Franklin
Pierce: The Reviled Jeffersonian
Sometimes
opponents of nullification base their opposition on the claim
that Jefferson and Madison’s blueprint against federal overreach could
only have applied to a unique situation present in 1798. The Alien and
Sedition Acts, they say, represented an extreme situation for which there
was an applicable remedy, but those ideas have died and can never be
invoked again. They say that the compact view of the Constitution is irrelevant,
because the federal government has already usurped too much authority.
Over
50 years after the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, an underappreciated
President proved this mentality to be a faulty one.
In
1854, a bill crossed the President’s desk which would have
provided
federal benefits, lands, and facilities for insane peoples.
The bill
was fiercely defended by its proponents as a bill that would
provide
needed assistance to those who suffered from illness and support to
the most vulnerable in society.
President
Franklin Pierce responded by vetoing the bill. He crafted a veto message which
explained his reasoning:
“With this aim and to this end the fathers of theRepublic framed the Constitution, in and by which the independent and sovereign States united themselves for certain specified objects and purposes, and for those only, leaving all powers not therein set forth as conferred on one or another of the three great departments — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial — indubitably with the States.”[1]
Pierce
also argued that the United States should not commit itself to
the
cause of social welfare, which he rightly understood was the
responsibility
of states and local governments. Pierce’s stance was
strong
enough to ensure that no other social welfare program would be adopted
in the United States for about 70 years. At the time, the desire to
see unconstitutional law defeated was a strong moral and ethical argument
that could not be historically refuted.
The
veto message referred to the general government as the “creature of
the States,” and recognized that the colonists were “the inhabitants of
colonies distinct in local government one from the other before the Revolution.
By that Revolution the colonies each became an independent State.”[2]
Pierce
vetoed eight other pieces of legislation, using the same
justification:
the bills being proposed did not within the scope of the
enumerated
powers delegated to the federal government. Therefore, none of
them could even be considered.
Where
once there were Presidents that refused to endorse blatantly
unconstitutional
policy, today we have Presidents that refuse to
acknowledge
any limitations to their own authority. Where we used to have
executives that respected separation of powers and the legislative process,
we now have executives that try to supplant it through executive
order.
Another
contribution Pierce made was a response to the common
tendency
of Presidents to step beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
When
the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by the Lincoln
Administration
under Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in 1863, Pierce
replied
accordingly:
“Is not this the worst form of despotism? Martial Law declared throughout the land, with the additional appendage of a band of prejudiced, passionate, irresponsible, abolition office holders, constituted as a special corps of accusers! What ideas must this Secretary have of the unlimited and unrestrained Central power when he assumes thus to impose duties upon and give instructions to “Superintendents or chiefs of police of any town City or district”? Let there be no more talk of Sovereign States, of Constitutional Rights—of trial by Jury—of legal protection for persons & property.”[3]
Considering
the policy of the Lincoln Administration particularly
dubious,
Pierce lamented that its actions were ones that “have nullified the
Constitution.”[4] Two years later, Pierce scolded the President for instituting
a draft and arresting Democratic opponent Clement Vallandigham
on arbitrary grounds.
 |
| The Franklin Pierce Homestead in Hillsborough, where Pierce grew up, is now a National Historic Landmark. He was born in a nearby log cabin as the homestead was being completed. |
Most
modern historians have rated Pierce very poorly, pontificating that
the President was a “do-nothing” that sat by and watched a divisive population
grow even more divided. To the contrary, Pierce respected the
Constitution as ratified and not as it was muddled by federal judges and
legal precedents.
Academia
has largely perpetuated the view that Pierce was a catastrophe,
enunciating the perceived failures of the man. Historian David
Holzel noted in the Wall Street Journal that “he was a complete
failure as president.”[5] Holzel explained that “the only
important
thing that happened during his administration was the first perforated
postage stamps were made.”[6]
A
2013 New York Times poll of historians ranked Franklin Pierce as the 42nd best
President in United States history, placing him third from the bottom
of the list.[7] A compilation of twelve different surveys also found
Pierce 42nd.[8] The drinking problems that plagued Pierce
late in his life are often highlighted while his accomplishments are
rarely cited. Unsurprisingly, Pierce is despised by the powers that be.
In
reality, Pierce shunned those wishing to grant government
unlimited
authority over what it had never claimed before. He stood up against
unconstitutional acts when it was unpopular to do so. He did so without
regard to his personal reputation. In effect, Pierce carried the banner
of Jeffersonian tradition.
The
most beneficial aspect of nullification is that it the greatest
insurance
policy for a free society. We live in an age where today’s
Presidents
were not formed from the same mold as Pierce. As individuals, we
cannot simply count on Presidents to revere the Constitution and act on
its behalf to curtail government expansion.
The states must take their
own authority, guaranteed to them in the ratification conventions and
defined in the Jeffersonian tradition. They should follow Pierce’s example
and refuse to waver on these issues, even if their personal reputations
suffer as a result.
[1] “Franklin Pierce, Veto Message (May 3, 1854),” The American Presidency Project, September 14, 2013; available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=67850
[2] Ibid.
[3] Franklin Pierce to John H. George, August 11, 1862, Pierce Papers, Library of Congress.
[4] Ibid, 332.
[5] Cynthia Crossen, “Historians Struggle to Give Franklin Pierce a Spotlight,” Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2013; available at http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1044919196169723703,00.html
[6] Ibid.
[7] Nate Silver, “Contemplating Obama’s Place in History, Statistically,” New York Times, September 14, 2013; available at http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/contemplating-obamas-place-in-history-statistically/
[8] Jamie Frater, “Top 10 Worst US Presidents,” Listverse, September 14, 2013; available at http://listverse.com/2007/11/06/top-10-worst-us-presidents/
"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person." - Socialism
