Have you ever come across a historical figure
who just seems like a total contradiction, like
a walking paradox? Oh, absolutely. It happens
more often than you'd think, especially in politics.
Right. So picture this. A man everyone says is
charming, really popular, a successful lawyer,
even becomes a brigadier general, a war hero.
It sounds impressive, got all the credentials,
seemingly. Exactly. But then you look at the
history books, the rankings, and he's almost
Always listed as one of the worst or at least
least memorable presidents the US has ever had
Wow. Yeah, that is quite a disconnect How does
someone with that kind of personal appeal end
up with such a well such a negative historical
judgment? That's the million -dollar question,
isn't it? And it really highlights how the pressures
of the presidency especially during a really
volatile time can just break someone or expose
flaws that weren't obvious before. It does. Personal
charm doesn't always equal effective leadership,
especially when a nation is tearing itself apart.
Precisely. And that's exactly what we want to
explore today. We're doing a deep dive into the
life and incredibly turbulent presidency of Franklin
Pierce. He was the 14th president, serving from
1853 to 1857. Right. And that incredibly tense
lead up to the Civil War. Exactly. So our goal
here is to unpack the complexities of Pierce's
story. We'll look at his personal struggles,
which were frankly immense. We'll examine his
political ideas and crucially, the huge national
events he was trying to handle or maybe fail
to handle. Events that really pushed the country
closer and closer to war. No doubt. By the end
of this, you should have a much more nuanced
picture of this often overlooked president whose
decisions, for better or worse, had massive consequences
for where the nation was headed. And to do that,
we've gathered quite a range of sources. We've
got biographical accounts, historical analyses.
We've even looked into his personal letters to
try and get a sense of the man himself. Yeah,
trying to get beyond just the official portrait,
you know, understand his motivations, the pressures
he was under. It was an incredibly challenging
time, so... Where do we start? His early life.
Let's do that. Let's go back to the beginning.
Franklin Pierce was born November 23, 1804. And
get this in a log cabin. Hillsboro, New Hampshire.
Humble beginnings then. Very much so. He was
the fifth of eight kids. His father, Benjamin
Pierce, was a pretty significant figure, fought
in the Revolutionary War, later became governor
of New Hampshire. His mother was Anna Kendrick.
So politics and military life were in his blood,
essentially. Absolutely. It wasn't just background
noise. It was the family business, in a way.
His dad was deep into state politics. His older
brothers fought in the War of 1812. Duty. military
tradition that was baked in from the start. You
can see how that might shape someone. Definitely.
And there's this one story from when he was 12
that he himself called the turning point in my
life. Oh, do tell. Yeah. OK. So apparently he
got really homesick at school. So homesick, he
walked 12 miles back home one Sunday. 12 mile.
Wow. OK. So he gets home expecting maybe some
sympathy. Nope. His dad feeds him dinner, drives
him part way back to school, and then makes him
walk the rest of the way by himself in a thunderstorm.
Whoa. That's... intense parenting, character
building, I suppose, in the extreme. Right. It
makes you wonder, you know, did that build resilience
or did it teach him a certain kind of obedience?
Maybe it's a stark image. It really is. It speaks
volumes about the kind of tough, almost unforgiving
environment he grew up in. Not a lot of coddling
there. Seems like it. And that drive, that toughness,
whether it was innate or instilled, it definitely
seems to have propelled him forward. So after
that turning point, where did he go next? College.
Yep. Bowdoin College in Maine started in 1820.
But interestingly, he wasn't exactly a star student
right away. No. You'd think with that background.
Well, he actually hit rock bottom academically.
Dead last in his class after two years. Really?
Last? OK, that's surprising. But he turned it
around, buckled down, focused, and ended up graduating
fifth in his class in 1824. Quite a comeback.
That shows some grit. Definitely. And Bowdoin
was important for connections, too. He became
really good friends with Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Yes, that Nathaniel Hawthorne. The author. Wow.
OK. Yep. Hawthorne later became his biographer,
also became close with Jonathan Silly, another
future politician. And John P. Hale was there,
too. Started as an ally, later became a major
political rival. So key relationships formed
early on. For sure. And he wasn't just hit in
the books. He showed that leadership streak again,
organized and led this unofficial student militia,
the Bodoing cadets. A militia in college? Yeah,
apparently they drilled on campus, the college
president wasn't thrilled, tried to shut them
down, and it led to a student strike. Pierce
was even suspected of being one of the ringleaders.
