to the west of the slac state of Missouri and of the same latitudernas Kentueky and Virginia was considered to be a naturalrnarea for Southern settlement. Far from discriminating againstrnNortherners or favoring the extension of slave territor oerrnfree, the act actually left the larger portion o{ the new tcrritorvrn(Nebraska) for Northern settlement. It was understood b allrnhonest men at the time that the South had neither the abilitrnnor desire to flood the ‘ast and fertile Nebraska territory withrnSoutherners. Because Pierce considered himself to be Presidentrnof the whole Union, bound to govern equitabK’ and justKrnin regard to all the states, he simph regarded it as his dut tornsign an act designed to settle the vexing territorial question in arnfair and constitutional manner. When conflict broke out inrnKansas between free- and slave-state settlers. Pierce did notrnhesitate to blame the Nc\’ Elngland Emigrant Aid company forrnencouraging Yankee settlement in an area where it would notrnotherwise go. The company-, with its wealthy^ Free-Soil andrnAbolitionist backers, was merely acting on the principle of thernWilmot Proviso, yvhich stated that the Western territories yverernthe exclusive possession of the North; the South had no right tornan equal or fair share of the region. Missourians regarded thisrnNeyv England invasion of their yvcstern borderlands as not onlyrna violation of the spirit of fair play but as a serious threat to theirrndomestic peace and security. Already bordered on tyvo sides byrnfree states, Missourians did not yvant to become y irtualK surroundedrnon three sides. They realized that a Kansas populatedrnby Neyv England fanatics yvould be a hostile neighbor yvhosernpeople yvould not only encourage and assist slaves to escape butrnmight even try to foment servile insurrection yvithin her borders.rnJohn Broyy n’s raid into Virginia in 1859 is proof that theirrnfears yvere justified.rnThird, Pierce believed that the eventual admission of Kansasrnand Cuba as slave states yvould help restore the sectional balancernin the Union, a balance yvhich had been disturbed by thernrecent admission of California as a free state. Southerners hadrnproposed after the Mexican Wir that the Missouri line be extendedrnthrough the Mexican cession to the Pacific Ocean, thusrndividing California into tyvo states, one slave and one free. Thisrnfair and generous proposal had been rejected by- the NorthernrnWhigs and the Free-Soil Democrats yyho insisted that all thernterritory should be reserved for Northern settlement, evenrnthough Southerners had borne a disproportionate share of thernfighting during the recent yvar. Pierce and many other NorthernrnDemocrats believed that even after the Compromise ofrn1850 had opened Neyv Mexico and Utah territories to slavery,rnthe South yyas still being deprived of a fair share of Westernrnlands. Most people realized that because Neyv Mexico andrnUtah yyere mostly desert, opening them up to slavery yvas anrnempty gesture. With all this in mind. Pierce believed that allowingrnSoutherners to settle Kansas yvas simply a matter ofrnrestoring son-ie justice and equity to the yvestyyard expansion ofrnthe Union (after all, the great bulk of northern Louisiana, asrnyvell as all of the Oregon territory, yvould remain an area ofrnNorthern settlement). As both political machinations and thernaccident of geography threatened to give the Northern states arnpreponderance of the Union, giving some additional security- tornthe South was simply- a matter of statcsman,ship.rnPierce had other reasons besides justice for hoping to preservernthe sectional balance betyveen the North and South.rnLike many^ Northern Jeffersonians, Pierce regarded the Southernrnstates yvith their preference for free trade, local banking.rnstrict construction of the Constitution, and a limited and frugalrnfederal government as both the liberal and conservative buly’rnark of the L’nion. (The yvord “liberal” should be understoodrnhere as “classical” not modern liberalism, and the yvord “conservative”rnunderstood in the American sense as loyalty- to thernfederal republican order of the Founders.) Pierce yvas sure thatrnan unrestrained North yvith its preference for mercantilisn-i,rncentrali/ation, and statism yvould destroy the decentralized andrnliberal republic. That this yvas in fact to happen after 1865 is arnclear y indication of Pierce’s foresight, hi addition, it is quiternpossible that had Pierce’s policies been folloyved rather than rejectedrnby the North, the Union could have been preservedrnyvithout yvar. With their strength augmented by Kansas andrnCuba, the Southern states might have felt secure enough tornhave yy-aifed out Lincoln’s administration.rnPierce yvas not only a Neyv I Limpshire Yankee but a true patriotrnyvho loyed his yvhole country-—North and South. All hisrnlife he considered Southerners to be kinsmen and felloyv countrymen,rnequal partners in the compact of the Union and yvorthy-rnrepublicans yvhose deyotion to liberty yvas second to none.rnPierce’s lifelong friendship yvith Nathaniel Hayvthorne, a natiy crnof Salem, Massachusetts, is evidence of a vital non-Puritan traditionrnin Neyy England. Both yere Den-ioerats yvhen that partyrnrepresented liberty under layv, state rights, small government,rnand ancestral tradition. Hayvthorne wrote Pierce’s campaignrnbiography yvhen the latter became the Democratic candidaternfor President in 1852. Hayvthorne remained loval to Pierce allrnhis life. During the Civil War, yvhen anti-Southern passionsrnyvere at their height, Hayvthorne dedicated Our Old Home tornthe ex-President; it yyas an act both of considerable courage andrnof continuing identity yvith Pierce’s comprehensive patriotismrnand old republican principles.rnDue to the unpopularity- of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in thernNorth, the Democratic Party declined to renominate Pierce inrn1856. For the historical profession, this marks not only the endrnof Pierce’s public career but the end of Pierce, period. We hearrnnothing more of him. Yet Pierce continued to live, reflect,rncomment, and even speak out on public affairs for the remainderrnof his life. His thoughts and yyords are not only interestingrnin themselves but significant for revealing the continuingrnstrength and vitality of the Jeffersonian traditicm in the North.rnLike most Northern Jeffersonians, Pierce preferred John C.rnBreckinridge over Stephen Douglas in the presidential electionrnof 1860. Most historians continue to misdescribe Breckinridgernas the Southern Democratic candidate. In truth, Breckinridgernhad the broadest appeal of any of the four presidential candidatesrnin that year. Although his strength yvas in the DeeprnSouth, he had significant support in ey cry- region—the upperrnSouth, the Border States, the Middle States, even in Neyy England.rnWhen I .incoln yvas elected on an overtly sectional party platform.rnPierce described it as a “distinct and unequivocal denialrnof the coequal rights” of the states. Pierce considered the Republicanrnprogram to be such a clear violation of the constitutionalrncompact that he conceded in a public letter that thernSouthern states yvere noyy justified in yvithdrayving from thernUnion. I le took it for granted that the South yy ould be yvithinrnits right to do so. When the loyver Southern states began tornyvithdrayy, he continued to hope for their return to the Union,rnbut he insisted that threats of coercion yvould only drive outrnmore states and make the separation permanent. He arguedrnthat if the Northern states yvished to preserve the Union, thenrn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn