That's "Polk" as in James K. Polk, if you please, 11th president
of the United States, long one of our more underrated chief
executives and also -- full disclosure -- a several times great
uncle of the present reviewer. Ahem….
In celebrating Uncle James over the generations since his death
in 1849, we diversely surnamed members of the clan like to affirm
the historical consensus. That consensus touts, first, Polk's
extraordinary success in dispatching the business he outlined to
the nation before taking office; second, his principled refusal
to accept the second term he could easily have had. After which
refusal he receded from view -- an example too little imitated in
our time. (Does any president of the 1990s come to mind as a
counter-example?)
As to "transforming" the presidency and the nation -- well, it
probably depends on how you define transformation. That Polk was
a focused and aggressive chief executive no one could deny. By
pursuing with steady determination the goal of pushing the United
States to the Pacific, in fulfillment of the country's "Manifest
Destiny," he set us up for a greatness greater than any of his
predecessors had contemplated.
Merely bringing in California set us up for Los Angeles,
Haight-Ashbury, the Beach Boys, and, on a more cheerful note,
Ronald Reagan. The nation swelled by a million square miles in
consequence of the war that Polk waged with Mexico. Nor is that
taking into account the Oregon Territory, which he peacefully
gained through staring down the British and procuring peaceful
division of a territory the two countries had jointly
administered. It wasn't taking Texas into account either. The
Lone Star State entered the Union partly on Polk's watch, partly
on that of his predecessor, John Tyler.
So much land gobbled down in so short a time requires some
digestive faculties on the part of the nation doing the gobbling.
Even as Polk, in 1849, packed to leave Washington, D.C., tensions
over slavery were becoming ominous. Just a dozen years ahead lay
Fort Sumter.
WALTER BORNEMAN, author of several books on American history, and
head of a foundation that funds postdoctoral fellowships in
children's health, in this readable and generally first-rate book
makes the standard case for Polk's executive skills. As
historians began acknowledging a few decades ago, those skills
were of a high order indeed, due to personal discipline and rare
powers of concentration.
The office of president, even if he held it only four years,
exhausted and depleted Polk, who gave to the job everything he
had. Cholera apparently claimed him at age 53, a mere 103 days
after he quit office. Borneman says -- I think correctly --
that Uncle James was "the most decisive chief executive prior to
the Civil War;" further, that he greatly expanded the office's
powers.
His had been a large opportunity from the start, one he seized
with energy. There wasn't the least chance in 1844, the year of
his election (following a congressional career that included the
speakership) that Americans' pulsating energies would fail to
spill over into Mexico's hardly inhabited territories east of the
Pacific and west of Texas.
Still, it was Polk's way to push, and to insist. Like a
celebrated fellow Tennessean, Davy Crockett, he believed himself
right. Believing thus, he went ahead. It was the 19th century
spirit. Less delicacy was abroad in society concerning the
effects of actions clearly in the general if not the particular
interest. A few decades after Polk, the learned Master of Balliol
College, Oxford, and translator of Plato, Benjamin Jowett, would
give the matter a fine categorical twist: "Never retract. Never
explain. Get it done and let them howl.."
Polk got it done. He had promised that inside one term of
office -- that was all he wanted and all he said he would
accept -- he would assert American title to Oregon; he would
bring Texas finally into the Union; he would acquire California;
he would reduce the tariff; and he would provide for an
independent treasury. Wondrous to say, he did it all. There was
some howling: not enough to deflect the president from his chosen
course.
FEW IF ANY PRESIDENTIAL biographies come to us any more
unfreighted with parallels, spoken or silent, to the present
fractious and uncertain state of American politics. Nor does
Borneman's book come thus unequipped. From Polk's hands-on policy
toward Mexico we catch inflections of the 43rd president's
undeflectable determination to oust Saddam Hussein and
democratize Iraq.
William Murchison, a Dallas-based columnist for Creators Syndicate and author of Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (Encounter Books), is completing a biography of John Dickinson..
The one thing about the decisive actions of Polk is that they
amounted to a naked land grab. While it is true that Mexico was
suffering under the repressive regime of Santa Anna, that does
not justify annexing half the country by force. So any
comparisons to the Iraq War the author seems to think fit don't
exactly reflect kindly on Bush.
On the other hand, it is providential that the acquired land set
up America to become a world power and defeat several evil
regimes, while Mexico remained stuck in seemingly endless civil
wars inspired by the global cancer of the French Revolution.
Cleisthenes| 10.18.08 @ 6:50PM
That California was in the possession of Mexico at all was itself
a result of a Spanish "naked land grab." And there is no doubt
that West Coast properties changed hands many times among the
Indians prior to the Spanish arrival. And the first Asian
"Indian" invaders of California arrived around 15,000 B.C. There
is no doubt that these Asian invaders were doing the wrong thing.
California was clearly the property of the bears. The Asians had
no right to be there.
Tim Pruse| 10.18.08 @ 1:00PM
The one thing about the decisive actions of Polk is that they amounted to a naked land grab. While it is true that Mexico was suffering under the repressive regime of Santa Anna, that does not justify annexing half the country by force. So any comparisons to the Iraq War the author seems to think fit don't exactly reflect kindly on Bush. On the other hand, it is providential that the acquired land set up America to become a world power and defeat several evil regimes, while Mexico remained stuck in seemingly endless civil wars inspired by the global cancer of the French Revolution.
Cleisthenes| 10.18.08 @ 6:50PM
That California was in the possession of Mexico at all was itself a result of a Spanish "naked land grab." And there is no doubt that West Coast properties changed hands many times among the Indians prior to the Spanish arrival. And the first Asian "Indian" invaders of California arrived around 15,000 B.C. There is no doubt that these Asian invaders were doing the wrong thing. California was clearly the property of the bears. The Asians had no right to be there.
Carol| 10.19.08 @ 11:01PM
I don't think we had the right to invade Mexico and brutalize thos people...