Huh. So a bit of a rebel, too. Charismatic, maybe
not the most studious at first, but definitely
a leader. That seems to be the picture. Classmates
remembered his social skills more than his grades.
That charisma, that hint of rebellion, plus the
interest in military stuff. You can see the seeds
of his future career there. It sets the stage
nicely. So after Bowdoin Law School. He studied
law, yeah. Got admitted to the New Hampshire
Bar in late 1827. Apparently he lost his very
first case, which must have stung. Ouch. Not
a great start. But he recovered quickly, became
known for having a great memory. especially for
names and faces, which is always useful in law
and politics. Plus that charm and a deep voice
that commanded attention. And he apparently did
a fair bit of pro bono work, representing the
poor. He did, which, you know, certainly didn't
hurt his popularity. And he jumped into politics
almost immediately. Shouldn't waste any time.
Nope. Became Hillsborough's town meeting moderator
in 1828, got reelected five times, then into
the New Hampshire House of Representatives. And
get this. By 1831, he's the Speaker of the House
at age 27. 27. That's incredibly young to be
speaker. He must have made connections fast.
He clearly had talent for the political game.
He used that position to push the Democratic
agenda, opposed expanding banks, defended the
state militia, supported Andrew Jackson nationally.
So a rapid rise fueled by charisma and political
skill. The militia interest keeps popping up,
too. It does. It seems like a consistent thread.
But even then, his letters apparently show him
kind of lamenting being single, wishing for a
life outside of politics. That tension was there
early on. Hmm. That desire for a different kind
of life becomes really important when we look
at his marriage, doesn't it? Absolutely. Tell
us about Jane Appleton. Right. So he marries
Jane Means Appleton in 1834, and she was, in
many ways, his complete opposite. described as
pious, very reserved, deeply religious, strong
temperance supporter. So not exactly the life
of the political party. Not at all. And she suffered
from chronic health problems, likely tuberculosis,
maybe psychological issues, too. And she hated
politics. Losed Washington, DC. Oh, boy. That
sounds like a recipe for attention. Constant
tension, it seems. His ambition versus her desire
for a quiet, private life. But the real tragedy,
the thing that just hangs over everything, is
what happened to their children. Yeah, this is
incredibly sad. They had three sons. Franklin
Jr. died just days after birth. Awful. Then their
second son, Frank Robert, died at age four from
typhus. Oh my goodness. Two children lost. And
then Benjamin, their last surviving son. He was
11 years old. Just weeks before Pierce's inauguration,
the family was on a train. The Andover train
accident. I've read about this. It's horrifying.
It is. The train car derailed, rolled down an
embankment. Benjamin was killed instantly. Crushed.
Apparently it was a horrific scene, and Pierce
couldn't shield Jane from seeing it. I can't
even begin to imagine. Losing one child is devastating.
But all three. And the last one in such a traumatic
way, right before becoming president. Exactly.
And you have to ask... How could that not profoundly
affect him? His judgment, his emotional state,
his ability to lead? Jane was plunged into deep
depression, reportedly believing it was God's
punishment for Franklin pursuing the presidency.
That's just soul -crushing. It puts his entire
presidency in a different light, doesn't it?
Starting under such a dark shadow. An almost
unbearable shadow. And it certainly colored his
time in national politics even before the presidency.
Right. Let's talk about his time in Congress.
He served in the House, then the Senate. through
the 1830s and early 40s. Still a loyal Jacksonian
Democrat. Very much so. Oppose the National Bank,
oppose federal money for things like canals and
roads, saw it as federal overreach, state's rights
infringement, standard democratic positions back
then. OK, but the big issue, the one that was
starting to dominate everything, was slavery.
Where did he stand then? This is where it gets
really complicated and crucial. Personally, he
seems to have disliked slavery. He wrote things
like, I consider slavery a social and political
evil, and most sincerely wished that it had no
existence. So morally opposed them? Morally opposed,
yes, but politically. He saw the abolitionist
movement as the biggest threat to keeping the
union together. He thought their agitation, as
he called it, had to be stopped or the country
would break apart. The classic conflict, personal
morals versus perceived political necessity or
union preservation. Exactly. He believed federal
action against slavery violated states' rights.
