in the White House, I attribute Pierces’s most fateful political decisions to his obsession with preserving the unity of the Democratic Party.” What Pierce failed to realize was that as president he was the leader of all people regardless of party, of Northerners and Southerners alike. His appeasement of the South was a failure of leadership.