Talk:Franklin Pierce/Archive 1

Archive 1

comments

From http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000333 -- Zoe

Economy

This article makes no mention of the the fact that under Pierce the national debt of the U.S was almost halved by the time he left office (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo2.htm) - Is that not worthy of mention somewhere in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.226.136 (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I removed this bit of text: [Pierce] reportedly ran down a pedestrial [sic] while drunk driving a horse carriage

I'd like to see a source on this before putting it back. -- RobLa

I've heard this account from numerous sources (Pierce's personal life after the death of his son is by all accounts, troubled). Not having access to an encyclopedia at the moment, it's in Richard Shenkman & Kurt Reiger's One-Night Stands with American History (Quill: New York, 1982) on page 87: "While president, Franklin Pierce was arrested after accidentally running down an old woman with his horse. He was released after the arresting officer discovered the identity of the prisoner." This fact might want to be moved from the "retirement" section. Perhaps a "personal life" section could be created, focusing also on his estrangement from his wife, both over the election and the loss of their son. Wencer 06:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that Pierce and Jane had a difficult time during his presidency, their marriage became much stronger afterward. They took a European trip together after he left office in the late 1850's. He was devastated when she died, and even more so when his lifelong friend Hawthorne died shortly thereafter. His drinking was much worse from this point forward.Zorro932 (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

"first person under the age of fifty to be elected president"

This is incorrect; James K. Polk took office at the age of 49. - Luke stebbing 22:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be some silliness going on in the first paragraph.

"they watched as their 11-year-old son Benjamin ("Bennie") was crushed to death in the train disaster. Grief-stricken, Pierce entered the presidency nervously exhausted. In his inaugural address, he proclaimed an era of peace and prosperity at home and vigor in relations with other nations, saying that the United States might have to acquire additional possessions for the sake of its own security and would not be deterred by "any timid forebodings of evil."

Is lifted nearly verbatim from the whitehouse.gov biography

--- It is OK to lift text from whitehouse.gov for this biography as all text there is in the public domain. LarryQ

---

I removed the comment "To date, only Pierce and Herbert Hoover have "affirmed" rather than sworn oaths." Hoover neither said "I swear" nor "I affirm" because he did not repeat the entire oath. Chief Justice Taft read the oath, beginning with "Do you, Herbert Hoover, solemnly swear...," to which Hoover replied "I do."

Pierce's siblings

"Pierce had six older and two younger siblings, four brothers and three sisters."

So, were there 7, 8, or 9 little Pierce's?

209.161.178.17 23:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Jane Giraldo

• I saw one website that said he had 4 brothers, 2 sisters and a half-sister. So that would make 8 little "Pierces", of which at least one was a "Pri..." oops, sorry. 0:) Wahkeenah 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When did the son die on the train?

It says "two months before taking office" at one point, and "on the way to the inauguration" at another point. I know almost nothing about Pierce and that's why I was reading the article, but obviously there's something wrong here. --Dbackeberg

Bennie died January 16, 47 days before his father took office on March 4, 1853. Doug Wead wrote "days" before taking office in "All The President's Children". He may have confused the original Inauguration Day with the current one, January 20. He should have wrote weeks not days. Jjmillerhistorian 15:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

GW BUSH?

What is the reference for his relationship with GW Bush?

http://www.worldbook.com/features/presidents/html/bush_barbara.htm but it's disputed as an error, see http://www.bearhaven.com/family/cousin/barbara.html studerby 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed to prevent Civil War?

"He did not do what was necessary to avoid the impending American Civil War."

This is pretty problematic... there is nothing close to historical consensus on Pierce's particular failing in this respect, and further there is a whole school of thought that argues the War was deterministically unavoidable.

Historians like to blame James Buchanan as well. Jjmillerhistorian 15:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Two sticky facts remain, though: he did nothing to easy sectional tensions, and was accepted to be a 'doughface', i.e. a Northerner with Southern leanings. 82.176.196.207 (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be based on assessment by RS with cites; there were many other factors, as noted above.Parkwells (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Barbara Pierce Bush - a direct descendant?

