Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Presidency of Franklin Pierce
View on Wikipedia| Presidency of Franklin Pierce March 4, 1853 – March 4, 1857 | |
Vice President |
|
|---|---|
| Cabinet | See list |
| Party | Democratic |
| Election | 1852 |
| Seat | White House |
|
| |
Franklin Pierce served as the 14th president of the United States from March 4, 1853, to March 4, 1857. Pierce, a Democrat from New Hampshire, took office after defeating Whig Party nominee Winfield Scott in the 1852 presidential election. Seen by fellow Democrats as pleasant and accommodating to all the party's factions, Pierce, then a little-known politician, won the presidential nomination on the 49th ballot of the 1852 Democratic National Convention. His hopes for reelection ended after losing the Democratic nomination at the 1856 Democratic National Convention. He was succeeded by Democrat James Buchanan.
Pierce vetoed funding for internal improvements, called for a lower tariff, and vigorously enforced the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Influenced by the Young America expansionist movement, the Pierce administration completed the Gadsden land purchase from Mexico, clashed with Great Britain in Central America, and led a failed attempt to acquire Cuba from Spain. Pierce's administration was severely criticized after several of his diplomats issued the Ostend Manifesto, which called for the annexation of Cuba, by force if necessary. His popularity in the Northern free states declined sharply after he supported the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act, which nullified the Missouri Compromise. Passage of the act led directly to a long and violent conflict over the expansion of slavery in the Western United States.
In the wake of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, the Whig Party and the Democratic Party fell apart and national institutions were severely weakened. With the Whig Party's break-up, two new major parties emerged in the nativist American Party and the anti-slavery Republican Party. Pierce actively sought renomination at the 1856 Democratic National Convention, but the nomination went to James Buchanan, who had served as Pierce's ambassador to Great Britain. Buchanan went on to win the 1856 presidential election. Pierce is viewed by historians as one of the worst presidents of the United States, whose failure to stem the nation's inter–sectional conflict accelerated the course towards civil war. He is usually ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history.
Election of 1852
[edit]
As the 1852 presidential election approached, the Democrats were divided by the slavery issue, though most of the "Barnburners" who had left the party in 1848 with Martin Van Buren had returned. Major presidential contenders included Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, William Marcy of New York, Sam Houston of Texas, Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, and Lewis Cass of Michigan, the latter of whom had been the party's 1848 nominee.[1] Due to the divisions in party and the lack of a strong Southern candidate, many Democratic leaders expected that the party would compromise on a lesser-known Northern candidate who held views acceptable to the South. New Hampshire Democrats, including Franklin Pierce, favored the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Levi Woodbury, but Woodbury died in 1851.[2] After the death of Woodbury, New Hampshire Democrats coalesced around Pierce, a former member of Congress who had served as a brigadier general in the Mexican–American War.[3] Pierce allowed his supporters to lobby for him, with the understanding that his name would not be entered at the convention unless it was clear none of the front-runners could win. To broaden his potential base of southern support as the convention approached, he wrote letters reiterating his support for the Compromise of 1850, including the controversial Fugitive Slave Act.[4]
The 1852 Democratic National Convention assembled on June 1 in Baltimore, Maryland, and, as had been widely expected, a deadlock occurred. On the first ballot, 288 delegates, Cass claimed 116 of the 288 delegates, while Buchanan won 93 delegates and the remaining votes were scattered among various candidates. The next 34 ballots passed with no one near victory; Pierce did not receive a single vote on any of the ballots. Eventually, the Buchanan team decided to have their delegates vote for minor candidates, including Pierce, to demonstrate that no one but Buchanan could win. This novel tactic backfired after several ballots when Virginia, New Hampshire, and Maine switched to Pierce. After the 48th ballot, North Carolina Congressman James C. Dobbin delivered an unexpected and passionate endorsement of Pierce, sparking a wave of support for the dark horse candidate. On the 49th ballot, Pierce received all but six of the votes, and thus gained the Democratic nomination for president. Delegates selected Alabama Senator William R. King, a Buchanan supporter, as Pierce's running mate, and adopted a party platform that rejected further "agitation" over the slavery issue and supported the Compromise of 1850.[5]

Rejecting incumbent President Millard Fillmore, the Whigs nominated General Winfield Scott, whom Pierce had served under in the Mexican–American War. The Whigs' convention adopted a platform almost indistinguishable from that of the Democrats, including support of the Compromise of 1850. This incited the Free Soilers to field their own candidate, Senator John P. Hale of New Hampshire, at the expense of the Whigs. The lack of political differences between the major parties reduced the campaign to a bitter personality contest and helped to dampen voter turnout in the election to its lowest level since 1836; it was, according to Pierce biographer Peter A. Wallner, "one of the least exciting campaigns in presidential history".[6] Scott was harmed by the lack of enthusiasm of anti-slavery northern Whigs for the candidate and platform; New-York Tribune editor Horace Greeley summed up the attitude of many when he said of the Whig platform, "we defy it, execrate it, spit upon it".[7] Southern Whigs were even less enthusiastic about Scott, since they feared that his administration would be dominated by anti-slavery northerners like William Seward.[8] Pierce, meanwhile kept quiet so as not to upset his party's delicate unity, and allowed his allies to run the campaign. It was the custom at the time for candidates to not appear to seek the office, and he did no personal campaigning.[9] Pierce's opponents caricatured him as an anti-Catholic coward and alcoholic ("the hero of many a well-fought bottle").[10]

Ultimately, Scott won only Kentucky, Tennessee, Massachusetts and Vermont, finishing with 42 electoral votes to Pierce's 254. With 3.2 million votes cast, Pierce won the popular vote with 50.9 to 44.1 percent. A sizable block of Free Soilers broke for Pierce's in-state rival, Hale, who won 4.9 percent of the popular vote.[11] In the concurrent congressional elections, the Democrats increased their majorities in both houses of Congress.[12]
Post-election family tragedy
[edit]Pierce began his presidency in mourning. Weeks after his election, on January 6, 1853, the president-elect's family had been traveling from Boston by train when their car derailed and rolled down an embankment near Andover, Massachusetts. Pierce and his wife, Jane survived, but their only remaining son, Benjamin, was crushed to death. Pierce and Jane both suffered severe depression afterward, which likely affected Pierce's performance as president.[13] Jane would avoid social functions for much of her first two years as First Lady, making her public debut in that role to great sympathy at the public reception held at the White House on New Year's Day, 1855.[14]
Jane remained in New Hampshire as Pierce departed for his inauguration, which she did not attend.[15]
Inauguration
[edit]Pierce, the youngest man to be elected president to that point, chose to affirm his oath of office on a law book rather than swear it on a Bible, as all his predecessors except John Quincy Adams had done. He was the first president to deliver his inaugural address from memory.[15] In the address he hailed an era of peace and prosperity at home and urged a vigorous assertion of U.S. interests in its foreign relations, including the "eminently important" acquisition of new territories. "The policy of my administration", said the new president, "will not be deterred by any timid forebodings of evil from expansion." Avoiding the word "slavery", he emphasized his desire to put the "important subject" to rest and maintain a peaceful union. He alluded to his own personal tragedy, telling the crowd, "You have summoned me in my weakness, you must sustain me by your strength."[16]
Administration
[edit]| Pierce cabinet | ||
|---|---|---|
| Office | Name | Term |
| President | Franklin Pierce | 1853–1857 |
| Vice President | William R. King | 1853 |
| none | 1853–1857 | |
| Secretary of State | William L. Marcy | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of the Treasury | James Guthrie | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of War | Jefferson Davis | 1853–1857 |
| Attorney General | Caleb Cushing | 1853–1857 |
| Postmaster General | James Campbell | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of the Navy | James C. Dobbin | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of the Interior | Robert McClelland | 1853–1857 |
In his Cabinet appointments, Pierce sought to unite the party by appointing Democrats from all factions, including those that had not supported the Compromise of 1850. He anchored his Cabinet around Attorney General Caleb Cushing, a pro-compromise northerner, and Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, who had led Southern resistance to the compromise in the Senate. For the key position of Secretary of State, Pierce chose William Marcy, who had served as Secretary of War under President Polk. To appease the Cass and Buchanan wings of the party, Pierce appointed Secretary of the Interior Robert McClelland of Michigan and Postmaster General James Campbell of Pennsylvania, respectively. Pierce rounded out his geographically balanced Cabinet with Secretary of the Navy James C. Dobbin of North Carolina and Secretary of the Treasury James Guthrie of Kentucky. All initial Cabinet appointees would remain in place throughout Pierce's presidency.[17] Pierce's Cabinet notably lacked a prominent Southern unionist such as Howell Cobb, and also did not include a representative from Stephen Douglas's faction of the party.[18]
Pierce spent the first few weeks of his term sorting through hundreds of lower-level federal positions to be filled. This was a chore, as he sought to represent all factions of the party, and could fully satisfy none of them. Partisans found themselves unable to secure positions for their friends, which put the Democratic Party on edge and fueled bitterness between factions. Before long, northern newspapers accused Pierce of filling his government with pro-slavery secessionists, while Southern newspapers accused him of abolitionism.[19] Factionalism between the pro- and anti-administration Democrats ramped up quickly, especially within the New York Democratic Party. The more conservative Hardshell Democrats or "Hards" of New York were deeply skeptical of the Pierce administration, which was associated with Secretary of State Marcy and the more moderate New York faction, the Softshell Democrats or "Softs".[20]

Pierce's running mate William R. King became severely ill with tuberculosis, and after the election he went to Cuba to recuperate. His condition deteriorated, and Congress passed a special law, allowing him to be sworn in before the American consul in Havana on March 24. Wanting to die at home, he returned to his plantation in Alabama on April 17 and died the next day. The office of vice president remained vacant for the remainder of Pierce's term, as the Constitution had no provision for filling an intra-term vice presidential vacancy prior to 1967. As such, the President pro tempore of the Senate, initially David Rice Atchison of Missouri, was next in line to the presidency for the remaining duration of Pierce's presidency.[21]
Judicial appointments
[edit]There was a vacancy on the Supreme Court when Pierce took office, due to the death of John McKinley in 1852. President Fillmore had made several nominations to fill the vacancy before the end of his term, but his nominees were denied confirmation by the Senate. Pierce quickly nominated John Archibald Campbell, an advocate of states' rights, for the seat; he would be Pierce's only Supreme Court appointment.[22] Pierce also appointed three judges to the United States circuit courts and twelve judges to the United States district courts. He was the first president to appoint judges to the United States Court of Claims.
