Pres. Franklin Pierce on Slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act

Franklin Pierce’s Take on Slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act
[Student’s Full Name]
[Institution’s Name]
In this essay, we shall provide an editorial response to two important issues during President Franklin Pierce office. Using the sources available, we intend to address the question in the way, the former president would have done it.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act Editorial Response
As you might know, on May 30, Senator Stephen Douglas, of Illinois introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act (Malin, 1953). The Act stipulated that the residents of each territory had the right to decide if slavery is permitted, or not. Sadly, the decision have become a difficult subject during my office, and here I deem worthy, addressing the nation during this tough moment. I understand that the decision unsettled many of you but rest assured that it was done with the best of the intentions in mind. The event now called as “Bleeding Kansas” is a shame, and nobody will be able to erase it from our country’s memory. The bill has caused grief throughout the nation, and I, as the president, consider that violence must be stopped. That is why I sent federal troops to the Kansas territory, to stop the violence and restore order. I, as a man, am morally opposed to slavery, as I consider it an abomination (Wallner, 2004). However, as a lawyer, I must recognize the right a man has to own another man. That is why I had taken part in this conflict, and recognized the pro-slavery legislature in the Kansas territory.

In the same way, it is not my intention to repeal the Missouri Compromise and upset the balance the country has achieved. My fellow countrymen, I know my decisions might prove unpopular, but I have taken them with the country’s interests in mind. I expect that this controversy passes, and the state of Kansas can enter the Union peacefully and without further controversies.
Editorial Response of Franklin Pierce Concerning Slavery
After the event known as “Bleeding Kansas”, many fellow Americans have been asking me my views on slavery. Throughout my life, I have considered slavery a complicated aspect of our country’s politics. As a man, I have always regarded slavery as something evil. Nevertheless, I believe that many abolitionist movements are also bad, and threaten the union of the country (Wellner, 2007). Abolition itself might be good for the country, but the means many of the abolitionist advocates are using, are not. In this particular moment, our country faces many challenges and threats from the outside. Instead of focusing on the petty inside fights, we should open our eyes, and turn our country in the best country possible. When we have achieved that, we might start thinking of abolishing slavery. As a politician, I accept the doings of my predecessors, that is why I accepted and reaffirmed the compromise of 1850 (Wellner, 2004), as a way to defuse the conflict between free and slave states. That way, we shall keep our country united and be able to fulfill our destiny of ruling our country with laws, not with wars between brothers. “Bleeding Kansas has only showed us how a situation such as the decision over slavery can escalate that quickly, that it needs the army intervention. As a country, we shall put a stop to this kind of manifestations to prevent further conflicts. Pro-slavery, and anti-slavery states ought to find a balance, and the advocates of both positions should find a place to debate their ideas, a place far from the streets, and far from violence.
References
Malin, James C. (1953). The Nebraska Question, 1852-1854. Lawrence. Print.
Wallner, Peter A. (2004). Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire’s Favorite Son. Concord, NH: Plaidswede. Print.Wallner, Peter A. (2007). Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union. Concord, N.H.: Plaidswede Pub. Print.