This might sound like a stupid question, but this article claims that Barbara Pierce Bush is a direct descendant of Franklin Pierce. If all three of Pierce's children died young, how can anyone (let alone Barbara Pierce Bush) be a direct descendant of his? CapeTownJunk 10:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it said like that before, too. I think Barbara is directly descended from one of Franklin's four brothers. Jjmillerhistorian 11:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Barbara is a fourth cousin four times removed of Franklin Pierce [1] Jjmillerhistorian 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bush is not descended directly from President Pierce, but she is related to him in that they have a common ancestor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.248.156 (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in first paragraph

"and was the first president born in the nineteenth century"

Millard Fillmore was born Januari 7 1800. I think that counts as 19th century, wouldn't you say? 82.176.216.87 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the 19th century began January 1, 1801. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct ... while the "1800s", per se, began on January 1st, 1800, the 19th Century began on January 1st, 1801. So while President Fillmore was the first American President born in the 1800s, Mr. Pierce was the first one born in the 19th Century. 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, opinions anyone?

"Pierce is ranked among the least effective Presidents as well as an indecisive politician who was easily influenced. He was unable to command as President or to provide the required national leadership." Okay, so he didn't do much, but is it policy to cite a source or something that could verify this claim? Otherwise, it's just another group of historians' opinion. Ageofe (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the section says "opinions anyone?" I will say this - I must have known about this president on many occasions, but every time after a few months I forget. I see a reference to Franklin Pierce and I think, "Who??" He's got to be one of the most overlooked presidents of all time :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.165.236 (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Pierce is mentioned TWICE in the intro as being rated one of the worst presidents. Do we really need that redundancy? I will remove one if no one objects. Bro2baseball (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

M*A*S*H* Quote

Is it really necessary to include the quote? Isn't the mention of Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce enough to make the point? Jickyincognito (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the part that says his reputation was "destroyed" by joining the Confederacy makes no sense. Are in speaking from the 19th century or the 21st? Obviously his reputation in the South was not destroyed. Also, why the quote from Potter about the discrediting of Manifest Destiny and popular soveriegnty? It's out of place and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.183.198 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Vice President

Can anyone comment on the apparent absence of a vice president for the vast bulk of his term? --69.143.118.84 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See Vice President of the United States: "Prior to ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, no provision existed for filling a vacancy in the office of vice president. As a result, the vice presidency was left vacant 16 times (sometimes for nearly four years)"

Speaker of the NH House

I saw this source, [2] from the NH State Curator that says Pierce was Speaker of the House from 1831 and 1832 rather than 1832 and 1833. Understanding the nature of records in those days , I want to make sure that there is not some other authoritative source for those years. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 17:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

♥My Mom Said He Was Pretty Dang Spiffy♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.63.227.6 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A loaf of bread is called a "pierce" in Manchester, NH?

What is the source for this? I grew up in Manchester, NH and my family has been there for four generations- but I have never heard this expression. And the city's not that big- so, if it's still in use, you'd think I'd have heard it at least once in the 25 years or so I lived there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.255.46 (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like trivia at best as well, especially for the lead section. Anyways, Tom 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Franklin Pierce was the 14th President of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.42.47 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Baby"

• According to historian David Potter, Pierce was sometimes referred to as "Baby" Pierce. The nickname seemingly referred to his youthful appearance and his being the youngest president to take office to that point (although he was, in reality, only a year younger than James K. Polk when he took office).