Domestic affairs
[edit]The expansion of slavery into the western territories was the central issue of the day.[23]
The slavery debate
[edit]Kansas–Nebraska Act
[edit]
In his inaugural address, Pierce expressed hope that the Compromise of 1850 would settle the debate over the issue of slavery in the territories. The compromise had allowed slavery in Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory, which had been acquired in the Mexican–American War. The Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territories north of the 36°30′ parallel, remained in place for the other U.S. territories acquired in Louisiana Purchase, including a vast unorganized territory often referred to as "Nebraska". As settlers poured into the unorganized territory, and commercial and political interests called for a transcontinental railroad through the region, pressure mounted for the organization of the eastern parts of the unorganized territory.[24] Organizing the territory was necessary for settlement as the land would not be surveyed nor put up for sale until a territorial government was authorized.[25]

Pierce wanted to organize the territories without explicitly addressing the matter of slavery, but Senator Stephen Douglas could not get enough southern support to accomplish this.[26] Slave state leaders had never been content with western limits on slavery, and felt that slavery should be able to expand into territories, while many Northern leaders were strongly opposed to any such expansion.[25] Douglas and his allies instead proposed a bill to organize the territory and let local settlers decide whether to allow slavery, effectively repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, as most of land in question was north of the 36°30′ parallel. Under Douglas's bill, two new territories would be created: Kansas Territory would be located directly west of Missouri, while Nebraska Territory would be located north of Kansas Territory. The common expectation was that the people of the Nebraska Territory would not allow slavery, while the people of the Kansas Territory would allow slavery.[25]

Pierce was initially skeptical of Douglas's bill, knowing it would arouse bitter opposition from the North, but Douglas, Secretary of War Davis, and a group of powerful Southern senators known as the "F Street Mess" convinced Pierce to support the bill.[28] It was tenaciously opposed by Northerners such as Ohio Senator Salmon P. Chase and Massachusetts' Charles Sumner, who rallied public sentiment in the North against the bill. Many Northerners had been suspicious of the Pierce's expansionist foreign policy and the influence of slaveholding Cabinet members such as Davis, and they saw the Nebraska bill as part of a pattern of southern aggression.[25] Pierce and his administration used threats and promises to keep most Democrats on board in favor of the bill. The Whigs split along sectional lines, and the conflict finally destroyed the ailing party. The Kansas–Nebraska Act passed the Senate with relative ease, but was nearly derailed in the House. Pressure by Douglas and Pierce, combined with the support of many Southern Whigs, ensured the bill's passage in May 1854.[25] In both the House and the Senate, every Northern Whig voted against the Kansas–Nebraska Act, while just under half of the Northern Democrats and the vast majority of Southern congressmen of both parties voted for the act.[29]
Bleeding Kansas
[edit]Even as the Kansas-Nebraska Act was being debated, settlers on both sides of the slavery issue poured into Kansas so as to influence the status of slavery in Kansas. The passage of the act resulted in so much violence between groups that the territory became known as Bleeding Kansas. The New England Emigrant Aid Society assisted anti-slavery farmers to move to Kansas, and John Brown and his sons soon proved themselves the most memorable of these immigrants. But the anti-slavery farmers were outnumbered by the thousands of pro-slavery Border Ruffians who came across from Missouri to vote in the Kansas elections, giving the pro-slavery element control over the territorial government. Pierce supported the outcome despite the irregularities. The new legislature subsequently adopted laws that criminalized reading Free Soil literature, disenfranchised those who refused to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act, and barred non-slave owners from holding public office. When Free-Staters set up a shadow government and drafted the Topeka Constitution, Pierce called their work an act of rebellion and ordered an army contingent to prevent the Topeka government from meeting.[30]
The president continued to recognize the pro-slavery legislature, which was dominated by Democrats, even after a congressional investigative committee found its election to have been illegitimate. In response to Pierce's actions, several Northern state legislatures passed resolutions in support of anti-slavery groups in Kansas. Robert Toombs arranged a compromise Kansas statehood bill that won passage in the Senate, but Pierce's opponents in the House defeated the bill. The violence in Kansas escalated in 1856, and pro-slavery forces ransacked the town of Lawrence, Kansas. That same year, in the Pottawatomie massacre, an anti-slavery group led by John Brown killed pro-slavery settlers.[30] The situation calmed somewhat after Pierce appointed the even-handed John W. Geary as governor of the territory, but tensions remained high by the time Pierce left office.[31]
Other issues
[edit]Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act coincided with the seizure of escaped slave Anthony Burns in Boston. Northerners rallied in support of Burns, but Pierce was determined to follow the Fugitive Slave Act to the letter, and dispatched federal troops to enforce Burns' return to his Virginia owner despite furious crowds.[32] The simultaneous repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act alienated many Northerners, including those who had formerly accepted the Fugitive Slave Act as a sectional compromise.[33] Textile magnate Amos Adams Lawrence described the reaction of many Northern Whigs to the Pierce administration's enforcement of fugitive slave law, writing "we went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs and woke up stark mad abolitionists."[34] Several northern states enacted personal liberty laws designed to prevent the kidnapping of free blacks and to make it more difficult to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.[33] Fugitive slave controversies, including that of Margaret Garner, continued to attract controversy throughout Pierce's presidency.[35]
In response to an anti-slavery speech by Senator Charles Sumner, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina beat Sumner with a cane, leaving Sumner unable to return to the Senate until 1859. The House of Representatives voted to censure Brooks, and Brooks resigned from the House only to win re-election shortly thereafter. Many in the South supported Brooks's actions; the Richmond Enquirer wrote that the "Vulgar Abolitionists are getting above themselves...They must be lashed into submission." Many northerners, meanwhile, were horrified by the political violence.[36]
Partisan re-alignment
[edit]The Compromise of 1850 had split both major parties along geographic lines. In several Northern states, Democrats opposed to the compromise had joined with the Free Soil Party to take control of state governments. In the South, many state parties had also been split by the compromise.[37] The vast majority of northerners did not favor abolition, but northerners were hostile to the extension of slavery into the western territories, since they feared that such extension would lead to the exclusion of settlers from free states. Supporters of the "Free Soil" movement (which was not exclusive to members of the Free Soil Party) wanted to limit slavery to the states in which it currently existed. Southerners, meanwhile, resented any interference with their institutions and believed that slavery's continued existence required the expansion of the practice into the territories.[38]
Hoping to keep his own party unified, Pierce appointed both supporters and opponents of the Compromise of 1850 from both the North and South. This policy infuriated both supporters and opponents of the compromise, particularly in the South.[37] Pierce demanded that all loyal Democrats support the Kansas-Nebraska Act, hoping that debates over that act and the development of the West would reinvigorate partisan conflict and distract from intra-party battles. But the bill instead polarized legislators sectional lines, with Southern Whigs providing critical votes in the House as a narrow majority of Northern Democrats voted against it.[39] The Whigs, meanwhile, continued to decline as a party. The Free Soil Party won support from many who were sympathetic to the temperance movement, while the Know Nothing movement capitalized on growing nativist fears over Catholic immigrants.[40] This nativism was fueled by an increase in immigration during the 1850s, as well as higher crime rates and spending on relief for the poor, which many voters attributed to immigration.[41] William Seward and some other Northern Whigs tried to bring Free Soilers and Democrats who were opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act into the Whig Party, but many of these individuals preferred to establish a new party dedicated to "the establishment of liberty and the overthrow of the Slave Power." A new, anti-slavery party was established at a rally in Ripon, Wisconsin, in May 1854, and that party became known as the Republican Party.[42] Republican leaders, including Abraham Lincoln did not call for the abolition of slavery, but instead called for Congress to prevent the extension of slavery into the territories.[43]
Congressional Democrats suffered huge losses in the mid-term elections of 1854, as voters provided support to a wide array of new parties opposed to the Democrats and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.[44] In several states, opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Democratic Party merely labeled themselves the "Opposition." Members of the Know Nothing movement defeated numerous Northeastern and Southern congressional candidates from both the Whig and Democratic parties.[39] Most Northern Know Nothings opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and anti-slavery groups allied with the Know Nothing movement in several states despite the discomfort many anti-slavery leaders felt towards nativism.[45] In Pierce's home state of New Hampshire, hitherto loyal to the Democratic Party, the Know-Nothings elected the governor, all three representatives, dominated the legislature, and returned John P. Hale to the Senate.[27] When the 34th Congress convened, the House consisted of approximately 105 Republicans, 80 Democrats, and 50 members of the Know Nothing-affiliated American Party.[46] Nathaniel Banks, who was affiliated with both the Know Nothings and the Free Soil Party, won election as Speaker of the House after a protracted battle.[47]
By 1855, Republicans had replaced the Whigs as the main opposition to the Democrats in about half of the states, with the Know Nothings displacing the Whigs in the remaining states. Some Democrats joined the American Party in states like Maryland, but in many Southern states the American Party consisted almost entirely of former Whigs.[48] The Know Nothings soon split along sectional lines over a proposal to restore the Missouri Compromise, and as the controversy over Kansas continued, Know Nothings, Whigs, and even Democrats became increasingly attracted to the Republican Party. Pierce declared his full opposition the Republican Party, decrying what he saw as its anti-southern stance, but his perceived pro-Southern actions in Kansas continued to inflame Northern anger.[49]
Economic policy and internal improvements
[edit]
Pierce frequently vetoed federally-funded internal improvements such as roads and canals. The first bill he vetoed would have provided funding for mental asylums, a cause championed by reformer Dorothea Dix. In vetoing the bill, Pierce stated, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States."[50] Though he vetoed several other internal improvement projects, Pierce did sign some bills providing for federal funding for infrastructure projects; Northern critics charged that Pierce tended to favor projects that benefited the South.[51] Pierce also called for a lowering of the Walker tariff, which had itself lowered the tariff rates to an historically low level.[50] In the final days of his presidency, Pierce signed the Tariff of 1857, which further reduced tariff rates.[52]
