James K. Polk

Rising in history like he did in his real life, James K. Polk has transformed from an obscure and even unpopular figure whose existence was almost a secret amongst historians to a somewhat well-known and oft-praised leader. One of the facts that Polk is most beloved for and most lauded for is that he supposedly enumerated a quartet of specific goals for his presidency and, upon achieving all of them, declined to run for a second term. According to this legend, those 4 goals were the annexation of Texas, the purchase of the Oregon Territory from Britain, a reduction in tariffs, and the revival of the independent treasury. In reality, this legend is just that: A legend. While Polk did indeed do most of those things during his stint in the White House (Polk's predecessor annexed Texas just before leaving office), the first story about him ever listing out those goals on the campaign trail came from the 1880s, 40 years after Polk's tenure. That first story also depicts Polk as loudly slapping his knee as he declared his 4 main pursuits, a total contradiction of his timid, quiet nature. But not only did Polk never promise to take these steps as a campaigner, I would argue that achieving them caused more harm than good.

The first goal often attributed to Polk's campaign is the revival of the independent treasury. Founded in July of 1840 by Martin Van Buren, the independent treasury was a collection of private organizations tasked with housing the federal government's deposits. John Tyler, Polk's predecessor, dissolved the independent treasury, and Polk, in 1846, brought it back from the dead. Although I consider Polk one of the worst presidents in US history, I actually think that this was a good move on his part! The independent treasury was established amidst the Panic of 1837. While I like Andrew Jackson, I am willing to admit that a cause of that recession was Jackson dissolving the Second Bank of the United States (a national bank that existed from 1816 to 1832) and distributing its funds across a set of state and private banks.

Because these banks now had far more money in their vaults, the demand for loans increased. Soon, the state banks in specific had to start printing money to keep up with the demands. This created a severe inflation crisis that contributed to the outbreak of the Panic of 1837. Ideally, when a government agency like the Second Bank of the United States is disbanded, its funds would be sent to other government agencies or important projects like infrastructure, education, defense, et al. However, not every president is going to be willing to do that when they abolish a government agency. So, in those instances, it's important to have a system like the independent treasury to keep track of the massive deposits that would stem from any action like Jackson's in 1832. Thus, we would avoid repeats of what happened just before the Panic of 1837 and reduce the odds of future inflation crises. In actuality, Polk's domestic policy wasn't that bad. It was his foreign policy that I dislike so much. Creating the Smithsonian Institute, US Naval Academy, and Department of the Interior also help Polk's score.

While, as I just explained, Polk's domestic policy was pretty good, it did have faults. Aside from reviving the independent treasury, the other specific goal in domestic policy attributed to the Polk campaign is lowering tariffs. Though this would improve Polk's score amongst free trade supporters, my protectionist leanings consider this a negative. Tariffs make imported goods more expensive and so discourage consumers from purchasing items made abroad. This both reduces over-reliance on global trade networks and makes countries more self-sustaining, but also helps workers avoid seeing their jobs shipped overseas. Additionally, by encouraging production at home, corporations won't exploit loose labor laws in the developing world as a means of cutting corners or increasing profits, thus helping workers in the third and first worlds. For these reasons, I consider Polk reducing tariffs to be a negative.

Foreign policy hosts Polk's biggest blunders and flaws, however. Polk often gets credit for purchasing the Oregon Territory from Britain. However, the story is often oversimplified and manipulated to give Polk more credit than he deserves. People often tell the story as though it was Polk who politely asked Britain if they'd like to sell the Oregon Territory to the US and that London retaliated by threatening war. From there, Polk is credited with creating a compromise in which Britain got to keep the northern half of the Oregon Territory and the US got to buy the southern half of the Oregon Territory. However, this is not what actually happened. Upon assuming office, Polk angrily demanded that Britain sell the Oregon Territory, letting his fans and supporters rally around the reckless and irresponsible "54'40 or fight!" slogan. With "54'40" being a reference to the latitude at which the Oregon Territory ended, Polk and his base were threatening Britain with war if they didn't sell Oregon.

Britain wanted to avoid war and it was only when Polk backed down that British and American lives were saved. Britain wanted to avoid war and it was only when Polk backed down that the compromise of allowing Britain to keep the northern half and Polk to buy the southern half was reached. Polk was acting incredibly bloodthirsty and short-sighted, being willing to massacre innocent soldiers from both his nation and the British nation all so he could obtain some more land. While the compromise Polk and Britain ultimately came to did result in America acquiring what are now the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, I fail to view this as a positive. There were already British and indigenous communities living in southern Oregon who had no say in this purchase. The Oregon Purchase violated America's founding principle: That people deserve a say in what their government does.