Potter's book is on Google books too,[3] but I can't find anything like this in there. I checked some other Pierce bios in Google books and this didn't turn up. Even if it's true, it's apparently not a significant detail.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: your comments on my Franklin Pierce edit, I was just adding some background for a statement the article already contained. Though it's true I didn't add a citation, I actually read the book I cited (yes, some of us old fogies still read hardbacks), despite the fact that you couldn't find it in Google Books. IMHO you would have done better to have added a citation needed tag than to take it upon yourself to assume that neither the other contributor's statement nor my supporting statement were of merit and to remove both to the talk page. Please remember to assume good faith when editing the efforts of others. Thanks! Bonehed (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) copied from User talk:Will Beback

What book is this from?   Will Beback  talk  19:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF!? What happened to the president!?

This article is supposed to be about the president, but now it's about a serial killer!? 209.6.120.254 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS EASILY ONE OF THE WORST ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA FOR ALL ITS BIAS AND ABSURD SLANDER. THE LINE ABOUT "DESTROYING" HIS REPUTATION BY JOINING THE CONFEDERACY IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.183.198 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it as ridiculous as shouting in ALL CAPS?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

NICE ONE BEAN HUNTER!!!

Was this article written by an angry 8th grader? The line about him "having friends" but also having personal tragedy makes absolutely no sense. Oh yeah, he was really "unpopular." Great writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.113.91 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fillmore launched Perry mission, while here Pierce is getting the credit.

According to the page on Millard Fillmore, in the section on Foreign Affairs, "Fillmore, with help from Secretary of State Daniel Webster, sent Commodore Matthew C. Perry to open Japan to Western trade. Though Perry did not reach Japan until Franklin Pierce had replaced Fillmore as president, Fillmore does earn the credit for ending Japanese isolation because it was he who ordered the trade mission."

But, here, Pierce is getting the credit.

It seems like this should be modified, especially since the Fillmore page has two citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wallner's biography of Pierce

I am surprised that nobody has cited Peter Wallner's two-volume biography of Franklin Pierce. I'll grant that Wallner is sometimes a little too defensive of Pierce, but given the general hostility of historians to Pierce, one might grant him the right to try to mount a spirited defense, especially since he never lets his work turn into a flat out hagiography. Thus, this Wikipedia article would benefit from some judicious use of Wallner's work.

For example, the Wikipedia article begins by calling him a "doughface." He certainly was called that in his lifetime and the article should mention that that is what his opponents called him. But is that a fair characterization of his aims? If so, he failed miserably, for it was in the South where he was universally detested and where he lost the 1856 nomination to a true doughface, James Buchanan. Throughout his administration he fought the filibusters (invasions into Latin America) much loved by the South and tried to find a balanced policy in Kansas, which after a rocky start eventually stopped the violence. Wallner argues, correctly in my view, that Pierce's main intention was to preserve the union, and he ended up offending north and south alike in doing so. As Wallner puts it, "Pierce was always a nationalist attempting to find a middle ground to keep the Union together....Piece had to deal with the political system as he found it, with fifteen slave states and their representatives exercising the inordinate amount of power that the Constitution, with its three-fifth clause, gave them. The alternative to attempting to steer a moderate course was the breakup of the Union, the Civil War and the deaths of more than six hundred thousand Americans....Slavery was not a problem that could be solved within the antebellum political system. The Piece's administration's honest, efficient, legalistic, nationalistic stewardship was the best the nation could have hoped for at the time" (Wallner, Franklin Pierce, 2:378-379).

I write this as one who believes Lincoln rather than Pierce was on the right side of history. But without someone like a Lincoln appearing on the scene and being willing to stomach all the bloodshed of brother against brother, the only decent alternative in the second party system was someone like Pierce.Jkellrmn (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Renomination

Why wasn't Pierce nominated for a second term? That is quite unsusal that a sitting president is denied the nomination of his party. Could that be added? --78.50.193.249 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Done.

Billmckern (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Father's political affiliation

The article says that Pierce's father was a Republican when Pierce was a child, but the Republican party did not exist then. The father must have been a Democrat-Republican. (User talk: tfdavisatsnetnet) 11:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Done.