Despite his opposition to federal funding for most infrastructure projects, Pierce favored federal aid for the construction of a transcontinental railroad.[53] Secretary of War Davis, at Pierce's request, led surveys with the Corps of Topographical Engineers of possible transcontinental railroad routes throughout the country. The Democratic Party had long rejected federal appropriations for internal improvements, but Davis felt that such a project could be justified as a Constitutional national security objective. Davis also deployed the Army Corps of Engineers to supervise construction projects in the District of Columbia, including the expansion of the United States Capitol and building of the Washington Monument.[54] The Army Corps of Engineers surveyed four possible transcontinental railroad routes, all of which would eventually be used by railroads. Davis favored the most Southern railroad route, which extended from New Orleans to San Diego, and his opposition to more Northern routes helped ensure that the construction of a transcontinental railroad would not begin until after Pierce left office.[55]
Administrative reforms
[edit]Pierce sought to run a more efficient and accountable government than his predecessors.[56] His cabinet members implemented an early system of civil service examinations which was a forerunner to the Pendleton Act passed three decades later.[57] The Interior Department was reformed by Secretary Robert McClelland, who systematized its operations, expanded the use of paper records, and pursued fraud.[58] Another of Pierce's reforms was to expand the role of the attorney general in appointing federal judges and attorneys, which was an important step in the eventual development of the Justice Department.[56] Pierce charged Treasury Secretary Guthrie with reforming the Treasury Department, which was inefficiently managed and had many unsettled accounts. Guthrie increased oversight of Treasury employees and tariff collectors, many of whom were withholding money from the government. Despite laws requiring funds to be held in the Treasury, large deposits remained in private banks under the Whig administrations. Guthrie reclaimed these funds and sought to prosecute corrupt officials, with mixed success.[59]
Foreign and military affairs
[edit]The Pierce administration fell in line with the expansionist Young America movement, with William L. Marcy leading the charge as Secretary of State. Marcy sought to present to the world a distinctively American, republican image. He issued a circular recommending that U.S. diplomats wear "the simple dress of an American citizen" instead of the elaborate diplomatic uniforms worn in the courts of Europe, and that they only hire American citizens to work in consulates.[60] Marcy received international praise for his 73-page letter defending Austrian refugee Martin Koszta, who had been captured abroad in mid-1853 by the Austrian government despite his intention to become a U.S. citizen.[61]
Gadsden Purchase
[edit]
Secretary of War Davis, an advocate of a southern transcontinental railroad route, persuaded Pierce to send rail magnate James Gadsden to Mexico to buy land for a potential railroad. Gadsden was also charged with re-negotiating provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which required the U.S. to prevent Native American raids into Mexico from New Mexico Territory. Pierce authorized Gadsden to negotiate a treaty offering $50 million for large portions of Northern Mexico, including all of Baja California.[62] Gadsden ultimately concluded a less far-reaching treaty with Mexican President Antonio López de Santa Anna in December 1853, purchasing a portion of the Mexican state of Sonora. Negotiations were nearly derailed by William Walker's unauthorized expedition into Mexico, and so a clause was included charging the U.S. with combating future such attempts. Other provisions in the treaty included U.S. assumption of all private claims by American citizens against the Mexican government, and American access to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec for transit. Pierce was disappointed by the treaty, and Gadsden would later claim that, if not for Walker's expedition, Mexico would have ceded the Baja California Peninsula and more of the state of Sonora.[63]
The treaty received a hostile reception from northern congressmen, many of whom saw it as another move designed to benefit the Slave Power. Congress reduced the Gadsden Purchase to the region now comprising southern Arizona and part of southern New Mexico; the original treaty had ceded a port on the Gulf of California to the United States. Congress also reduced the amount of money being paid to Mexico from $15 million to $10 million, and included a protection clause for a private citizen, Albert G. Sloo, whose interests were threatened by the purchase. Pierce opposed the use of the federal government to prop up private industry and did not endorse the final version of the treaty, which was ratified nonetheless.[64] The acquisition brought the contiguous United States to its present-day boundaries, excepting later minor adjustments.[65]
Relations with Britain
[edit]During Pierce's presidency, relations with the United Kingdom were tense due to disputes over American fishing rights in Canada and U.S. and British ambitions in Central America.[66] Marcy completed a trade reciprocity agreement with British minister to Washington, John Crampton, which would reduce the need for British naval patrols in Canadian waters. The treaty, which Pierce saw as a first step towards the American annexation of Canada, was ratified in August 1854.[67] While the administration negotiated with Britain over the Canada–U.S. border, U.S. interests were also threatened in Central America, where the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of 1850 had failed to keep Britain from expanding its influence. Secretary of State Buchanan sought to persuade Britain to relinquish their territories in Central America.[68]
Seeking to ensure friendly relations with the United States during the Crimean War, the British were prepared to renounce most of their claims in Central America, but an incident in the British-protected port of Greytown soured Anglo-American relations. The murder of an employee of an American company led Pierce to order the USS Cyane to Greytown, and Cyane destroyed Greytown. Despite the destruction of Greytown and American filibusters in Central America, British merchants strongly opposed any war with the United States, ensuring that no war broke out between the two countries. Buchanan's successor as ambassador to Britain, George M. Dallas, concluded a treaty with Britain in which the British agreed to withdraw from Greytown and most other Central American territories in return for U.S. recognition of British interests in Belize, but the Senate did not ratify the agreement.[69]
Cuba policy and the Ostend Manifesto
[edit]Like many of his predecessors, Pierce hoped to annex the Spanish island of Cuba, which possessed wealthy sugar plantations, held a strategic position in the Caribbean Sea, and represented the possibility of a new slave state. Pierce appointed Young America adherent Pierre Soulé as his minister to Spain, and Soulé quickly alienated the Spanish government.[70] After the Black Warrior Affair, in which the Spanish seized a U.S. merchant ship in Havana, the Pierce administration contemplated invading Cuba or aiding a filibuster expedition with the same intent, but the administration ultimately decided on focusing its efforts on the purchase of Cuba from Spain.[71]
Ambassadors Soulé, Buchanan, and John Y. Mason drafted a document that proposed to purchase Cuba from Spain for $120 million (USD), but also attempted to justify the "wresting" of Cuba from Spain if the offer were refused.[72] The document, essentially a position paper meant only for the consumption of the Pierce administration, did not offer any new thinking on the U.S. position towards Cuba and Spain, and was not intended to serve as a public edict.[73] Nonetheless, the publication of the Ostend Manifesto provoked the scorn of northerners who viewed it as an attempt to annex a slave-holding possession. Publication of the document helped discredit the expansionist policy of Manifest Destiny the Democratic Party had often championed.[72]
Other issues
[edit]Secretary of War Davis and Navy Secretary James C. Dobbin found the Army and Navy in poor condition, with insufficient forces, a reluctance to adopt new technology, and inefficient management.[74] During the Pierce administration, Congress increased the proportion of the federal budget spent on the War Department from 20 percent to 28 percent. Davis directed this money to fund a larger army, improvements to the United States Military Academy, and other measures.[75] Dobbin favored several reforms, including a transition of the Navy to steam power, and he won congressional authorization for the construction of several new ships.[76]
During the Pierce administration, Commodore Matthew C. Perry visited Japan (a venture originally planned under Fillmore) in an effort to expand trade to the East. Perry signed a modest trade treaty with the Japanese shogunate which was successfully ratified. Marcy selected the first American consul to Japan, Townsend Harris, who helped further expand trade between Japan and the United States. Perry also advocated the American colonization of Taiwan, Okinawa, and the Bonin Islands, but the Pierce administration did not endorse Perry's proposals.[77]
Pierce attempted to purchase Samaná Bay from the Dominican Republic, since he feared that the Dominican Republican's instability would lead it to an alliance with France or Spain. The Dominican insistence on protection of the rights of Dominican citizens in the United States "without distinction of race or colour" prevented any Dominican-American treaty from being reached.[78] The Pierce administration explored the possibility of annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii, but King Kamehameha III's insistence on full citizenship for all Hawaiian citizens regardless of race precluded any possibility of annexation during Pierce's presidency.[79]
In 1856, Congress passed the Guano Islands Act, which allowed U.S. citizens to take possession of unclaimed islands containing guano deposits. Guano, the accumulated excrement of seabirds, was valuable as a fertilizer. Long after Pierce left office, the act would be used to make claims on several territories, including the Midway Atoll.[80]
William Walker, an American Freebooter, had conquered and established a dictatorship in Nicaragua. Among other actions, he had begun to introduce slavery. In 1856, Pierce formally recognized Walker's dictatorship. Though Walker hoped for Nicaragua to enter the US as a slave state, his plan never materialized.[81]
Election of 1856 and transition
[edit]As the 1856 election approached, many Democrats spoke of replacing Pierce with Buchanan or Douglas, but Pierce retained the support of his cabinet and many others within the party, especially in the South. Buchanan, who had been outside of the country since 1853 and thus could not be associated with the unpopular Kansas-Nebraska Act, became the candidate of many Northern Democrats.[82] When balloting began on June 5 at the convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, Pierce expected to win a plurality, if not the required two-thirds majority, of the vote. On the first ballot, he received only 122 votes, many of them from the South, to Buchanan's 135, with Douglas and Cass receiving the remaining votes. By the following morning fourteen ballots had been completed, but none of the three main candidates were able to get two-thirds of the vote. Pierce, whose support had been slowly declining as the ballots passed, directed his supporters to break for Douglas, withdrawing his name in a last-ditch effort to defeat Buchanan. Douglas, only 43 years of age, believed that he could be nominated in 1860 if he let the older Buchanan win this time, and received assurances from Buchanan's managers that this would be the case. After two more deadlocked ballots, Douglas's managers withdrew his name, leaving Buchanan as the clear winner. To soften the blow to Pierce, the convention issued a resolution of "unqualified approbation" in praise of his administration and selected his ally, former Kentucky Representative John C. Breckinridge, as the vice-presidential nominee.[83] This loss marked the only time in U.S. history that an elected president who was an active candidate for reelection was not nominated for a second term.[84]

