
Franklin Pierce lusted for foreign territory — and squandered his presidency
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The last time a newly sworn president
Advertisement
'My administration will not be controlled by any timid forebodings of evil from expansion,' said Pierce, a handsome 48-year-old New Hampshire Democrat whose political climb had been so rapid that he was, at the time, the youngest man ever elected president. 'Our attitude as a nation and our position on the globe,' he declared, 'render the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection.' In fact, Pierce claimed, it was 'essential' that the United States acquire new territory for the sake of its commercial rights and world peace.
More than 180 years later, Trump would use similar arguments to bolster his demands for the Panama Canal and Greenland.
Advertisement
As Pierce took office, the wind was at his back. In the election, he had easily beaten his Whig opponent, the Mexican-American War hero Winfield Scott. Though he had experienced deep personal pain — his three sons all died young, and the accumulation of grief had plunged his wife into depression — Pierce's political rise seemed charmed. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and Pierce intended to enforce party loyalty, especially with regard to slavery, the most controversial issue of the day. He supported the Compromise of 1850, which included the Fugitive Slave Act that was widely reviled in the North. Despite his New England roots, Pierce sympathized with Southern interests in preserving chattel slavery. He had been effective in suppressing antislavery sentiment among New Hampshire Democrats and was determined, now that he was president, to implement the same policy in the party as a whole.
Speaking at his inauguration, Pierce staunchly defended the legality of 'involuntary servitude' and called on Americans to 'cheerfully' uphold the legal rights of Southern enslavers. Henceforth, he said, debate on the matter should be considered settled.
To divert attention from the roiling issue of slavery — which was, of course, anything but settled — Pierce embarked on an aggressive program of attempted expansion. He launched discussions on acquiring Formosa (present-day Taiwan), Santo Domingo in the Caribbean, and even the so-called 'guano islands' of the Pacific. His administration schemed without success to annex Hawaii, which was then an independent kingdom. For many Northerners, all this fueled a suspicion that Pierce's real goal was to secure new territories into which slavery could be expanded. That suspicion exploded into scandal in 1854, with the publication of a confidential document in which three US diplomats laid out a plan to acquire Cuba from Spain — with or without Spain's assent.
Advertisement
Southerners had long coveted Cuba, where slavery was already entrenched. Transferring the great island from Spain to the United States would effectively add another slave state to the union, and Pierce's secretary of state, William Marcy, directed the US ministers to Spain, France, and England to consult together and formulate a plan. Meeting at Ostend, Belgium, the trio drafted
When the Ostend Manifesto, as it came to be known, was published, it triggered a furious backlash, deepening the growing rift between North and South. The newborn Republican Party began gaining strength as Northern voters recoiled from the Pierce administration's willingness to accommodate Southern pressure for more slave territory.
The White House was compelled to repudiate the manifesto, but Pierce's interest in territorial expansion persisted. In 1855, the American soldier of fortune William Walker led a private force of marauders into Nicaragua where, with the financial backing of Southern planters, he fomented a revolution, set himself up as ruler, and declared the country open to slavery. 'Walker hoped to gain Nicaragua's entry into the Union as a slave state,'
Advertisement
In the end, Pierce's expansionist schemes met with success only once. For $10 million, the United States bought a strip of land from Mexico, adding about 30,000 square miles to southern New Mexico and Arizona. Known as the
Far from uniting the nation under a banner of vigor and outward growth, Pierce's expansionism only added fuel to the flames of domestic animosity and sectional bitterness. At a time when the Union was fraying, he channeled executive energy into trying to acquire foreign lands — a classic case of misdirected priorities that backfired badly.
America under Trump is vastly different from the nation over which Pierce presided. But the legacy of the 14th president is a cautionary tale from which the headstrong 47th might benefit. Expansionist ambitions abroad can lead to negative consequences at home. Franklin Pierce could have tried to unify a nation that was polarized over domestic policy. Instead, he dismissed the legitimacy of principled opposition, demanded total fealty from his party, and sacrificed goodwill on the altar of territorial ambition. Trump may imagine that his aggressive territorial claims will have no ill effects. Pierce probably imagined the same thing.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Maine oysterman launches bid to unseat Republican US Senator Susan Collins
By Nolan D. McCaskill WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. military veteran and oyster farmer on Tuesday launched a bid to unseat Republican U.S. Senator Susan Collins in Maine, as his party fights an uphill battle to try to recapture control of the chamber in next year's midterm elections. Democrat Graham Platner, a Marine and Army veteran, said he's angered by how unlivable the northeasternmost U.S. state has become for working-class people, blaming billionaires and corrupt politicians for hurting middle-class families and pushing others into poverty. 'I'm not afraid to name an enemy,' Platner said in a two-minute, 20-second launch video posted to X. 'And yeah, that means politicians like Susan Collins. I'm not fooled by this fake charade of Collins' deliberation and moderation.' Platner's campaign pits him against Jordan Wood, former chief of staff to former U.S. Representative Katie Porter of California, and comes as Democrats hope to recruit Maine Governor Janet Mills to challenge Collins. Two other high-profile Democrats, former Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper recently launched Senate bids in their states. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 Senate majority, and are defending only two seats widely viewed as competitive by nonpartisan election analysts - Maine and North Carolina. That means that Democrats would have to defend all their seats and also secure wins in more deeply Republican states, such as Ohio or Iowa, to secure a majority. Collins has a reputation as a centrist who occasionally bucks her party on key votes, including voting no on President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending package nicknamed the One Big Beautiful Bill. She raised more than $2.4 million for her reelection in the most recent fundraising quarter and entered July with $3.2 million in her campaign account, according to federal campaign finance records. First elected to the Senate in 1996, Collins has won reelection four times, including her 8-point victory over former Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon in 2020. Collins chairs the Appropriations Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal discretionary spending. Former Vice President Kamala Harris won Maine in last November's presidential election by nearly 7 percentage points.


Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at


The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.