He even supported the gag rule in the House,
which basically prevented any debate on anti
-slavery petitions. So receive the petitions,
but immediately table them, effectively silencing
the issue in Congress. Right. It's this stance
personally disliking slavery, but politically
defending the South's right to it and prioritizing
the union above all else that really defined
him. That's why he got labeled a doe face. A
northerner with southern sympathies. That term
really captures the growing divide. It does.
And that internal conflict, that prioritizing
of union over abolition, sets the stage for everything
that happened during his presidency. It really
does. OK, so after Congress, he steps back from
DC for a bit, right? But then the military dream
calls again. Yes. the Mexican -American War.
This is something he'd apparently wanted for
a long time, influenced by his father and brothers.
He gets appointed to colonel, then quickly promoted
to brigadier general in 1847. Leads a brigade
down to join General Scott's army. A pretty tough
march, wasn't it? Yeah, three weeks through difficult
terrain. And his actual combat experience was,
well, eventful. Yeah. And not entirely positive,
at least initially. Right, the Battle of Contreras.
What happened there? His horse got spooked, threw
him against the saddle, then tripped and fell.
pinning Pierce's leg underneath caused a really
bad knee injury. Ouch. And that led to accusations.
Unfortunately, yes. Because he was incapacitated,
maybe fainted from the pain. Some accused him
of cowardice. Politics, even on the battlefield,
huh? Seems like it. But he showed serious grit.
He went back into action the next day despite
the injury and actually re -injured the knee.
OK, that takes some guts. Then, at the Battle
of Churubusco, the pain was apparently so bad
they had to tie him to a saddle to keep him upright.
He eventually passed out from the pain right
there on the battlefield. Also suffered from
severe dysentery during the battle for Mexico
City. Tied to a saddle? Wow. So despite the injuries
and the initial accusation, he stuck it out.
He did. Completed his service, participated in
capturing Mexico City, and when he got back to
New Hampshire, he got a hero's welcome. So the
military service, even though brief and difficult,
it definitely boosted his public image, gave
him that war hero credential. Absolutely. Which,
as we know, was often a golden ticket in 19th
century presidential politics. But that cowardice
accusation lingered, didn't it? It did. Our sources
say it would long shadow him, which makes Ulysses
S. Grant's later comments even more interesting.
Grant. What did he say? He served with Pierce
in Mexico, right? He did. And later in his memoirs,
Grant, who remember wasn't a political ally of
Pierce, wrote, whatever General Pierce's qualifications
may have been for the presidency, he was a gentleman
and a man of courage. Huh. That's a pretty strong
defense from someone who saw it firsthand and
had no political reason to praise him. Exactly.
It's a valuable counterpoint to the caricature.
It reminds us that battlefield narratives can
be messy and personal courage doesn't automatically
equate to political success or vice versa. A
really important distinction. OK, so he's got
the war hero status, the political background.
How does he end up getting the presidential nomination
in 1852? He wasn't exactly a front runner, was
he? Not at all. He was a classic dark horse.
The Democratic Party was tearing itself apart
over slavery. Everyone expected the 1852 convention
to deadlock between the big names like Cass,
Buchanan, Douglass. A recipe for a compromised
candidate. Precisely. Pierce's allies saw an
opening. especially after another potential compromise
figure, Levi Woodbury, died. They started quietly
pushing Pierce. And Pierce himself, was he actively
campaigning? Publicly? No way. He followed the
custom of pretending not to want it, saying a
nomination would be utterly repugnant to my tastes
and wishes. Ah, the standard political dance.
Right. But privately. He let his supporters work
the convention floor. And crucially, he wrote
letters confirming his support for the Compromise
of 1850, including the Fugitive Slave Act. Ah,
reassuring the South. A calculated move. Very
calculated. Yeah. And it worked. After ballot,
after ballot 48 of them. With no winner, the
exhausted convention finally turned to Pierce
on the 49th ballot. William R. King from Alabama
became his running mate. 49 ballots. Wow. So
he really was chosen because nobody hated him
too much. A unifier, in theory. That was the
idea. Someone acceptable to both Northern and
Southern Democrats. But you have to ask, did
being a compromise chosen out of desperation
just set him up to fail when things got really
tough? That's a very good question. And the reaction
to his nomination at home was dramatic. Understatement.