Pierce endorsed Buchanan, though the two remained distant, and the president attempted to resolve the Kansas situation by November to improve the Democrats' chances in the general election.[85] Though Governor Geary was able to restore order in Kansas, the electoral damage had already been done—Republicans used "Bleeding Kansas" and "Bleeding Sumner" (the brutal caning of Charles Sumner) as election slogans.[86] The Democratic Party's platform, along with Buchanan's endorsement of Pierce's policies, caused many northern Democrats to abandon the party.[87] The 1856 Republican National Convention chose John C. Frémont as the party's presidential candidate. Though Frémont's public views were not widely known, Republicans hoped to use Frémont's military reputation to lead the party to victory in 1856.[88] The Know Nothing National Convention, meanwhile, alienated many Northern Know Nothings by nominating former President Fillmore for another term and declining to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Fillmore also received the presidential nomination at the sparsely attended 1856 Whig convention.[49] Fillmore minimized the issue of nativism, instead attempting to use the party as a platform for unionism and a revival of the Whig Party.[89]
The Democratic ticket was elected, but Buchanan won only five of sixteen free states (Pierce had won fourteen). Frémont, the Republican nominee, swept the eleven remaining free states, while Fillmore won Maryland and likely helped keep Pennsylvania out of the Republican column. In the North, the Democratic share of the popular vote fell from Pierce's 49.8% in 1852 to just 41.4%. The strong Republican showing confirmed that they, and not the Know Nothings, would replace the Whigs as the main opposition to the Democrats.[90]
Pierce did not temper his rhetoric after losing the nomination. In his final message to Congress, delivered in December 1856, he blamed anti-slavery activists for Bleeding Kansas and vigorously attacked the Republican Party as a threat to the unity of the nation.[91] He also took the opportunity to defend his record on fiscal policy, and on achieving peaceful relations with other nations.[92] In the final days of the Pierce administration, Congress passed bills to increase the pay of army officers and to build new naval vessels, also expanding the number of seamen enlisted. It also passed a tariff reduction bill he had long sought, establishing the Tariff of 1857.[52] During the transition period, Pierce avoided criticizing Buchanan, who he had long disliked, but was angered by Buchanan's decision to assemble an entirely new cabinet.[91] Pierce and his cabinet left office on March 4, 1857, the only time in U.S. history that the original cabinet members all remained for a full four-year term.[93]
Historical reputation
[edit]After Pierce died in 1869, he mostly passed from the American consciousness, except as one of a series of presidents whose disastrous tenures led to civil war.[94] Historians generally view him as an inept president who was overwhelmed by the problems he faced, and they tend to rank Pierce as one of the worst presidents.[95] Historian Eric Foner says, "His administration turned out to be one of the most disastrous in American history. It witnessed the collapse of the party system inherited from the Age of Jackson."[96] A 2018 poll of the American Political Science Association’s Presidents and Executive Politics section ranked Pierce as the fifth-worst president.[97] A 2017 C-SPAN poll of historians ranked Pierce as the third-worst president.[98] The public placed him third-to-last among his peers in C-SPAN surveys (2000 and 2009).[99]
The failure of Pierce, as president, to secure sectional conciliation helped bring an end to the dominance of the Democratic Party that had started with Jackson, and led to a period of over seventy years when the Republicans mostly controlled national politics.[100] David Potter concludes that the Ostend Manifesto and the Kansas–Nebraska Act were "the two great calamities of the Franklin Pierce administration ... Both brought down an avalanche of public criticism."[101] More important, says Potter, they permanently discredited Manifest Destiny and "popular sovereignty" as political doctrines.[101] Historian Kenneth Nivison, writing in 2010, takes a more favorable view of Pierce's foreign policy, stating that his expansionism prefaced those of later presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, who served at a time when America had the military might to make her desires stick. "American foreign and commercial policy beginning in the 1890s, which eventually supplanted European colonialism by the middle of the twentieth century, owed much to the paternalism of Jacksonian Democracy cultivated in the international arena by the Presidency of Franklin Pierce."[102]
Historian Larry Gara writes:
[Pierce] was president at a time that called for almost superhuman skills, yet he lacked such skills and never grew into the job to which he had been elected. His view of the Constitution and the Union was from the Jacksonian past. He never fully understood the nature or depth of Free Soil sentiment in the North. He was able to negotiate a reciprocal trade treaty with Canada, to begin the opening of Japan to western trade, to add land to the Southwest, and to sign legislation for the creation of an overseas empire [the Guano Islands Act]. His Cuba and Kansas policies led only to deeper sectional strife. His support for the Kansas–Nebraska Act and his determination to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act helped polarize the sections. Pierce was hard-working and his administration largely untainted by graft, yet the legacy from those four turbulent years contributed to the tragedy of secession and civil war.[103]
Biographer Roy Nichols argues:
As a national political leader Pierce was an accident. He was honest and tenacious of his views but, as he made up his mind with difficulty and often reversed himself before making a final decision, he gave a general impression of instability. Kind, courteous, generous, he attracted many individuals, but his attempts to satisfy all factions failed and made him many enemies. In carrying out his principles of strict construction he was most in accord with Southerners, who generally had the letter of the law on their side. He failed utterly to realize the depth and the sincerity of Northern feeling against the South and was bewildered at the general flouting of the law and the Constitution, as he described it, by the people of his own New England. At no time did he catch the popular imagination. His inability to cope with the difficult problems that arose early in his administration caused him to lose the respect of great numbers, especially in the North, and his few successes failed to restore public confidence. He was an inexperienced man, suddenly called to assume a tremendous responsibility, who honestly tried to do his best without adequate training or temperamental fitness.[104][105]
Notes
[edit]- ^ Vice President King died in office. As this was prior to the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the office of vice president was not filled until the next ensuing election and inauguration.
References
[edit]Footnotes
[edit]- ^ Wallner (2004), pp. 181–84; Gara (1991), pp, 23–29.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 28–29.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 29–32.
- ^ Wallner (2004), pp. 184–97; Gara (1991), pp. 32–33.
- ^ Wallner (2004), pp. 197–202; Gara (1991), pp. 33–34.
- ^ Wallner (2004), pp. 210–13; Gara (1991), pp. 36–38. Quote from Gara, 38.
- ^ Holt (2010), loc. 724.
- ^ Gara (1991), p. 37.
- ^ Wallner (2004), p. 231; Gara (1991), p. 38, Holt (2010), loc. 725.
- ^ Wallner (2004), p. 206; Gara (1991), p. 38.
- ^ Wallner (2004), pp. 229–30; Gara (1991), p. 39.
- ^ Holt (2010), loc. 740.
- ^ Wallner (2004), pp. 241–49; Gara (1991), pp. 43–44.
- ^ Boulard (2006), p. 55.
- ^ a b Hurja, Emil (1933). History of Presidential Inaugurations. New York Democrat. p. 49.
- ^ Wallner (2004), pp. 249–55.
- ^ Holt, pp. 48–52
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 44–47.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 5–24.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 15–18, and throughout.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 21–22.
- ^ Wallner (2007), p. 10.
- ^ David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 (1976) pp. 121–144.
- ^ Holt, pp. 53–54, 72–73
- ^ a b c d e Wallner (2007), pp. 90–102, 119–22; Gara (1991), pp. 88–100, Holt (2010), loc. 1097–1240.
- ^ Etchison, p. 14.
- ^ a b Wallner (2007), pp. 158–67; Gara (1991), pp. 99–100.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 122–123.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 125–126.
- ^ a b Wallner (2007), pp. 195–209; Gara (1991), pp. 111–23.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 123–126.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 122–25; Gara (1991), pp. 107–09.
- ^ a b Gara (1991), pp. 105–106.
- ^ McPherson (1988), p. 120.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 120–121.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 120–122.
- ^ a b Holt (2010), pp. 47–48, 66–70
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 158–159.
- ^ a b Holt (2010), pp. 78–89
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 96–98.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 131–132.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 126.
- ^ McPherson (1988), p. 129.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 129–130.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 136–138.
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 143–144.
- ^ Holt (2010), pp. 92–93
- ^ McPherson (1988), pp. 140–141.
- ^ a b Holt (2010), pp. 91–94, 99, 106–109
- ^ a b Holt, pp. 53–54, 71.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 87–88.
- ^ a b Wallner (2007), pp. 303–04.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 78–79.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 40–41, 52.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 66–67.
- ^ a b Wallner (2007), p. 20.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 35–36.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 36–39.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 32–36.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 25–32; Gara (1991), p. 128.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 61–63; Gara (1991), pp. 128–29.
- ^ Holt, pp. 54–55.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 75–81; Gara (1991), pp. 129–33.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 106–08; Gara (1991), pp. 129–33.
- ^ Holt, loc. 872.
- ^ Holt, pp. 55–56.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 27–30, 63–66, 125–26; Gara (1991), p. 133.
- ^ Holt, pp. 58–59.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 140–145.
- ^ Holt, pp. 59–60.
- ^ Holt, pp. 60–62.
- ^ a b Wallner (2007), pp. 131–57; Gara (1991), pp. 149–55.
- ^ Holt, pp. 63–65.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 40–43.
- ^ Gara (1991), p. 68.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 68–69.
- ^ Wallner (2007), p. 172; Gara (1991), pp. 134–35.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 146–147.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 147–148.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 148–149.
- ^ Baker, Jean H. (4 October 2016). "FRANKLIN PIERCE: FOREIGN AFFAIRS". Miller Center. Retrieved 16 July 2021.
- ^ Holt (2010), pp. 94–96
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 266–70; Gara (1991), pp. 157–67, Holt (2010), loc. 1515–58.
- ^ Rudin, Ken (July 22, 2009). "When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination?". NPR. Retrieved February 15, 2017.
