Book: The American Presidents: Millard Fillmore
Author: Paul Finkelman
1. Date- By now you’ve been following the blog so intently (right?) that you are tired of outdated volumes of centuries past. Time to get into the 21st. What better way to ring in 2011 than with the man who is probably most foreign and unknown to the modern reader. There should be no surprise here. It is easy to see why a half century has passed since someone revisited the work of Robert Rayback and other Fillmore revisits. At a time we fondly remember a triumph over secession or dramatic strikers, Finkelman brings us the wallowing and indecisive Fillmore. His legacy is one of deference and inaction, hardly the Lincoln-esque heroes lionized from the antebellum or Civil War era. Make no mistake, giants of this era Grant, Stonewall, Lee etc. are well known even to the casual history fan. Finkelman makes it clear history is not kind to Fillmore. Calling him “thoroughly unsuccessful” and a “failure” Finkelman provides the presidential reader with the perspective of modern distaste. Anyone looking for a revisionist history or apologist for a man that seemed to epitomize a less than glamorous American past will find little in this 2011 work. There are some inherent flaws with such a contemporary look. A very recent perspective can be unduly harsh and too willing to judge with a modern look. Not necessarily a bad thing, though. Fillmore doesn’t exactly having any hope of his stock rising anytime soon. Finkelman backs this brief volume up with a well researched if slightly biased biography. Too soon?
2. Scope- Finkelman, like all authors in the American Presidents project, sticks almost entirely to the cradle to grave model. While the length is much to be desired (more on that later) there is a consistent and dedicated goal of each book in the American Presidents series. The goal is to provide a traditional biography that covers the life of a president and not just an essay on the times or a deep dive into the presidency. Accordingly, this Fillmore work provides a rare straight scope for such an obscure president. Though his presidency is brief, Finkelman does spend a considerable of time in the pre-presidency before briskly rounding out the post-presidency. The scope is total though it does feel like a superficial ride with only minor looks at his family and his political contemporaries. Finkelman at times feels like he is checking boxes along the way and it makes it tough to separate the important from the anecdotal besides obvious benchmarks like his presidency and slavery. Did I mention slavery? Hope you enjoy discussions on the topic because Finkelman does. Though certainly within the bounds of scope Finkelman brings slavery across the entire narrative and chooses to let the topic dominate Fillmore’s life story. Ironically, this was the very issue that Fillmore spent a lifetime trying to keep on the backburner. His failure to do so perhaps makes Finkelman’s razor sharp focus even more profound. Scope is total but scope does not equal depth.
3. Author- Another benefit to having a modern book is that Paul Finkelman is not nearly as obscure as some other authors in the Project. In fact, he is a quite prominent author of many antebellum works including Slave and the Founders and more than 25 works dealing with history and race relations.
As the clip above shows in abundance, Finkelman is one of the most highly respected historians in modern scholarship. In addition to appearing in major American newspapers, he is also a go to for historical documentaries from Ken Burns to films regarding Barry Bonds. Though his academic career has spanned many subjects, the 1850s has always been his specialty which makes his selection as Fillmore’s biographer a tremendously sound choice. Though he has many that disagree with him, his opinion is regarded as sound and respectful and a perfect voice for the complicated time that he has dedicated his career to understanding. His only flaw that comes with being so renown is that his often clear hatred of slavery can cloud his perspective. Instead of tackling slavery as a complex and tragic grey area as many historians tend to do with subjects antebellum, Finkelman gave Fillmore the for/against argument and based his entire criticism on the fact that Fillmore was in the negative. This bias made this work fall from glimpses of greatness.
