Fascinating query; I will begin with the least complicated aspects of your question first, then tackle the more detailed parts.

​

Public Opinion of Pierce, 1960s

From my research, I found nothing to support a better public opinion of Franklin Pierce in the 1960s; on Franklin Pierce University's website, a section noting the history of the institution, simply states that, " While many New Hampshire-born men and women have achieved greatness, only one has attained the pinnacle of political leadership. From 1853 -1857, Franklin Pierce proudly served as the 14th President of the United States."^(1)

Regarding Pierce's positive qualities/achievements there is little which is not fraught with controversy or outright negative.

​

Monroe Doctrine

In upholding the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers against interfering in what the United States considered their personal business--that of the Western Hemisphere, Pierce's administration negotiated the Gadsden Purchase.^(2) The Gadsden Purchase acquired land along the United States-Mexico border, now present day southern Arizona and New Mexico. The purchase totaled $15 million and included the provision to build a transoceanic railroad on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (see this link) which was never optioned. The positive aspect of the Gadsden Purchase was securing the southern border of the United States. However, it must be argued that the success of the Gadsden Purchase rested with Secretary of War Jefferson Davis as he convinced Pierce to send Senator James Gadsden to negotiate the deal (also of note Gadsden had a personal interest in the acquisition of the land as he was in the railroad business); nevertheless, it can be argued as a proverbial "feather in the cap" of Pierce's otherwise turbulent presidency.^(3)

​

Presidential Platform, Additional Expansion, & "Bleeding Kansas"

Pierce began his presidency with the intention of compromising, arguably appeasing, with the South. Both the Whigs and the Democrats aimed for compromise coming off the intense debates coalescing in the Compromise of 1850. New Hampshire democrats nominated Pierce during the Democratic Convention for the election of 1852; "the delegates agreed easily enough upon a platform pledging undeviating support of the Compromise of 1850 and hostility to any efforts to agitate the slavery question. But they balloted 48 times and eliminated all the well-known candidates before nominating Pierce, a true “dark horse.”^(4) They balloted 48 times.

***Interesting side note, Pierce used school chum, Nathaniel Hawthorne for positive publicity since he (Pierce) was a virtual nobody. See this article for more information.*

However, despite his platform of "peace and prosperity" Pierce incited the wrath of abolitionists when the issue of expansion reentered the agenda. Pierce operated under the Monroe Doctrine in foreign affairs, asserting that the United States' acquisition of additional lands for matters of security would not be infringed by “any timid forebodings of evil.” Of particular interest to Pierce was Cuba; he sent the U.S. Ambassador to Spain with the intent of acquiring Cuba (the absolute highest price the U.S. was prepared to offer Spain was $130 million). However, Pierce sent a man without the finesse to successfully negotiate the terms of the proposed purchase, and the proposition amounted to a fruitless endeavor. This situation particularly rankled the North as it saw the entrance of Cuba into the national fold as an addition to the slave states; which was not without merit, as many Southerners lusted after Cuba for that very reason.^(5) So with Cuba remaining firmly within the realm of Spain, Southerners looked west for possible expansion of slave-permitting lands.

Prior to Pierce signing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, he made clear his stance on slavery, “I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions,” he said. “I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.”^(6) However, he preferred the Supreme Court of the United States to settle the issue of slavery within the Kansas and Nebraska territories.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, in short (as I am sure there are previous posts which discuss this event in detail), creatively loop-holed out of the provision stated in the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes (the northern border of the state of Arkansas) and allowed popular sovereignty (the people's vote decides the issue); as a result, and influx of settlers from both pro and anti slavery states moved to the territory hoping to sway the elections. A pro-slavery government was established and expected (read demanded) federal support. Abolitionists appealed to the territorial governor, Andrew Reeder who seemed sympathetic with the abolitionist majority; the pro-slavery coalition demanded that Pierce remove Reeder and install another territorial governor. Pierce's choice reflected his stance on the constitutionality of slavery; pro-slavery sympathizer Wilson Shannon (of Ohio) was appointed as territorial governor. The antislavery faction then established their own government which incited the ire of the pro-slavery population culminating in violent bloodshed, hence the moniker "bleeding Kansas."^(7)

​

Final Thoughts

As stated above Franklin Pierce's presidency expanded and more firmly established the southern border of the United States, which can be argued as a positive achievement. Pierce also presided over one of the most far reaching legislative acts in the history of the country, and provided additional discourse to Constitutional law; however these cannot be classified as positive in that the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 helped the perpetuation of the institution of slavery--an unjust practice and belief system. And one cannot classify Pierce's advocacy of compromise as positive at the expense of human lives.

​

​

Sources:

^(1)https://www.franklinpierce.edu/about/history.htm

^(2)Monroe Doctrine, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=23#

^(3")Franklin Pierce: Foreign Affairs," Professor Jean H. Baker, University of Virginia Miller Center. https://millercenter.org/president/pierce/foreign-affairs

^(4)https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/franklin-pierce/

^(5)"Franklin Pierce: Foreign Affairs," Professor Jean H. Baker, University of Virginia Miller Center. https://millercenter.org/president/pierce/foreign-affairs

^(6)https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/franklin-pierces-murky-legacy-as-president/

^(7)"Franklin Pierce: Domestic Affairs," Professor Jean H. Baker, University of Virgina Miller Center. https://millercenter.org/president/pierce/domestic-affairs