Billmckern (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"District"

"Jackson, who carried both the district and the nation by a large margin in the November election"

Do we know what sort of district? I glanced at Wallner and it does say district, "Young Pierce ... proudly reported that in his district Jackson won by a majority of thirteen hundred votes." I'm not clear on what district he's talking about. NH did not have congressional districts at the time and that district must have been pretty big for Jackson to run up that margin, given the electorate was men only. I suppose it is possible that the legislature is meant but I'm dubious there too as on the next page (35) it mentions that the voters of Hillsborough chose FP as their representative. I don't see margins like 1300 in a place as small as Hillsborough (and I'm inclined to believe it was just Hillsborough that FP represented, as NH has this humongous legislature).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't figure it out. The New Hampshire House in 1828 and 1829 had more than 200 members, so it definitely wasn't a House district -- the vote totals for President would be too big for such a small legislative district to be carried by 1,300. Members of the US House were chosen at-large in 1828, so it's not a Congressional district. There were 5 Executive Council members, and they appear to have been elected by district in 1828. There were 12 State Senators, so it might be a Senate district. The state vote totals were 24,000 for Adams and 21,000 for Jackson, or about 45,000 total. Trying to figure out if some "district" might have cast enough votes for someone to win by 1,300 votes, a State Senate district might fit the bill. But I'm not positive and I don't have any references. I'll keep looking.

Billmckern (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote to support cause of death claim

Wehwalt, Designate, Billmckern, I see you're among the top contributors to this comprehensive article. I am trying to gather detailed references for cause of death claims for all US Presidents for Wikidata. List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_date_of_death#List currently states that Franklin Pierce's cause of death was "inflammation of the stomach" (here), while this article currently states that he "died of severe cirrhosis of the liver in 1869".

This article's "Final years and death" section indicates that 'Wallner (2007), pp. 369–73' supports the claim of cirrhosis. Do any of you have access to Wallner (2007), i.e. Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union? If so, is there any way you could provide a brief quote from that book, with page number, to support the cirrhosis claim? I would like to use that quote for a reference in Wikidata. See the 'cause of death' reference for George Washington on Wikidata for an example of what I'd like to do for Franklin Pierce on Wikidata. Of course, this would be useful to correct that "List of" as well. Thanks, Emw (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If a specific page and quote are available for time of death, that would help as well, since this article also conflicts with that "List of" article on the matter. Here states 4:35 AM, there states 4:49 AM. Emw (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably, I'm traveling at present and won't be back home for a bit. For what it's worth, I do own the book. A google books search turns up several sources that say the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have copies of both volumes of Wallner's Franklin Pierce bio en route. I'll review the second one for the circumstances of Pierce's death as soon as I receive it.

Billmckern (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've received my copies of the two volumes of Wallner's bio of Pierce. "Martyr for the Union" is paperback, 2007, published by Plaidswede Publishing, Concord, NH. Here are some of the relevant quotes and passages. I'll leave it to Wehwalt or someone else to figure out how to make use of these details and quotes within the body of the article.

Page 364 has a paragraph which begins "Pierce's drinking contributed to a serious attack of "bilious fever" in November 1865. He was so ill that there were fears for his life." The paragraph goes on to indicate that it was this illness which prompted Pierce to be baptized in the Episcopal church.

Page 366 has a paragraph in which Pierce's friend Clement March is quoted as indicating that Pierce was not drinking in 1866, which apparently improved his health. "Drinking was certainly one of those sins, and Clement March reported in March 1866 "The General seems in good health and spirits, and does not make use of stimulating spirits, as I do." The next paragraph indicates that thanks in part to his improved health, Pierce was able to purchase and improve land on the coast at Little Boar's Head in North Hampton and construct a summer cottage and farm, and that he did the farm work himself.