4. Length- 171 pages of Millard Fillmore. I’d imagine for most, this is 171 pages too many. For the Project, this entry ranks right at the bottom for shortest work allowed to be included. At publication of this post in the Spring of 2015, there seems to be no other choice for a second Fillmore entry. After consulting many other partner blogs and similar projects it was abundantly clear that the cradle to grave narratives so desired by the Project only appeared twice for the 13th President from Buffalo. Not to say that the American Presidents series is anything short of respectable. It is a series that has covered each President entirely and has provided an unprecedented look “compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, authoritative enough for a scholar.” As a result there is a begrudging acceptance at the super brief work included here. However, the short length was not an out for Finkelman. As mentioned above, he spends nearly half the book addressing the slavery issue head-on even as his subject does everything possible to sweep it under the rug. With such a precious few pages seemingly available to Finkelman it does seem odd that he doesn’t address other gaps in Fillmore scholarship. For example, it seems there is no work too long or too short to mention either of his wives at length or his children. This possibly could have spotlighted the tragic early deaths so common in the day. Like slavery, these would have been great representative life events of Fillmore to further the story of the 1850s. Though it is a short work to begin with, this feeling of being truncated is all too obvious. So, yes, the busy reader will be thrilled with the compactness, but the students and scholars of Fillmore will finish the book wondering if any new ground was covered at all. Whereas, Rayback’s 470 page work seemed too long at times, this work definitely feels too short. Perhaps Fillmore will one day get the Goldilocks treatment.
5. Mission- It is impossible to analyze the mission of Finkelman’s work without understanding the book within its series. Beginning in 2004, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Sean Wilentz sought out to recruit a new author for each president. With a varying degree of success they were able to cobble together an authoritative voice. The mission was to put modern eyes to the past. The books could bring a set of short biographies into Presidential scholarship to compliment those that are unwilling to slug through the 500+ page behemoths out there. Overall it is a success and has provided a perfect niche. Their selection of Paul Finkelman is a continuation of that. As mentioned above, he is a well respected scholar of the 1850s era and was able to continue the brisk publication of the works. This process is what has made the project so successful. As with all the works the mission provides a great service for Presidents such as Fillmore. With alluring titans as Jackson and Lincoln sandwiching the era, the string of mediocre (or failures) Presidents leading up to the Civil War rarely get a look. This is mostly because modern eyes go back and find these figures even more insignificant and repugnant than when we left them. However, without series such as these we would never check in and revisit from time to time. In essence we were all given the disheartening update. Fillmore was still a failure and America still teetered along without strong leadership. We are still waiting for their historical liberation. It does not look like it will ever come. Glad we checked up on old Milly.
Book: Millard Fillmore: Biography of a President
Author: Robert J. Rayback
1. Date-Let’s go back in time. The 1950s were coming to a close and America was on the cusp of turning to a New Frontier. Perhaps this backdrop inspired Robert J. Rayback to publish a Millard Fillmore biography in 1959. A look at the 13th president was surely not overkill in scholarly circles. There was no drought in general. The centennial of the Civil War was fast approaching and biographies were aplenty for the common topics such as Lincoln and Grant. However, Rayback was not interested in the Greatest Hits. Instead, in this backdrop, Rayback published the first biography of Fillmore in decades and probably the most comprehensive work on the man since his death in the 1870s. It was not an easy choice. Fillmore lived through the Civil War, not as a heroic figure, but a complicated politician reacting to the revolutionary events of his lifetime. It may surprise readers to realize that becoming president does not guarantee scholarship. In fact, before Rayback’s work, the only full scale biography of Fillmore is a 1915 work that is repudiated by all standards of modern scholarship. It was also largely out of print by the 1950s. So the dust settles on this work that stands alone. For the full scale researchers, this is the latest and greatest. There really isn’t much other competition. Other works have appeared but none come close to a full scale cradle to grave narrative that Rayback provides in this volume and works that are sought for this Project. Facts are facts though. His work is outdated but still takes the top prize for Fillmore by default.
2. Scope- Rayback, knowing his role as having a blank slate, does a nice job of touching on the entire life of Fillmore. The need to go cradle to grave was certainly apparent. Though he may be obscure in many areas, Fillmore is well known in his native Buffalo for example. Knowing this, Rayback takes his time in the beginning of his work to show Fillmore’s upbringing in the emerging city. This is in addition to Buffalo as emerging in prominence in the nation he was destined to lead. The scope gingerly touches on the complicated pre-presidency though there could have been more discussion on political mentors or his emergence of thought. The skin deep approach can make Fillmore rather bland as opposed to tracking his steady but impressive rise to the top. The scope maintains a largely chronological scheme once Fillmore becomes president (not typical for this period of presidential biography) allowing his presidency to emerge along a logical timeline. Rayback also wisely focuses most of the discussion on the presidency on domestic policy. This (correctly) shows that while his foreign policy was indeed involved, it was the explosive 1850s domestic issues that dominated Fillmore’s reign as President. The solid scope continues after the presidency with an excellent and thorough discussion on the 20+ years of Fillmore’s post presidency. Overall, Rayback wisely uses the scope of his work to show how complex and complicated America had become where no easy answers were readily emerging to address unprecedented challenges.