His wife, Jane, reportedly fainted when she heard
the news. Fainted, oh dear. And their son, Benjamin,
the one who... later died in the train crash,
wrote to his mom saying he hoped his father wouldn't
win because he knew how much he hated Washington.
Good grief. That really speaks volumes about
the personal cost and maybe his own reluctance
deep down. It really does. And that reluctance,
that family unhappiness just tragically foreshadowed
the absolute horror that came next. The train
accident. just weeks after the election. January
6, 1853. Pierce, Jane, and 11 -year -old Benjamin
are on that train here and over Massachusetts.
It derails. And Benjamin is killed right in front
of them. Horrifically. Crushed. Nearly decapitated.
An image neither parent could ever forget. It
plunged them both into just overwhelming grief.
And Jane felt it was punishment. Apparently so.
punishment for his ambition for seeking the presidency.
She wrote this heartbreaking letter of apology
to Benny for her failings as a mother. She barely
participated in White House social life for the
first two years. How could anyone function under
that? It's often cited as crippling his presidency
before it even began. It has to be considered.
He was emotionally shattered, heading into arguably
the toughest job in the world during one of the
country's most dangerous periods, it's critical
context. Absolutely critical. So he goes to the
inauguration alone. Jane didn't accompany him.
No, she stayed behind, still consumed by grief.
And at the inauguration, Pierce did a couple
of notable things. First, he affirmed the oath
of office on a law book, not a Bible. Only the
second president to do that after John Quincy
Adams. Interesting choice. Yeah, maybe suggesting
a more secular view. And second, he delivered
his entire inaugural address from memory. First
president ever to do that. Wow. That takes some
confidence or maybe just a good memory. What
was the tone of the address? He talked about
peace and prosperity at home, but also pushed
hard for American expansion abroad. He embraced
that young America idea. Acquiring new territories
was eminently important. So Manifest Destiny
was alive and well in his administration. Very
much so. He actually said, the policy of my administration
will not be deterred by any timid forebodings
of evil from expansion. Strong words. Did he
mention slavery? He avoided the word itself,
but he talked about putting the important subject
of sexual conflict to rest, emphasizing unity,
and he made that poignant comment clearly alluding
to his personal loss. You have summoned me in
my weakness. You must sustain me by your strength.
Heartbreaking. And then adding to the rough start,
his vice president died almost immediately. Yeah,
William R. King was already ill with tuberculosis,
went to Cuba, hoping the climate would help,
was sworn in there, but died just over a month
into the term. Leaving the VP office vacant for
almost the entire presidency. Exactly. There
was no mechanism back then to replace a VP. So
the Senate president pro tempore was next in
line. Just another layer of instability. What
a start. grief, no VP, expansionist talk, and
the slavery issue simmering. Did he manage to
get anything done on the administrative side?
Surprisingly, yes. Despite the political turmoil
in his personal state, his administration did
achieve some significant, often overlooked, administrative
reforms. Like what? Well, he tried to unify the
Democratic Party by appointing people from different
factions to his cabinet. That mostly backfired.
Everyone accused him of favoring the other side.
Remarkably, that entire original cabinet stayed
with him for all four years. The only time in
U .S. history that's happened. Wow. Yep. And
they did some solid work. They started early
forms of civil service exams trying to base appointments
on merit, not just who you knew. A precursor
to later reforms. His Interior Secretary, Robert
McClelland, really cleaned house in that department,
rooting out fraud. Piers gave the attorney general
more power over pointing federal judges and attorneys
a step towards the modern Justice Department.
OK, so some real efforts at efficiency and accountability.
Definitely. Treasury Secretary James Duthrie
went after corruption, tried to get federal money
out of private banks, and Jefferson Davis, his
secretary of war. Later president of the Confederacy.
Yeah, right. He oversaw surveys for the transcontinental
railroad routes, seeing it as vital for national
security. Also managed construction projects
in D .C. So there was this side of Pierce committed
to decent governance. It's that paradox again.
Capable administrator, but overshadowed by the
huge political failures. Exactly. And those political
failures were deeply tied to his foreign policy
too. The young America expansionism, how did
that play out? Well, Secretary of State William
Marcy tried to project this distinctively American
image diplomats wearing plain clothes instead
of fancy European court dress, that sort of thing.
The symbolic gesture. Any tangible gains? Yes,
the Gadsden Purchase. They bought a chunk of
land from Mexico, southern Arizona, part of New
Mexico. Congress haggled the price down, but
it finalized the southern border of the contiguous
U .S., more or less. OK, that's significant.
They also signed a trade reciprocity treaty with
Britain regarding Canada. Pierce hoped it might
lead to annexing Canada eventually. And the trade
treaty with Japan, opened by Commodore Perry,
was finalized under Pierce. Though... initiated
earlier. So some diplomatic successes. But there
was a major controversy, too, right? Cuba? Yeah.
The Austin Manifesto. This was a huge blunder.
Three U .S. diplomats in Europe secretly proposed
buying Cuba from Spain for a hefty sum. OK, buying
it. But then they added that if Spain refused,
the U .S. should consider resting it away by
force. Wow. Just take it. That sounds aggressive.
Extremely. And when this secret proposal leaked,
the North went ballistic. They saw it as a blatant
attempt to grab more slave territory for the
South. So it backfired badly, made the administration
look like it was driven by pro -slavery expansionism.
Completely. It damaged the whole idea of Manifest
Destiny in many northern eyes and fueled suspicions
about southern intentions. It shows how domestic
slavery politics poisoned even foreign policy
goals. And that brings us squarely to the biggest
domestic disaster, the Kansas -Nebraska Act.
Absolutely. the defining and arguably most destructive
act of his presidency. It all started with Senator
Stephen Douglas wanting to organize the Western
Territories, right, for a railroad. Exactly.
Yeah. Douglas from Illinois wanted a transcontinental
railroad that would benefit his state. To do
that, he needed to organize the huge Nebraska
territory. But to get Southern votes for his
plan, he needed to offer them something. And
that something was slavery. Precisely. He proposed
popular sovereignty. Let the settlers in the
new territories decide for themselves whether
to allow slavery. Which sounds democratic on
the surface. But it directly attacked the Missouri
Compromise of 1820. That compromise had banned
slavery north of a specific line, 36 -degree,
30 -yard latitude, for over 30 years, keeping
a fragile peace. So Douglas's plan would just
erase that line? Effectively, yes. His bill split
the territory into two. Nebraska in the north,
expected to be free, and Kansas in the south,
expected or hoped by the south, to become slave.
Did Pierce support this immediately? It seems
like throwing gasoline on a fire. He was initially
hesitant. He knew it would cause a massive uproar
in the north. But Douglas, along with Jefferson
Davis, Pierce's own secretary of war, pressured
him hard. They eventually convinced him to back
the bill. A fatal decision in hindsight. Absolutely
catastrophic. It shattered the uneasy truce over
slavery, reignited the conflict with incredible
fury, and directly contradicted Pierce's own
promise to keep the issue settled. It unleashed
chaos. And that chaos became known as Bleeding
Kansas. Yep. As soon as the act passed, pro -slavery
and anti -slavery settlers flooded into Kansas.
Both sides determined to win the territory. It
got violent fast. And there were problems with
the voting, right? The border ruffians? Huge
problems. Thousands of pro -slavery men from
Missouri crossed the border just to vote illegally
in Kansas' territorial elections. They completely
skewed the results, electing a pro -slavery legislature.
So a fraudulent election, basically. How did
Pierce react? This is key. Despite knowing about
the fraud, Pierce backed the pro -slavery legislature.
He called the rival anti -slavery government
set up by the Free Staters with their Topeka
Constitution an act of rebellion. So he sided
with the outcome achieved through fraud. He did.
