Unlike
James Buchanan, the other Doughface president of the 1850s, Franklin Pierce
spoke out during the Civil War, at first anonymously through the Democratic
press and later publicly. This seems to run counter to the established behavior
for former presidents. Why did Pierce feel compelled to participate in
politics, and what effect do you think his speaking out had on his reputation?
Here is Peter’s response:
In his autobiography, published in 1885, Ulysses S. Grant, acknowledged his friendship with Franklin Pierce during the Mexican War. “I knew him more intimately than I did any other of the volunteer generals,” Grant wrote. He felt the need to correct history as it characterized Pierce, describing him as “a gentleman and a man of courage.”
In his autobiography, published in 1885, Ulysses S. Grant, acknowledged his friendship with Franklin Pierce during the Mexican War. “I knew him more intimately than I did any other of the volunteer generals,” Grant wrote. He felt the need to correct history as it characterized Pierce, describing him as “a gentleman and a man of courage.”
Peter Wallner is the author of a two- volume biography of Franklin Pierce, New Hampshire's only U.S. president. |
Throughout his political career Pierce had warned of
the centralizing tendencies of the opposition party. Whether that party was
Federalist, Whig or Republican, he believed its entire motive was to increase
the power of the government in Washington to control the common people for the
benefit of the privileged classes.
To Pierce, only three things would come of a
stronger central government, and all were bad for the average citizen: he would
be taxed and drafted to fight in wars, and his freedoms would be restricted. The
Civil War was the fruition of all of Pierce’s fears, as the Lincoln
administration used the national crisis as the excuse to tax, to draft and to restrict
constitutional rights.
Pierce was particularly angered by the violations of
the Constitution resulting from Lincoln’s policies. He first objected to the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by executive order when the
Constitution specifically stated that only Congress may suspend the writ. This
was followed by the shutting down of newspapers that had criticized the
President, the jailing by the military of at least 38,000 northern civilians,
military trials of civilians and the persecution of political figures like Ohio
Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham.*
Knowing Pierce’s views on the war, the Lincoln
administration kept a close surveillance of his activities. Secretary of State
William Seward suspected Pierce of treasonable activity on a trip to
Michigan. These accusations increased
Pierce’s anger, and he insisted on a Senate investigation, which cleared his
name.
As more and more former friends and colleagues, many
of whom were serving in the Union army, complained to the former president of
their treatment by abolitionist Republicans, Pierce spoke out publicly.
He
chose a Democratic Party rally in Concord, N.H., on July 4, 1863, attended by
as many as 25,000.
Warned by friends that he could be jailed for expressing his
antiwar views, Pierce lashed out at Lincoln: “True it is, that any of you, that
I, may be the next victim of unconstitutional, arbitrary, irresponsible power. But
we, nevertheless, are free men, and we resolve to live, or if it must be, to
die, such.”
Pierce’s speech was roundly criticized in the
national press as defeatist or even treasonous, and, as usual, his timing was
poor. News of the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg reached Concord
in the midst of the rally. The Irish anti-draft riots in New York later in July
were also blamed in part on Pierce’s antiwar speech. Pierce retreated to the
sidelines, making no further public pronouncements during the War.
Peter Wallner, Pierce biographer |
In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Milligan that the Constitution
is “a law for rulers and people, equally in time of war and peace.” The 9-0
decision by a court made up largely of Lincoln appointees overturned the
conviction by a military court of an Indiana man during the Civil War. Legal
scholars have noted that the ruling has been frequently ignored by later
presidents during national emergencies.
Pierce sacrificed what was left of his reputation by
opposing the president’s policies during the greatest national crisis in U.S.
history. He never retreated from his
opposition to the war and to the policies of the Lincoln administration, but
his conduct during the war added the charge of treason to his reputation as a
failed president.
*For more on the suppression of constitutional
liberties during the Civil War see: Mark E. Neely, Jr., The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1991); Frank L. Klement, Dark Lanterns: Secret Political Societies, Conspiracies, and Treason
Trials in the Civil War (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,
1984); Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom, Lincoln’s
Wrath: Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels, and a President’s Mission to Destroy
the Press (Naperville, Ill., Sourcebooks, Inc., 2005); Joel H. Silbey, A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party
in the Civil War, 1860-1868 (New York: Norton, 1977).
No comments:
Post a Comment