3. Author- Maybe someplace somewhere Rayback and Fillmore are conversing. They can talk about how they tremendously contributed to their fields and now languish in anonymity and obscurity. As a professor at Syracuse University after decades of scholarship, Rayback attempted to academically tackle the unknown Millard Fillmore. Though his task of elevating Fillmore was somewhat successful, Rayback was not able to raise his own or Fillmore’s profile. Further information on his brief career as an author seems wanting and can only be found on friendly blogs. What little is known seems to heighten the credibility of Rayback as Fillmore’s preeminent historian and biographer. He came from a family of writers including his scholarly brother, Joseph Rayback, who was writing a biography on fellow New Yorker Van Buren upon his death in 1983. Both scholars valued the 19th Century antebellum actions of New Yorkers on the complex issues of slavery, immigration and America at mid-century. He would publish many articles, but this work on Fillmore would be Rayback’s only biographical work.
4. Length- At 470 pages, Rayback’s 1959 work on Fillmore definitely clears the hurdle of a canned short biography or flimsy middle biography. It covers much more of his subject’s life than Fillmore’s narrow life events. The story breathes into the surroundings of Fillmore’s America. However, there are definitely moments when the work feels constrained and incomplete. For example, there is little research or discussion into Fillmore’s family. Though typical of the era, Rayback chooses not to delve into his two wives or his two children. This would not be odd but Rayback himself calls one of his goals in this work is a “portrait” of Fillmore. Modern insinuation of a “portrait” pushes a work like this to go deeper than just a rough sketch of his personal aspects. Instead of Fillmore’s real family, Rayback chronicles Fillmore’s New York enemies and friends as the human connection in the subject’s life. In place of his wives there is extended discussion on New York titans Weed and Seward. Again, the mid-length biography only creates an extended narrative and not necessarily a deeper examination on how they made Fillmore into the man he became. Perhaps the maybe-never-produced larger Fillmore sketch is borne out of a deeper look at letters, stories and contemporary accounts that may bubble to the surface. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Ho hum. Yet another forgotten and largely unknown president entered into the President’s Project. Like Fillmore’s predecessors, Taylor, Tyler and Harrison we again see that the presidency alone may not be enough to get a gigantic tome or scholarly gold. Rayback’s work is a prime example that the dull often get tossed aside for their dynamic and explosive contemporaries. There is no address or crowning moment of Fillmore’s or controversial moments that changed the tide of history. Quite simply, Rayback picked a man who was not decisive in his actions and a perfect manifestation of the wallowing of his times. He creates a portrait of a man who barely sought re-election, became president upon a sudden death and never led a charge into a brave new world. Instead, Rayback’s mission is to show that America was not all Lincolns and Grants, but full of Fillmores who were weary of new immigrants, bit the bullet of slavery to save the union and otherwise clung to the hope that radicals would lose and reason would win. It is a tall task and given the subject matter, Rayback does an impressive job of actually couching Fillmore’s anti-Catholic visions and his concessions to slavery. Rayback understands that the negative should not be whitewashed and that a true historian should read his work. Yet, all criticisms considered, Fillmore was president. That meant something to Rayback and he wants to tell (or gently remind) his audience that that will always be true. Sure, Fillmore was never elected. However, he was only 60 days shy of Kennedy’s tenure and outlasted Ford, Harding, Taylor, Garfield and Harrison. He was the last Whig president. All of these are stubborn facts and Rayback makes it his mission to make sure it is not forgotten. Sadly for Rayback’s legacy, there is little to no proof that Fillmore’s stock is rising to any sight of prominence. Truth be told, Rayback had a tall task but there is no sign that his work had any effect. I’ll update this if Speilberg buys the script based on his work. Must it be said again? Don’t hold your breath.