Ultimately, though, the Oregon Purchase, as immoral and dangerous as it was, paled in comparison to Polk's biggest sin: The Mexican-American War. As mentioned above, the final goal Polk is said to have dedicated himself to in 1844 was the annexation of Texas. But as was also mentioned above, it was John Tyler who really completed that goal. On March 1, 1845, 3 days before his presidency expired and Polk's inauguration was set to take place, Tyler completed the acquisition of Texas by the US. I consider the annexation of Texas a negative, even though Texans generally supported the move. The annexation of Texas increased the power of slaveholders in Congress and inflamed tensions with Mexico, so Tyler annexing Texas causes him to lose points for me and if Polk really did annex Texas, then it would make him lose points from me as well.

In the middle of 1845, Polk, apparently not satisfied by the acquisitions of Texas and the southern Oregon Territory, asked Mexico if they would like to sell California to the US. Mexico declined, outraging Polk. When Tyler annexed Texas, a border dispute between Mexico and the US began. The dispute centered around the question of where, exactly, Mexico began and American Texas ended. According to Tyler and Polk, the border was at the Rio Grande River. Meanwhile, Mexican officials claimed that the border was to the north at the Nueces River. On April 25, 1846, Polk ordered a collection of American soldiers to cross the Nueces River into disputed territory. Most historians agree that in doing this, Polk was hoping that the soldiers would be killed by startled Mexican troops who interpreted their actions as invasive. As Polk desired, those soldiers were murdered. Using this incident as an excuse, Polk sent a message to Congress on May 11, 1846, requesting a declaration of war against Mexico, secretly wanting to use that war to obtain California. Congress obliged and Polk signed the resulting declaration of war on May 13, 1846, sparking the Mexican-American War.

Polk did one of the most abhorrent and vile things a president has ever done: He sent his own soldiers into what he knew to be dangerous territory - amidst peacetime, no less - with the express goal that they are usurped and killed, all so he could start a bloody war of imperialism that would cost American soldiers and opposing soldiers their precious lives. Lives were snuffed out, friendships were shattered by the death of a participant, widows and orphans were made, and funerals were prematurely arranged all so that Polk could fulfill his bloodlust and his petty need for land.

Not only did the Mexican-American War needlessly cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but it also accelerated the country's collapse into disunion. At the beginning of August 1846, Polk sent another message to Congress, this time asking them to draft a bill that would have set aside $2,000,000 for the postwar negotiations. Yet again, Congress complied. But on August 8, 1846, David Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and anti-slavery member of the House of Representatives, added the Wilmot Proviso to the bill. Were it to pass, the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in any and all of the land the US obtained from Mexico in the peace treaty. Unfortunately, the Wilmot Proviso was shot down in the Senate despite passing the House of Representatives. Still, the debate over the Wilmot Proviso was an intense one that further irritated the growing divide over slavery, plunging America further into disunion. It never would have happened had Polk refrained from his warmongering.

By the autumn of 1847, it was apparent that Mexico could never win the war. Following an attack on the Mexican capital of Mexico City led by US General Winfield Scott, Mexico surrendered in September 1847. From there, postwar negotiations began. On February 2, 1848, the Mexican-American War formally ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under the terms of this agreement, Mexico was required to recognize Texas as part of the US, rather than as Mexican territory or as an independent country. Further, Mexican officials had to acknowledge that the US-Mexican border existed at the Rio Grande River, rather than the Nueces River. Neither of those terms are as appalling or problematic, however, as the forced cession to the US of what are now the states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. As was the case with the acquisition of the Oregon Territory, the residents of what became the Mexican Cession had no say in the transfer, which is undemocratic and callous. However, the acquisition of this land hurt America too.

Foreshadowed by the debate over the Wilmot Proviso, the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo opened up an enormous debate about whether or not slavery should be allowed in the new territories. To Polk's credit, he had a decent solution: The Missouri Compromise, signed by James Monroe in 1820, maintained the balance of free and slave states by admitting Missouri into the Union as a slave state and Maine as a free state. More importantly to this episode of American history, it also banned slavery in any area of the Louisiana Purchase located north of the southern border of Missouri, with the exception of obviously Missouri itself. Polk wanted to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific coast. Since the Missouri Compromise prevented a civil war in its day - in 1818, 1819, and 1820, people were arguing over whether Missouri should be admitted as a free or slave state in order to give their side of the country a boost in Congressional representation - I see no reason that Polk's proposal wouldn't prevent a civil war. Additionally, it would have banned slavery in a slight majority of the Mexican Cession. However, Polk did nothing to pass or enforce this idea. As a result, the argument over slavery in the Mexican Cession dragged on, placing the country at further risk of civil war.

Polk also tried to buy Cuba. Since he never threatened Spain (which owned Cuba at the time of Polk's presidency) with war, I don't criticize him as much for this move as I do with his designs on Oregon and California. Still, the fact that he never factored in what actual Cubans wanted hurts his score. Really, Polk's only accomplishment in the realm of foreign policy was the Treaty of New Grenada. This agreement both secured American freedom of movement in New Grenada (roughly equivalent to Colombia in modern geography) and ensured that the US government would respect New Grenada's sovereignty. The Treaty of New Grenada is arguably Polk's biggest achievement, but it hardly helps him in the face of all his evil, deceptive warmongering and his reckless disregard for the Union.