Page 369 indicates that Pierce had begun drinking again in 1867. "But Pierce was drinking again. In August 1867 his nephew John McNeil found him very ill and alone (with no company other than that of his housekeeper) at the cottage. McNeil reported Pierce's condition to Clement March, who wrote that Pierce's illness was "from the effects of drinking. March continued "All had left him."" A subsequent quote from March on the same page is "His visitors have not all gone -- and do not know the cause of his illness [drinking]."

Later on page 369 a paragraph indicates that Pierce's regained his health again. "Pierce rallied once again and by the spring of 1868 was writing "I am enjoying excellent health and find plenty of objects to occupy my time." He goes on to describe clearing the land around his summer cottage and planting trees and shrubs.

Page 370 indicates that Pierce received several visitors later in 1868, and that B. B. French, who had known Pierce years before, found him at the summer cottage suffering from "neuralgia of the left shoulder and arm," which confined Pierce to bed. Except for that, French indicated that Pierce looked like he hadn't aged at all since French had known him many years before.

At about the same time, Pierce wrote a letter to Horatio Bridge in which he stated that he "did not spring up readily from his serious illness" and "have not much strength now." He also indicated in this letter that he presumed that his death was imminent.

Page 371 indicates that Pierce's strength returned in the early months of 1869, and that he could go for walks or rides in good weather.

Page 371 indicates that in May 1869 Pierce was well enough to attend the Society of the Cincinnati convention in Baltimore.

Later in page 371 is a passage which indicates that shortly after the convention Pierce wrote to his nephew Frank to say that he was at the summer cottage, but "am too tired to say much."

At the bottom of page 371 is the beginning of the paragraph describing Pierce's final illness. It indicates that on July 30, Clement March wrote a letter in which he included the line "General Pierce is gravely ill."On page 372 is another line from Clement: "I saw Gen. Pierce, who still drinks." A few days later March wrote another letter which included that Pierce was "physically very weak."

Page 372 also contains a quote from Horatio Bridge indicating that he visited Pierce at the cottage and found him "too weak to leave his bed" and "sadly emaciated." A subsequent passage in the same paragraph indicates that Pierce had dropsy, probably caused by liver failure, and that for a time he also had uncontrollable hiccups. It goes on that in late September Pierce returned to the house he rented from Willard Williams in Concord, and that his abdomen was distended and he weighed less than 100 pounds. After passages indicating that he was examined by doctors, who told him he would not recover, and that a "death watcher" was hired to care for Pierce at home is a passage stating that by October 7, Pierce was in and out of consciousness, but that he responded to doctors and Williams family members and his caretaker when he was awake. Shortly afterwards, the toxic fluid buildup in his body caused him greater physical discomfort, and he no longer recognized the people at his bedside. At 4:35 AM on October 8, he relaxed, opened his eyes, looked around the room, and died.

I hope these details are useful. Please let me know if you need any additional information from either volume of Wallner's bio, since I now have both on hand.

Billmckern (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Additions

I'm taking note of additions such as this. The problem is not that one person makes the decision. The problem is that long additions are being made AFTER the article has freshly passed through the FA process, and length has been a consideration there. Leaving aside whether new FAs need lengthy additions, I see the problem is that choices are being made in the work of renovating the article as to what should be included, and what should not, to keep the article within manageable proportions (100K is a fair goal). The expansions are about five percent and show no sign of ending, and in my view would have been commented on as extraneous in the FA process. It is not that one person (not true, actually) is censoring the article, it is that another is coming in, after the very hard work of the PR and FA processes are done by myself and Designate, and making major changes without seeking consensus. I do see this as a problem. Either put it in early when your work is subjected to the review of others, such as reviewers, or accept that FAC is a community consensus process where a positive outcome carries consensus with it, and if there is objection, the answer is to talk and build consensus, not blindly revert. The person seeking to add the material of course carries the burden of consensus. There is no consensus at present for these additions, accordingly I revert them. So now defend why they are needed, and at such length.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacy in lede

The rules say lede should summarize the article (& esp his presidency). That is covered in the Legacy section & I added a summary to the lede. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)