In honor of this psuedo Hallmark esque holiday we here at the project will be live tweeting unelectability! You’re curious… check it out!
*Every first Tuesday every other month, the President’s Project will preview a different Presidential background in anticipation of the 2016 Presidential Election. Backgrounds do not overlap though surely these distinguished men’s did. It is with great care that a determination is made on what exactly the President was known for at the time of his election.*
Generals in the White House:
Overview: From the beginning Americans have sung the twin praises of democracy and civilian rule. They beat the drum for the common man and looked stateside for their heroes. Well, that did not stop the voting public from looking to military brass for their chief magistrate.
1. George Washington (1789-1797): Elected twice unanimously by the American electorate, the first direction the nation looked for leadership was General George Washington. Fresh off of the thrilling victories of the Revolutionary War, Washington swept his incredible popularity into the President’s chair. His role as a general was present from the start. He had a small circle of advisers, but also showed incredible independence and leadership as the first President. His sense of clarity and purpose closely paralleled his military career of old. In fact, his electoral triumph was even unprecedented. It was his only national election. Though many of Washington’s presidential actions were considered sacred precedents, it would take another great war with Great Britain for a general to again lead the nation.
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837): If Andrew Jackson were submitting resumes to the Oval Office today, “General” would not be most recent experience. This of course is does not tell how Jackson became an endearing ideal. The Junior Senator of Tennessee from 1823-1825 would never be mistaken for General Andrew Jackson. From his advisor-heavy “Kitchen Cabinet” in the White House, to his ruthless fights to oblivion with enemies, Jackson never show presidential power as anything other than war. He believed in his cause with soldierly determination and imposed his will onto an entire era. This was true whether his foe was real in the case of Great Britain or imagined, (he once said of the US Bank, “The Bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill It!)” It is clear that no early President was more instrumental in establishing a vision of a strong executive. For him, politicians were yet another army to impose his will and his vision.
9. William Henry Harrison (1841): Though a full generation passed between Washington and Jackson, America waited only four years before turning again to military greatness. From the economic malaise of the “Martin Van Ruin” administration, William Henry Harrison’s mostly light 1840 campaign was a boon. Most famous pre-presidency for being “Mr. Jefferson’s Hammer” on the western frontier, General Harrison was second only to Jackson in the early 19th century glamorization of American military. Like Jackson, Harrison used military retirement to at least nominally engage in politics, serving barely a year as the Minister to Columbia for John Quincy Adams from 1828 to 1829. History never saw if Harrison would continue his two General predecessor’s as strong leaders. The ninth president died April 4th, 1841, barely a month after taking office.
12. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850): The death of one general set into motion a chain of events that led to another just eight years later. Following a disastrous John Tyler presidency and President Polk’s bloody Mexican-American war, the nation looked ironically to a General to return peace to the nation. It was in that bloody Mexican-American war, that General Zachary Taylor rose to palpable popularity. With sweeping triumph America was again victorious with new heroic generals splashed across the nation’s headlines. Unlike Jackson and Harrison, General Taylor cashed in immediately, running just months after the war concluded. His victory was a decisive one, becoming the first Whig to win a national election since Harrison. “Old Rough and Ready” Taylor proved to not be as forcible as expected. Following the creed of his legislature-as-the-power Whig party, Taylor relished in a diminutive chief executive following the whims of Congress. In true Whig fashion, few of the nation’s memories of the Taylor adminstration are of his executive prowess. What remained was far from the image of heroic generals of yesteryear. He holds the dubious honor of being the last slave-holding President and he would die July 9th 1850 just 16 months after taking office. He never got around to flexing Presidential muscle.
18. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877): Joining the army at age 21, Sam Grant was a military man until his election to the White House in 1868. Like his predecessors, it took a dynamic war to bring him to political stardom. Elected after his sensational triumph as the head of the Union Army in the failed Southern Independence Movement of 1861-1865, General Grant essentially could have picked his profession due to his overwhelming popularity. Settling on being the Republican Party’s nominee for president in 1868, President Grant joined the long line of American battlefield victory capped by civilian rule. History has not been kind to Grant who was an aging General by the time he left office. Far from projecting a willful and ethical Cabinet to the masses , Grant’s eight years in office were littered with corruption and scandal. Though Grant has largely remained outside of suspicion in these scandal-ridden times, his Presidency is known more for his failure than its accomplishments. Though his stock is rising due mostly to a progressive and forward thinking view on Civil Rights and Indian Peace, Grant’s troops were indicative of widespread chaos during his time in office. The same man who marshaled forces during the nation’s most perilous time could not translate it into a presidency.