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 272–80.
- ^ Holt (2010), loc. 1610.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 167–168.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 168–174.
- ^ Gara (1991), pp. 175–176.
- ^ Holt (2010), pp. 109–110
- ^ a b Holt (2010), pp. 110–114
- ^ Wallner (2007), pp. 292–96; Gara (1991), pp. 177–79.
- ^ Wallner (2007), p. 305.
- ^ Gara (1981), p. 180.
- ^ Baker, Jean H. (4 October 2016). "FRANKLIN PIERCE: IMPACT AND LEGACY". Miller Center. Retrieved 4 December 2017.
- ^ Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History (2006) vol 1 p 413
- ^ Rottinghaus, Brandon; Vaughn, Justin S. (19 February 2018). "How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best – and Worst – Presidents?". New York Times. Retrieved 14 May 2018.
- ^ "Presidential Historians Survey 2017". C-SPAN. Retrieved 14 May 2018.
- ^ "C-SPAN Survey". C-SPAN. 2009. Archived from the original on July 22, 2014. Retrieved June 30, 2014.
- ^ Crockett, David A. (December 2012). "The Historical Presidency: The Perils of Restoration Politics: Nineteenth-Century Antecedents". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 42 (4): 881–902. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.04023.x.
- ^ a b Potter (1976), p. 192.
- ^ Nivison, Kenneth (March 2010). "Purposes Just and Pacific: Franklin Pierce and the American Empire". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 21 (1): 17. doi:10.1080/09592290903577668. S2CID 154406060.
- ^ Gara, Larry (February 2000). "Pierce, Franklin". American National Biography Online.(subscription required)
- ^ Roy F. Nichols, "Franklin Pierce", Dictionary of American Biography (1934) reprinted in Nancy Capace, ed. (2001). Encyclopedia of New Hampshire. Somerset Publishers. pp. 268–69. ISBN 978-0-403-09601-5.
- ^ Flagel, Thomas R. (2012). History Buff's Guide to the Presidents. Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House. p. 404. ISBN 978-1-4022-7142-7.
Works cited
[edit]- Boulard, Garry (2006). The Expatriation of Franklin Pierce: The Story of a President and the Civil War. iUniverse, Inc. ISBN 0-595-40367-0.
- Butler, Pierce (1908). Judah P. Benjamin. American Crisis Biographies. George W. Jacobs & Company. OCLC 664335.
- Etchison, Nicole (2004). Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1287-4.
- Gara, Larry (1991). The Presidency of Franklin Pierce. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-0494-4.
- Holt, Michael F. (2010). Franklin Pierce. The American Presidents (Kindle ed.). Henry Holt and Company, LLC. ISBN 978-0-8050-8719-2.; also see online book review
- McPherson, James M. (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199743902.
- Potter, David M. (1976). The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-013403-8. online
- Wallner, Peter A. (2004). Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire's Favorite Son. Plaidswede. ISBN 0-9755216-1-6.; also see online book review
- Wallner, Peter A. (2007). Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union. Plaidswede. ISBN 978-0-9790784-2-2.
Further reading
[edit]- Allen, Felicity (1999). Jefferson Davis, Unconquerable Heart. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 0-8262-1219-0. - Article on book: Jefferson Davis: Unconquerable Heart
- Barlett, D.W. (1852). The life of Gen. Frank. Pierce, of New Hampshire, the Democratic candidate for president of the United States. Derby & Miller. OCLC 1742614.
- Bergen, Anthony (May 30, 2015). "In Concord: The Friendship of Pierce and Hawthorne". Medium.
- Brinkley, A; Dyer, D (2004). The American Presidency. Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-38273-9.
- Graff, Henry F., ed. The Presidents: A Reference History (3rd ed. 2002) online
- Hawthorne, Nathaniel (1852). The Life of Franklin Pierce. Ticknor, Reed and Fields. OCLC 60713500.
- Nichols, Roy Franklin (1923). The Democratic Machine, 1850–1854. Columbia University Press. OCLC 2512393.
- Nichols, Roy Franklin (1931). Franklin Pierce, Young Hickory of the Granite Hills. University of Pennsylvania Press. OCLC 426247.
- Silbey, Joel H. (2014). A Companion to the Antebellum Presidents 1837–1861. Wiley. ISBN 9781118609293. pp 345–96
- Taylor, Michael J.C. (2001). "Governing the Devil in Hell: 'Bleeding Kansas' and the Destruction of the Franklin Pierce Presidency (1854–1856)". White House Studies. 1: 185–205.
External links
[edit]- Works by Franklin Pierce at Project Gutenberg
- Works by or about Franklin Pierce at the Internet Archive
- Essays on Franklin Pierce and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady, from the Miller Center of Public Affairs
- Franklin Pierce: A Resource Guide from the Library of Congress
- Biography from the White House
- Franklin Pierce Bicentennial
- "Life Portrait of Franklin Pierce", from C-SPAN's American Presidents: Life Portraits, June 14, 1999
- "Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire's Favorite Son"—Booknotes interview with Peter Wallner, November 28, 2004
- Franklin Pierce Personal Manuscripts
Presidency of Franklin Pierce
View on GrokipediaElection and Path to Presidency
Democratic Nomination and 1852 Campaign
The 1852 Democratic National Convention convened in Baltimore, Maryland, from June 1 to June 5, seeking a nominee amid party divisions over slavery and the Compromise of 1850.[9] Leading contenders included James Buchanan, Lewis Cass, William L. Marcy, and Stephen A. Douglas, each facing regional opposition that prevented any from securing the required two-thirds majority after 34 ballots.[9] Franklin Pierce, a former U.S. Senator from New Hampshire with limited national prominence but a record of party loyalty and Mexican-American War service, emerged as a dark-horse compromise candidate, receiving initial support from Virginia delegates on the 35th ballot before clinching the nomination on the 48th ballot due to his lack of enemies and appeal across factions.[9] For vice president, the convention selected William R. King, an Alabama slaveholder and experienced senator, to balance the ticket geographically and ideologically.[9] The Democratic platform endorsed the Compromise of 1850 as a final settlement on slavery-related issues, emphasizing non-interference with slavery in the states and territories where it existed, while pledging fidelity to the Union and avoidance of further agitation.[9] In the ensuing campaign against Whig nominee Winfield Scott, Democrats highlighted Pierce's military heroism from the Mexican War, portraying him as a steadfast defender of national honor, while steering clear of direct debates on slavery to maintain Southern support.[9] Pierce himself refrained from active campaigning, adhering to contemporary norms for presidential candidates, and relied on allies like Nathaniel Hawthorne to produce a favorable biography underscoring his character and qualifications.[9] Democrats aggressively attacked Scott's candidacy by questioning his loyalty to the Compromise—citing a letter he wrote endorsing revisions that alienated Southern Whigs—and accusing him of military cowardice, including alleged refusals to duel Andrew Jackson.[9] Whigs retaliated by dubbing Pierce "Young Hickory of the Granite Hills" mockingly and spreading rumors of his alcoholism and a supposed fainting spell during battle, but these efforts faltered amid party disunity over Scott's Northern background and uneven support for the Compromise.[9] The campaign thus centered on personal character, Union preservation, and implicit acceptance of popular sovereignty in territorial slavery decisions, reflecting Democrats' strategy to unify behind a nominee untainted by prior factional fights.[9]Electoral Victory and Popular Sovereignty Emphasis
The 1852 presidential election occurred on November 2, with Democrat Franklin Pierce defeating Whig nominee Winfield Scott in a landslide. Pierce garnered 254 electoral votes to Scott's 42, securing victories in 27 states while Scott carried only Kentucky, Tennessee, Vermont, and Massachusetts. In the popular vote, Pierce received 1,601,117 ballots (50.8 percent), Scott 1,385,453 (44.0 percent), and Free Soil candidate John P. Hale 155,825 (5.2 percent).[10][11] Pierce's campaign, unified after his dark-horse nomination at the Democratic convention, centered on fidelity to the Compromise of 1850, whose territorial provisions embodied popular sovereignty—the doctrine permitting settlers in Utah and New Mexico territories to decide slavery's status through local legislation rather than federal prohibition or imposition. The Democratic platform pledged strict adherence to these measures, framing them as final settlements to avert further national discord over slavery's extension, and condemned agitation of the issue as disruptive to union. This position appealed to voters weary of sectional strife, positioning Democrats as guardians of democratic self-determination in territorial governance.[12][9] In contrast, Scott's candidacy suffered from Whig Party fractures, including Southern distrust of his Unionist record and ambiguous endorsement of the Compromise via a convention letter that alienated conservatives without fully reassuring antislavery Northerners. Pierce's portrayal as a Mexican War hero who upheld constitutional compromises bolstered his appeal, leading contemporaries to view the electoral triumph as a mandate for popular sovereignty's non-interventionist approach to balancing slave and free interests amid territorial expansion.[9][13]Family Tragedy and Personal Resolve
On January 6, 1853, President-elect Franklin Pierce, his wife Jane Means Pierce, and their 11-year-old son Benjamin "Benny" Pierce were aboard a northbound train traveling from Andover, Massachusetts, to their home in Concord, New Hampshire, following the Christmas holidays.[14] The train derailed near Andover Station due to a broken rail or switch failure, causing cars to plunge down an embankment; Benny, seated in a separate car, was the sole fatality, killed instantly when his head struck the seat in front of him.[15][16] Franklin and Jane Pierce sustained only minor bruises but witnessed the aftermath, with Pierce himself extracting his son's mangled body from the wreckage.[14] This loss compounded prior family tragedies, as Benny was the couple's last surviving child among three sons—all of whom died young, the others succumbing to illness in infancy and at age four.[6] The death plunged Pierce into profound grief and self-recrimination, leading him to interpret the accident as divine punishment for his political ambitions and past life choices, including his support for the Mexican-American War.[14] Jane Pierce, already fragile from earlier losses and opposed to her husband's presidential bid, entered a lasting seclusion, declining social duties and communicating through mediums in attempts to contact Benny's spirit.[6] Pierce abandoned plans to write his inaugural address, instead memorizing a draft prepared with aide William King, and on March 4, he affirmed rather than swore the oath of office, forgoing the Bible due to his conviction of unworthiness.[14] Historians note that this emotional toll left Pierce "visibly drained" at the outset of his term, potentially impairing his early vigor, though direct causal links to policy decisions remain speculative.[16] Despite the devastation, Pierce exhibited personal resolve by proceeding with his duties, rejecting calls to delay the inauguration and committing to a full term amid national divisions over slavery.[6] His administration's emphasis on sectional compromise, such as in foreign policy and domestic expansion, reflected a stoic adherence to Union preservation, even as private letters reveal ongoing melancholy; for instance, Pierce confided to associates that the presidency felt burdensome without his son but vowed to serve without respite.[14] This determination contrasted with Jane's withdrawal, underscoring Pierce's effort to compartmentalize grief for public responsibilities, though observers like Senator William Seward remarked on his subdued demeanor in cabinet meetings.[16]Inauguration and Organizational Foundations