He recognized the pro -slavery government and
even sent federal troops to break up meetings
of the anti -slavery group. He was committed
to the principle of popular sovereignty, even
if the process was corrupt. Wow. That must have
enraged the North, made him look totally biased
towards the South. It absolutely did. It cemented
the view of him as a dirt face and made a mockery
of his claims to be a unifier. It just deepened
the wounds. And at the same time, all this is
happening in Kansas, he's also cracking down
on fugitive slaves back east. Yes, the Anthony
Burns case in Boston. It happened right around
the same time as the Kansas -Nebraska debate.
Burns, an escaped slave, was captured in Boston.
Boston being a hotbed of abolitionism, that must
have caused an uproar. Massive protests, fury
in the streets. But Pierce was adamant about
enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. He saw it as
his constitutional duty. Regardless of the moral
implications or public opinion in the North?
Exactly. He sent federal troops, marshals, even
ships. spending a huge amount of money just to
ensure Burns was forcibly returned to his owner
in Virginia. What a powerful symbol. Federal
power used explicitly to uphold slavery against
the wishes of a northern city. For abolitionists
and many northerners, it was just another slap
in the face. It proved the federal government
under Pierce was actively propping up the slave
system. It further alienated huge segments of
the population. So leading Kansas, Anthony Burns?
The political consequences must have been enormous.
Transformative. The whole party system basically
exploded. The Whig party just disintegrated over
the slavery issue. Couldn't hold the northern
and southern wings together anymore. And what
rose from the ashes? Two main groups initially.
The American party or Know Nothings. They were
anti -immigrant, anti -Catholic, tapping into
nativist fears. They had a brief surge. But the
bigger one was the Republicans, right? Absolutely.
The Republican Party was founded specifically
in response to Kansas -Nebraska, dedicated to
stopping the expansion of slavery. It drew anti
-slavery wigs, Democrats, free soilers, a powerful
new coalition based entirely in the North. So
Pierce's actions directly led to the creation
of the party that would eventually elect Lincoln.
You could definitely argue that. The midterm
elections in 1854 -55 were a disaster for the
Democrats outside the South. The political map
was being completely redrawn along sectional
lines, largely because of the fallout from Pierce's
policies. It really accelerated the path to war.
OK, so after all that, did he seriously expect
to be re -nominated in 1856? Amazingly, yes.
He fully expected the Democratic nomination.
But the party leaders knew better. They saw how
unpopular he was in the North, how toxic, bleeding
Kansas had become. He was an electoral liability.
So the convention in Cincinnati, it wasn't smooth
sailing for him? Not at all. On the first ballot,
James Buchanan actually had more votes than Pierce.
Pierce's support was mostly from the South. It
deadlocked. How many ballots this time? 14 deadlocked
ballots. Pierce's support was fading. He finally
saw the writing on the wall and withdrew. Did
he throw his support to anyone? Yeah, he tried
to get his delegates to back Stephen Douglas,
hoping to stop Buchanan. But Douglas, probably
figuring 1860 would be his year, also withdrew.
That sealed it for Buchanan. So Pierce became
the first elected president actively seeking
renomination to be denied by his own party. That's
right. A pretty stunning rejection. It just shows
how badly his presidency had damaged the party
and the country in their eyes. They needed someone
who wasn't so directly tied to the Kansas fiasco.
A brutal end to his time in office. Did he just
fade away after that? Not entirely. He remained
outspoken. especially as the country spiraled
towards war. He kept blaming Northern abolitionists,
urging them to back off to avoid secession. He
even called New England ministers preaching abolition
guilty of heresy and treason. Strong words. How
did he react when the war actually started? He
was highly critical of Lincoln. He strongly opposed
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the right
to not be detained without charge. He sided with
the peace Democrats, who prioritize civil liberties
even in wartime. Which probably didn't win him
many friends in the North during the war. Definitely
not. It reinforces image as a Southern sympathizer.
There was even this bizarre incident where a
hoax letter surfaced, accusing him of being part
of some plot against Lincoln. A plot? Seriously?
Yeah, it led to a public spat with Secretary
of State Seward. Pierce had to have his personal
letters read in Congress to clear his name. But
he kept criticizing Lincoln, accusing him of
abusing presidential power. He called the war
cruel, heartless, aimless, unnecessary. Wow.
So he remained defiant and deeply unpopular in
the North right through the war. Pretty much.
His criticism of Lincoln cemented that negative
legacy for many. He was seen by some as almost
treasonous. And his personal life after the presidency.