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961): The Civil War gave Americans many civilian elected representatives. This followed a long line of generals from the Revolution to the War of 1812 to the Mexican American War. However, once General Grant exited the stage, Americans declined the Spanish-American War and WWI generals for the highest office in the land. It wouldn’t be until World War II before finally looked again to a general to lead the nation. By the time of General Eisenhower’s election in 1952 ,it had been 80 years since a general was elected president. To put that in perspective, we are still 20+ years from equaling that drought. It was quite the drought buster. Ike the General led America to worldwide triumph as Supreme Allied Commander during the war and as a force of will after it. By his inauguration in 1953, the America Eisenhower inherited was much different than his military predecessors that rose to his level. As a battle tested world power, the winner of mid-20th Century peace now guided 1950s America through the end of the Korean War and the ever-terrifying Cold War. He created a forceful foreign policy and oversaw an arms race. His military mind even went to work stateside. Anyone driving on one of the 20 interstate highways may have noticed. The Eisenhower Highway System was a direct result of his military career. While driving the Autobahn after the war, Eisenhower brought the idea home. Finally, it was the Russian launch of Sputnik that immediately was seen by Ike as a military aim and not just one of science. America has not looked to a general since.
Could it happen in 2016?: However, when Eisenhower left office, his popularity and strength ended up being the end and not the beginning of an era. Barring an unforseen challenger from either party, 2016 will mark 60 years since America has looked to military brass as President. In fact, George H. W. Bush is the last military veteran to be elected, a drought that will reach 28 years by 2016. So what man or woman is showing signs of breaking the drought? Well, none. So far, no military General has thrown his or her hat in the ring which makes it highly unlikely that ’16 will see a return of military might in the White House.
Recent polls have shown that military is not exactly a bulletproof background in ’16. There are 18 candidates in the latest Iowa straw poll. Only Democrat Jim Webb (2.5% of latest polls) and Republican Rick Perry (4.8% of latest polls) have seen any military action and nowhere near the rank of general. Both left the military as Captains with Webb discharged by the Marines in 1972 and Perry discharged by the Air Force in 1977.
When President Barack Obama takes the stage for State of the Union Address Number Seven, he will be only the 16th president to reach the milestone. Despite cultivating an administration many associate with displeasure or unease, Obama is entering and increasingly elite group in American Presidential history. Though the power of Number Seven as an address or written message has ebbed and flowed, it has always remained a central statement of the Presidents’ views. Number Seven does not include some titanic names. Lincoln only made four SOTUs; the same as John Adams. President Kennedy only made three. What remains is a mixed bag of long tenured administrations; each with significant challenges still flaring in the twilight of their reign. When Obama begins Number Seven, he will join some interesting company. Let’s hop in the time machine for four examples of Number Seven in four different American centuries:
George W. Bush (2001-2009) 7th SOTU January 23rd 2007
What was important to George?:
Though seemingly recent, Bush delivered the first Number Seven in the 21st Century eight years ago. It had been over a half decade since the traumatic events of 9/11 and the repercussions were clear in this address. First, he stayed stateside, preaching many conservative ideals such as balancing the budget, cutting spending, and and vetting out of the box thoughts on Social Security. However, since most of Bush’s presidency regaled in foreign policy, his Number Seven was mostly centralized around matters abroad ; creating a sort of haunting microcosm. The President again used Number Seven to cement his legacy and justify the actions taken seven years into his administration. He touched on many issues facing the Middle East, from sanctions on Iran to constitutional reforms in Arabic nations. He reaffirmed his commitment to the military and the power of American might overseas. Number Seven was a time to be unabashedly proud and the first 21st Century Seven was no exception.
“We’re not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and we can achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don’t much care which side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we’re willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done.”
“We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty.”
“American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease, and that is precisely what America is doing.”
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) 7th SOTU January 27th 1987