March 4, 1853, Inaugural Address and Themes
Franklin Pierce delivered his inaugural address on March 4, 1853, at the East Portico of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., following Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's administration of the presidential oath, which Pierce affirmed rather than swore, reportedly on religious grounds as the only president to do so.[17] He recited the approximately 3,319-word speech entirely from memory, without notes, marking a unique feat among presidents.[18] The address opened with Pierce expressing personal sorrow over his recent family tragedies, including the death of his son Benjamin in a train accident two months prior, yet affirmed his sense of duty: "It is a relief to feel that no heart but my own can know the personal regret and bitter sorrow over which I have been borne to a position so suitable for others rather than desirable for myself."[19] A central theme was the preservation of the Union, which Pierce described as intertwined with his "best and dearest earthly hopes," warning against sectional agitation that threatened national cohesion.[19] He pledged fidelity to constitutional compromises, particularly the 1850 measures, asserting that "involuntary servitude, as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution" and that these laws must be "unhesitatingly carried into effect" to avoid reopening settled questions on slavery.[20] This stance reflected Pierce's commitment to non-interference in state institutions, prioritizing harmony over moral crusades that could exacerbate divisions between free and slave states.[19] On domestic policy, Pierce advocated restrained federal action, economy in government, and respect for states' rights, while expressing optimism for prosperity through unity and expansion, rejecting "timid forebodings of evil from expansion."[20] He envisioned territorial growth enhancing security without aggression, aligning with Democratic emphases on westward development and internal improvements under constitutional limits. In foreign affairs, the address stressed peaceful relations and amity with all nations, declaring purposes "at once just and pacific," while affirming readiness to defend American interests and opposing European colonization in the hemisphere.[19] Overall, the speech projected confidence in the Union's endurance if sectionalism yielded to mutual forbearance, setting a tone of conciliation amid rising tensions over slavery's extension.[20]Cabinet Selection and Administrative Team
Upon assuming office on March 4, 1853, Franklin Pierce prioritized cabinet selection to reconcile divisions within the Democratic Party, which had been exacerbated by the contentious 1852 nomination contest involving rivals such as Lewis Cass, James Buchanan, and Stephen Douglas. He assembled an intersectional team representing Northern, Southern, and border-state interests, apportioning positions among party factions including New York Hunkers and Softshells, while drawing on personal acquaintances from New England. This approach aimed to distribute patronage equitably and foster administrative cohesion amid rising sectional tensions.[21][22] The cabinet nominations, submitted shortly after inauguration, received unanimous and immediate Senate confirmation on March 7, 1853, reflecting Pierce's broad party support post-election. All seven members served the full four-year term without resignations, dismissals, or deaths—a unique occurrence in U.S. presidential history up to that point—enabling policy continuity but also entrenching pro-Southern leanings that influenced decisions like support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Key appointees included William L. Marcy of New York as Secretary of State, a veteran Hunker Democrat with prior gubernatorial and senatorial experience; Jefferson Davis of Mississippi as Secretary of War, a West Point graduate and Mexican-American War hero who advocated military expansion; and Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts as Attorney General, a close Pierce ally known for legal acumen and expansionist views.[22][23]| Office | Appointee | State/Background | Term |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secretary of State | William L. Marcy | New York; former governor, senator | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of the Treasury | James Guthrie | Kentucky; railroad executive | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of War | Jefferson Davis | Mississippi; military officer | 1853–1857 |
| Attorney General | Caleb Cushing | Massachusetts; diplomat, lawyer | 1853–1857 |
| Postmaster General | James Campbell | Pennsylvania; Catholic Democrat | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of the Navy | James C. Dobbin | North Carolina; state legislator | 1853–1857 |
| Secretary of the Interior | Robert McClelland | Michigan; Cass supporter, congressman | 1853–1857 |
Judicial Appointments to Federal Courts
Pierce nominated John Archibald Campbell of Alabama to the Supreme Court on March 21, 1853, to succeed the deceased John McKinley; the Senate confirmed the nomination the next day, and Campbell took the oath on April 11, 1853.[24] A former Alabama state legislator and U.S. Attorney, Campbell brought legal expertise from his practice in Mobile and advocacy before the Supreme Court, though his tenure ended with resignation on April 30, 1861, to assist the Confederate government.[24] This appointment filled a vacancy persisting since McKinley's death in 1852 and aligned with Pierce's preference for southern Democrats supportive of states' rights.[25] Beyond the Supreme Court, Pierce secured confirmation for 15 Article III judges to lower federal courts, comprising three to the United States circuit courts and twelve to district courts.[26] These included recess appointments such as William Fell Giles to the District of Maryland on July 18, 1853, later formalized, and James M. Love to the District of Iowa on October 5, 1855.[27][28] Appointments to circuit courts, which then handled appellate duties alongside original jurisdiction, featured nominees like William Matthews Merrick to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia on December 14, 1855.[29] Pierce's selections prioritized party loyalty among Democrats and geographic representation, reflecting efforts to maintain judicial equilibrium between northern and southern interests during escalating sectional strife.[30] Two nominees declined their commissions, limiting the effective total, while the process underscored Pierce's reliance on Attorney General Caleb Cushing for recommendations, diverging from prior administrations' cabinet secretaries.[30] Overall, these appointments proceeded with minimal Senate opposition, enabling Pierce to shape the federal judiciary toward pro-compromise stances on slavery expansion, though many appointees later navigated Civil War divisions.[26]Core Domestic Initiatives
Kansas-Nebraska Act and Popular Sovereignty Principle
The Kansas-Nebraska Act originated as a proposal by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, introduced in the Senate on January 23, 1854, to organize the unorganized lands of the Louisiana Purchase west of Missouri and Iowa into two territories: Kansas and Nebraska.[3] The bill's primary aim was to facilitate the construction of a transcontinental railroad with a northern route terminating in Chicago, Douglas's home state, by establishing territorial governments necessary for federal land grants and infrastructure development.[4] To gain Southern support, Douglas incorporated the principle of popular sovereignty, allowing white male settlers in the territories to decide the status of slavery through democratic processes at the time of drafting their constitutions for statehood.[31] Popular sovereignty, a concept Douglas had previously advocated in the Compromise of 1850 for Utah and New Mexico territories, posited that territorial residents, rather than Congress, held the authority to determine whether slavery would be permitted, ostensibly aligning with democratic self-governance and avoiding federal imposition on local matters.[32] This principle effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had drawn a line at 36°30' latitude prohibiting slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Purchase territories (except Missouri), thereby opening areas previously designated as free soil to potential slavery expansion.[4] The repeal was explicit in the bill's language, substituting popular sovereignty for the prior ban and igniting debates over whether it violated the spirit of earlier sectional balances or empowered slavery's spread into regions unsuitable for it due to climate and soil.[3] President Franklin Pierce, adhering to Democratic commitments for non-interference in slavery questions and territorial expansion, actively endorsed the legislation despite opposition from Northern Whigs and some Democrats who viewed it as a concession to Southern interests.[33] Pierce's administration, including Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, lobbied Congress intensively, framing the bill as essential for national unity and development while downplaying its implications for slavery.[34] After contentious debates spanning four months, with amendments and procedural maneuvers, the House passed the bill on May 22, 1854, and the Senate on May 25, following Pierce's assurances of support.[32] Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act into law on May 30, 1854, marking a pivotal shift in federal policy on territorial slavery that prioritized local determination over congressional prohibition.[4]Violent Outcomes in Bleeding Kansas
 Indians along the eastern coast of present-day Nicaragua and Honduras, exercising de facto control through settlements and naval presence, and formally annexed the Bay Islands off Honduras in November 1852, actions the United States viewed as colonial expansion violating the treaty's spirit and the Monroe Doctrine's opposition to European interference in the Americas.[60] Pierce's administration, prioritizing expansionist foreign policy and southern commercial interests in isthmian transit, protested these claims as threats to American access to Nicaragua and Honduras routes, with Secretary of State William L. Marcy instructing diplomats to demand British withdrawal to affirm Central American sovereignty.[5] Negotiations accelerated amid broader Anglo-American frictions, including British violations of U.S. neutrality during the Crimean War, but centered on boundary delineation to secure neutral transit paths. In October 1856, U.S. Minister to Britain George M. Dallas and British Foreign Secretary Lord Clarendon drafted the unratified Dallas-Clarendon Convention, which proposed British recognition of Honduran sovereignty over the Bay Islands with evacuation by local authorities, Nicaraguan control south of Cape Gracias a Dios on the Mosquito Coast (ceding northern segments to Britain), and mutual guarantees against fortification of key ports like Greytown (San Juan del Norte).[60] The convention aimed to resolve ambiguities in the Clayton-Bulwer framework by limiting British holdings to existing possessions north of the 15th parallel while addressing U.S. concerns over filibuster expeditions and slave trade routes, but it conditioned British concessions on American restraint toward British Honduras boundaries.[61] The U.S. Senate rejected ratification of the convention in early 1857, citing insufficient British concessions on the full Mosquito Coast and fears of entangling alliances that might legitimize filibustering under figures like William Walker in Nicaragua; Pierce urged approval in his December 1856 annual message, arguing it preserved U.S. preponderance without military commitment.[62] Despite failure, the negotiations pressured Britain toward partial retreat: by 1859, under successor James Buchanan, Britain returned the Bay Islands to Honduras and in 1860 recognized Nicaraguan sovereignty over most of the Mosquito territory, outcomes attributable to Pierce-era diplomacy that highlighted U.S. insistence on treaty fidelity over outright possession. Concurrently, the 1854 Reciprocity Treaty with Britain, effective from March 16, 1855, indirectly eased maritime boundary tensions by granting U.S. fishermen access to inshore Canadian waters in exchange for reciprocal trade privileges, averting escalation over fishery rights adjacent to northeastern borders settled by the 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty.[5] These efforts underscored Pierce's pragmatic approach to boundary stabilization, favoring negotiation to facilitate continental expansion and commerce amid domestic sectional strains.Ostend Manifesto and Filibuster Challenges to Cuba Policy