More tragedy. Sadly, yes. His wife Jane died
in 1863 from her long battle with tuberculosis.
Then his close friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, died
in 1864 while they were actually traveling together.
That's rough. Hawthorne had controversially dedicated
his last book to Pierce, hadn't he? He had. Our
old home caused quite a stir because Pierce was
so unpopular by then. Pierce's own health declined
too, largely due to heavy drinking. Alcoholism?
Seems so. He died of cirrhosis of the liver in
1869 at age 64. He did become more spiritual
towards the end, getting baptized into the Episcopal
Church, his wife's faith. A difficult end to
a difficult life. Was there any public reaction
to his death? There was. Interestingly, President
Grant, the same Grant who defended his courage,
declared a national day of mourning. So, despite
the controversy, he hadn't entirely vanished
from public memory. There was one last flashpoint,
too, after Lincoln's assassination. Oh, what
happened? A lob gathered outside his house in
Concord, demanding to know why he wasn't flying
a flag for Lincoln. Pierce came out apparently
quite angry, but also patriotic, basically saying
his record of service spoke for itself. It seemed
to satisfy the crowd. Huh. Still a complex figure.
Right to the end. So how do historians ultimately
rate him? You mentioned the rankings earlier.
Yeah, the consensus is pretty bleak. Consistently
ranked near the very bottom worst, least memorable.
C -span polls put him third to last. Historian
Eric Foner called his administration one of the
most disastrous in American history. Ouch. Pretty
damning. Biographer Roy Nichols basically called
him an accident. An inexperienced man trying
his best but lacking the temperamental fitness
for the job. The general view is that he was
reactive, indecisive, and ultimately made the
sectional crisis much worse. So the overwhelming
view is negative. But you mentioned diverse interpretations
earlier. Not everyone blames him entirely. Right.
Some historians, like Peter Wallner, push back
against laying it all at Pierce's feet. Wallner
argues Pierce was fundamentally a nationalist,
trying to find some middle ground, however flawed,
to keep the union together. He thinks it's unfair
to blame him solely for failing to prevent the
inevitable. So maybe a tragic figure caught in
impossible circumstances. That's one perspective.
But then you have others, like Larry Garrah,
who say, OK, he worked hard, wasn't corrupt,
but his policies on Cuba and Kansas were disastrous.
They argue he just didn't understand the depth
of anti -slavery feeling in the North, lacked
the superhuman skills needed, and clung to an
outdated view of the Constitution. So the debate
is really about agency versus historical forces.
Was he a victim of his time or did his own flaws
and decisions make things significantly worse?
Exactly. Was he trying to navigate an impossible
storm or did he steer the ship directly onto
the rocks? It's a complex question with no easy
answer. And yet, despite this terrible historical
reputation, he's still memorialized, right? Especially
in New Hampshire. He is. There's Franklin Pierce
University, the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual
Property at UNH Law School. His family homestead
is a historic site. There's even a statue of
him at the state capitol. It's kind of jarring,
isn't it, given how poorly he's ranked as president?
What does that tell us? That's a great question.
Is it just local pride? acknowledging a native
son who reached the highest office, regardless
of his performance, or maybe it just shows that
history is complicated and even figures seen
as failures remain part of the story, part of
the landscape. Yeah, history isn't always neat
and tidy. We remember the good, the bad, and
the complicated. Absolutely. So we've traced
Franklin Pierce's journey from that charming
young man marked by terrible personal loss to
a president whose attempts to find compromise,
particularly on slavery, arguably just fueled
the fire. A man of integrity in some ways, capable
of administrative reform, yet whose political
choices around Kansas, Nebraska and the Fugitive
Sleeve Act had devastating consequences. It really
forces you to think, doesn't it? In times of
deep national division, especially over fundamental
moral issues, can a leader truly find a middle
ground? If that ground requires compromising
on justice. Or does trying to appease everyone
end up pleasing no one and making the underlying
problem worse? Right. How do you balance unity
with conscience? It's a question that Pierce
faced in the 1850s, and it's a question that
in many ways we're still wrestling with today.
It certainly resonates. Well, thank you for joining
us on this deep dive into a complex and controversial
presidency.