In the early 1850s, the Pierce administration pursued the acquisition of Cuba from Spain as a means to expand U.S. territory and secure a potential slaveholding state, reflecting Southern Democratic interests in bolstering the balance against free states. President Pierce instructed Minister to Spain Pierre Soulé in 1853 to negotiate the purchase, offering up to $130 million, but Spanish authorities, viewing Cuba as integral to their empire and fearing U.S. filibuster threats, firmly rejected any sale.[63][5] This policy aligned with Pierce's broader expansionist aims but encountered resistance amid Spain's refusal and domestic sectional tensions over slavery's extension. The Ostend Manifesto emerged from these efforts on October 18, 1854, when Soulé, joined by U.S. Ministers to Britain James Buchanan and to France John Y. Mason, drafted a confidential dispatch to Secretary of State William L. Marcy during informal talks at Ostend, Belgium, and later Aix-la-Chapelle. The document asserted that Cuba's acquisition was a U.S. imperative for national security, citing risks of the island becoming a base for European aggression or a "black" republic akin to post-revolutionary Haiti, which could incite slave revolts in the American South; it recommended renewed purchase offers but explicitly justified forcible seizure if Spain persisted in refusal, framing non-acquisition as incompatible with U.S. interests.[64][63] Pierce disavowed overt aggression upon review but retained Soulé's instructions, prioritizing diplomacy while privately endorsing expansion.[5] Leakage of the manifesto in January 1855 via the New York Herald provoked outrage, particularly among Northern antislavery factions who decried it as a pro-slavery plot to seize Cuba for plantation expansion, fueling accusations of Pierce's alignment with Southern interests despite his Northern origins. The affair damaged Pierce's credibility, complicating Senate ratification of related treaties like the Gadsden Purchase and exacerbating Democratic divisions, as critics like Senator William H. Seward labeled it piratical.[64][63] Spain, alerted to U.S. intentions, heightened defenses and executed captured filibusters, further straining relations without advancing purchase talks. Parallel filibuster expeditions challenged Pierce's Cuba policy by undermining official negotiations through unauthorized private invasions, often backed by Southern sympathizers seeking rapid annexation as a slave state. Venezuelan-born Narciso López, exiled from Cuba, led failed attempts in 1849 and 1850 from U.S. ports, landing briefly in 1850 but withdrawing after Spanish resistance; Pierce, upon taking office in 1853, enforced the Neutrality Act of 1818 more rigorously against such ventures to avert war with Spain and preserve diplomatic leverage for purchase.[63][65] López's third expedition in August 1851, departing from New Orleans with about 400 men including U.S. volunteers, resulted in capture; Spanish authorities in Havana executed López and 50 Americans on garrote on August 1 and September 23, 1851, respectively, prompting U.S. protests but no military response from Pierce, who prioritized avoiding escalation that could derail acquisition efforts.[65][63] These filibusters, fueled by manifest destiny rhetoric and slavery expansionism, provoked Spanish reprisals and U.S. domestic arrests—such as 20 convictions in New Orleans in 1851—yet persisted informally post-Ostend, complicating Pierce's restrained policy by signaling aggressive intent and inviting European condemnation of American "piracy."[63] Ultimately, filibuster failures reinforced Spain's intransigence, rendering Pierce's Cuba ambitions unrealized and contributing to his administration's foreign policy reversals.[5]Broader Diplomatic Engagements in Mexico and Asia
During Pierce's presidency, the United States maintained ongoing diplomatic efforts with Mexico to address unresolved issues from the Mexican-American War, including American citizens' claims for damages estimated at over $10 million. The U.S. legation in Mexico City, under Minister John Forsyth after Gadsden's departure in 1856, persistently pressed the Mexican government for compensation, though these negotiations yielded limited success amid Mexico's political instability following Antonio López de Santa Anna's ouster in 1855. Pierce's administration recognized the revolutionary Liberal government of Juan Álvarez in late 1855 and its successor under Ignacio Comonfort in 1856, aiming to stabilize bilateral relations and facilitate claim settlements, but border raids by Native American groups and disputes over the precise demarcation of the newly acquired Gadsden territory persisted, straining ties without formal resolution.[66][55] In Asia, the Pierce administration oversaw the culmination of efforts to open Japan to Western trade, building on Commodore Matthew C. Perry's initial voyage in July 1853. Perry returned with a reinforced squadron of seven ships in February 1854, conducting negotiations in Edo Bay that resulted in the signing of the Convention of Kanagawa on March 31, 1854, which granted U.S. ships access to Shimoda and Hakodate ports for provisioning, established consular rights, and provided protections for shipwrecked American sailors. President Pierce ratified the treaty on September 30, 1855, marking the end of Japan's sakoku isolation policy and securing initial commercial footholds, though full trade liberalization awaited subsequent agreements. Secretary of State William L. Marcy supported these gunboat diplomacy tactics as essential for protecting American whaling and trading interests in the Pacific.[67][68] Regarding China, Pierce appointed Robert M. McLane as commissioner in 1853 to advance trade under the existing Treaty of Wanghia (1844), emphasizing non-interference in European conflicts such as the escalating Arrow War between Britain and China in 1856. Marcy instructed U.S. diplomats to prioritize American commercial access while avoiding entanglement in British quarrels, reflecting a policy of neutrality that preserved relations without provoking anti-foreign backlash in China. This approach yielded no major new concessions but sustained U.S. merchant activities in ports like Canton and Shanghai amid growing European pressures.[69]Term's End and Political Repercussions
Intra-Democratic Divisions and Non-Endorsement
During Franklin Pierce's presidency, intra-party divisions within the Democratic Party intensified, primarily over the administration's commitment to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Act, which Pierce signed on May 30, 1854, organized the territories of Kansas and Nebraska while repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and instituting popular sovereignty on slavery, thereby reopening national debates on territorial expansion of the institution. Pierce's vigorous enforcement of the Act, including recognition of a pro-slavery territorial government in Kansas despite electoral irregularities, provoked backlash from Northern Democrats who accused the administration of enabling Southern dominance and fueling antislavery sentiment that birthed the Republican Party.[6][70][41] These sectional tensions were compounded by Pierce's patronage allocations, which aimed to reconcile Democratic factions but often alienated Northern groups. In distributing federal offices, Pierce balanced rewards among pro- and anti-administration elements, yet his favoritism toward Southern allies and certain Northern conservatives—such as appointing figures aligned with Southern interests—bred resentment among anti-Nebraska Democrats, particularly in New York where intra-state factionalism between Hardshell and Softshell groups escalated over perceived slights in appointments. This policy of broad conciliation, while initially stabilizing the party after the 1852 election, ultimately deepened rifts by prioritizing unity over addressing Northern grievances amid escalating Kansas violence.[71][72][32] The fractures manifested decisively at the Democratic National Convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, from June 2 to 6, 1856, where Pierce sought renomination but encountered unified Northern resistance. Entering as the incumbent with Southern backing, Pierce garnered 122 votes on the first ballot against James Buchanan's 135 and Stephen Douglas's 33, but his support eroded as delegates demanded a candidate untainted by Bleeding Kansas failures and patronage disputes; Buchanan clinched the nomination on the 17th ballot after strategic withdrawals and shifts. This outcome rendered Pierce the first elected president denied his party's endorsement for a second term, reflecting the party's strategic pivot to a less divisive figure amid fears of electoral defeat.[73][70][74]1856 Election Dynamics and Pierce's Withdrawal
The Democratic National Convention convened in Cincinnati, Ohio, from June 2 to June 6, 1856, where incumbent President Franklin Pierce sought renomination for the 1856 presidential election. Pierce initially received 122 votes on the first ballot but failed to secure a two-thirds majority required under party rules, with his support eroding over subsequent ballots amid opposition from party factions.[9] On the 14th ballot, Pierce withdrew his candidacy and instructed his delegates to support Senator Stephen A. Douglas, though this maneuver did not prevent James Buchanan from gaining momentum.[73] After 17 ballots, Buchanan achieved unanimous nomination with 296 votes, marking Pierce as the only elected president actively seeking reelection to be denied his party's endorsement.[9][73] Democrats rejected Pierce primarily due to his administration's enforcement of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which organized the territories of Kansas and Nebraska under popular sovereignty and repealed the Missouri Compromise restriction on slavery's expansion, igniting violent conflicts known as "Bleeding Kansas."[9][73] Northern Democrats viewed Pierce's policies as exacerbating sectional divisions, alienating anti-slavery voters and contributing to the party's declining northern support, while southern delegates initially backed him but ultimately prioritized a candidate perceived as more electable.[9] Buchanan, who had served as U.S. minister to the United Kingdom during the Kansas controversies, avoided direct association with the turmoil and positioned himself as a compromise figure upholding popular sovereignty.[75] The general election on November 4, 1856, pitted Democrat Buchanan against Republican John C. Frémont, who campaigned against slavery's territorial expansion, and American Party (Know-Nothing) nominee Millard Fillmore, emphasizing nativism and union preservation.[76] Buchanan secured victory with 174 electoral votes to Frémont's 114 and Fillmore's 8, capturing 1,838,169 popular votes (45.3 percent) compared to Frémont's 1,341,264 (33.1 percent) and Fillmore's 873,053 (21.6 percent).[76] The contest highlighted deepening sectional polarization, with Frémont winning most northern free states but failing to carry any slave state, while Buchanan prevailed through southern solidarity and moderate northern appeal, underscoring the electoral liabilities of Pierce's tenure in fueling Republican ascendancy.[77]Handover to Buchanan Administration
Buchanan, having secured the Democratic nomination over Pierce at the 1856 convention due to the latter's unpopularity stemming from the Kansas-Nebraska Act's fallout, won the presidency with 174 electoral votes against Republican John C. Frémont's 114 and Know-Nothing Millard Fillmore's 8. Pierce, despite longstanding personal and political rivalries with Buchanan, publicly endorsed his candidacy to preserve party cohesion amid the Kansas crisis.[78] Preparations for the handover lacked modern formalities but included Buchanan's visit to Pierce at the White House on January 27, 1857, while residing at the Willard Hotel; that same day, a fire damaged the White House attic, highlighting infrastructural strains at term's end.[79][79] In one of his final acts, Pierce signed the Tariff Act of 1857 on March 3, enacting Democratic pledges to lower import duties from about 21% to 17%, thereby expanding the free list and aiming to stimulate trade while addressing revenue needs post-Mexican-American War debt reduction.[13] Buchanan's inauguration followed on March 4, 1857, at the Capitol's East Portico, where he delivered an address emphasizing national unity and deference to popular sovereignty in territories, declaring that slavery's status should be determined by settlers without federal imposition, a principle inherited from Pierce's policies.[80][81] This stance implicitly sustained Pierce's non-interventionist approach to Kansas, where violence persisted under the proslavery territorial government Pierce had recognized despite fraudulent elections involving fewer than 2,000 voters approving a proslavery legislature.[8] Buchanan formed an entirely new cabinet to reconcile Democratic factions alienated by Pierce's tenure, appointing Northern moderates like Lewis Cass to State and Southerners like Howell Cobb to Treasury, excluding Pierce loyalists and prioritizing sectional balance over continuity.[82][83] Administratively, lower-level appointments from Pierce's era largely carried over, but Buchanan purged disproportionate numbers of Northern Pierce allies to signal a fresh start. On policy, the handover transferred the unresolved Kansas imbroglio—marked by "Bleeding Kansas" clashes killing over 50 by 1857—where Buchanan pledged to enforce popular sovereignty but soon backed the proslavery Lecompton Constitution drafted by a similarly irregular convention, extending Pierce's validation of territorial slave codes amid free-state boycotts and national polarization.[84] This inheritance perpetuated causal dynamics of deferred sectional conflict, as both administrations prioritized Democratic orthodoxy over coercive resolution, contributing to Republican ascendance.[8]Assessments and Enduring Legacy
Successes in Expansion and Compromise Efforts
The Pierce administration secured a significant territorial expansion through the Gadsden Purchase, finalized on December 30, 1853, and ratified by the U.S. Senate on April 30, 1854. This agreement with Mexico transferred approximately 29,670 square miles of land in present-day southern Arizona and New Mexico to the United States for $10 million, primarily to acquire a feasible route for a southern transcontinental railroad and to resolve ambiguities in the Mexican-American War border established by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.[57] The purchase marked the final major acquisition of contiguous territory for the U.S., adding strategic desert land suitable for rail infrastructure while compensating Mexico for earlier revolutionary claims against U.S. citizens.[59] In domestic policy, Pierce's endorsement of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, signed into law on May 30, 1854, facilitated westward expansion by organizing the Kansas and Nebraska territories north of the Missouri Compromise line, encompassing over 100 million acres for settlement. The act introduced popular sovereignty, allowing territorial residents to vote on slavery's legality, as a mechanism to compromise between pro- and anti-slavery factions without congressional mandate. This approach, advocated by Senator Stephen Douglas, enabled rapid settlement and infrastructure development, including potential northern rail extensions, by prioritizing local determination over entrenched sectional vetoes.[4] These initiatives reflected Pierce's commitment to national growth and sectional equilibrium, temporarily bridging Democratic Party divides on expansion by deferring divisive issues. The Gadsden acquisition directly advanced engineering feasibility for unification via rail, while the territorial organization under popular sovereignty aimed to empirically test slavery's viability in new regions through voter consent rather than abstract prohibitions.[5] Despite subsequent challenges, these measures empirically extended U.S. boundaries and governance frameworks, contributing to the continental domain's consolidation by 1857.[63]Failures in Mitigating Sectional Conflict
Pierce's endorsement of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, signed into law on May 30, 1854, represented a pivotal failure in addressing sectional tensions over slavery expansion. The legislation, spearheaded by Senator Stephen Douglas, divided the Nebraska Territory into Kansas and Nebraska, introducing popular sovereignty—allowing territorial residents to decide slavery's status via local vote—and effectively repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36°30' parallel in the Louisiana Purchase lands.[3][32] Pierce actively lobbied for its passage, viewing it as a pragmatic extension of the 1850 Compromise to facilitate western railroads and territorial organization, yet it reopened a long-settled boundary on slavery, eroding Northern trust in federal compromises and inflaming abolitionist sentiments.[53] The Act's implementation triggered immediate and violent sectional strife, particularly in Kansas, where pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" from Missouri and anti-slavery settlers from the North engaged in armed clashes known as "Bleeding Kansas." By 1855, competing territorial legislatures—one pro-slavery in Lecompton, the other free-soil in Lawrence—emerged amid widespread election fraud, with pro-slavery forces claiming a fraudulent 1855 vote to adopt a slave constitution, leading to events like the sack of Lawrence on May 21, 1856, and John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre on May 24-25, 1856, which killed five pro-slavery settlers.[85] Pierce's administration recognized the pro-slavery legislature and dispatched federal troops to suppress anti-slavery resistance, actions perceived in the North as partisan favoritism toward Southern interests, further alienating Northern Democrats and contributing to the party's 1854 midterm losses, including the Whigs' dissolution and the Republicans' rise as an anti-slavery coalition.[32] Pierce's rigid enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 compounded these failures, as high-profile rescues—like the Christiana Riot in September 1851, predating his term but emblematic of ongoing resistance—highlighted federal overreach into free states, fostering resentment without resolving underlying grievances. His vetoes of Northern infrastructure bills, such as river and harbor improvements, to appease Southern fiscal conservatives, signaled a prioritization of sectional appeasement over national unity, empirically accelerating polarization: Northern public meetings in 1854 denounced the Act as a "power grab" for slavery, while Southern enthusiasm for expansion grew unchecked.[86] This dynamic undermined any prospect of durable mitigation, as popular sovereignty proved illusory in practice, devolving into chaos that foreshadowed national fracture rather than reconciliation.[3] ![Political cartoon](./assets/lossy-page1-250px-Forcing_slavery_down_the_throat_of_a_freesoiler_ Historians attribute Pierce's approach to a doctrinal commitment to strict constructionism and states' rights, but causal analysis reveals how his deference to Southern Democrats—evident in cabinet appointments and policy—prioritized short-term party cohesion over empirical containment of conflict, as the Act's passage correlated directly with a surge in anti-slavery mobilization and the 1856 Republican platform's explicit opposition to slavery's territorial spread.[53] By term's end, Pierce's inability to broker consensus left sectional divides deeper, with Kansas's unresolved status symbolizing the bankruptcy of compromise under his leadership.[32]Causal Role in Antebellum Polarization
![Political cartoon](./assets/lossy-page1-250px-Forcing_slavery_down_the_throat_of_a_freesoiler_Pierce's endorsement and signing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act on May 30, 1854, fundamentally altered the sectional balance by repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36°30′ parallel in the Louisiana Purchase territories, and substituting popular sovereignty to determine slavery's status in Kansas and Nebraska.[4] This legislative maneuver, driven by Senator Stephen Douglas to facilitate a transcontinental railroad, was perceived in the North as a concession to Southern demands for slavery's expansion, igniting widespread outrage and protests that mobilized anti-slavery sentiment into a cohesive political force.[87] The Act's passage under Pierce's administration directly precipitated the disintegration of the Whig Party and the emergence of the Republican Party in 1854, as Northerners coalesced around opposition to what they viewed as the unchecked spread of slavery, thereby accelerating the realignment of American politics along sectional lines.[88] In Kansas Territory, the Act's implementation led to "Bleeding Kansas," a protracted mini-civil war between pro-slavery settlers from Missouri and anti-slavery migrants from the North, resulting in over 200 deaths between 1854 and 1861, with violence escalating after fraudulent elections favoring pro-slavery factions.[89] Pierce's administration exacerbated this conflict by appointing Andrew Reeder as governor, who initially supported the Act but was removed amid irregularities, and by later recognizing the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in 1857 despite documented electoral fraud involving non-resident voters from slave states, which suppressed free-state majorities.[90] Federal troops dispatched by Pierce in 1856 to quell unrest disproportionately targeted anti-slavery Free-Staters, such as in the sacking of Lawrence on May 21, 1856, reinforcing perceptions of executive bias toward Southern interests and further alienating Northern moderates who had previously tolerated compromises.[16] These actions contributed causally to antebellum polarization by eroding the bipartisan consensus on territorial slavery established since 1820, fostering a cycle of retaliation where Southern fire-eaters demanded more aggressive expansion while Northern opinion hardened against any perceived "Slave Power" dominance in Washington.[71] Pierce's strict enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, including high-profile cases like the rendition of Anthony Burns in Boston on June 2, 1854, compounded this by symbolizing federal overreach in defense of slavery, prompting mass meetings and the coalescence of previously fragmented anti-slavery groups into a viable electoral threat.[41] By prioritizing party unity through appeasement of Southern Democrats over national reconciliation, Pierce's policies inadvertently validated Southern fears of Northern abolitionism while validating Northern accusations of a pro-slavery conspiracy, setting the stage for the Democratic Party's schism in 1860 and the irreconcilable sectional deadlock that culminated in secession.[91]