“Despite the near unanimity of the congressional vote to declare
war,” Borneman relates, accurately enough, “a good part of the
country was skeptical of — if not outright hostile to — the
Polk administration’s war program.” For one thing, the
administration seemed to have set up the confrontation by
belligerently challenging Mexico’s claim to that portion of Texas
between the Rio Grande and Nueces rivers. Polk sent Gen. Zachary
Taylor to occupy the contested area. When Mexican troops pounced
on a small American force, Polk was able to argue that Mexico had
“invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American
soil.” A Boston newspaper called the conflict “Mr. Polk’s War.”
Ummm-hmmm. Then there was Polk’s customary undauntedness in
meeting opposition to policies he had made up his mind to advance
or thwart. Further, “Many congressmen in both parties voted
appropriations to fund the call-up in troops but did not support
the war itself.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même
chose. Or something.
Unlike the 43rd president when in domestic-policy mode, Polk
invited confrontation with Congress over matters of principle. He
vigorously vetoed a spending bill — the Rivers and Harbors Bill
— that he saw as a mass of unconstitutional pork. He warned
against “large and annually increasing appropriations and drains
upon the Treasury,” accompanied by local demands for equal
treatment in the dispersal of public booty.
Borneman, to his credit, writes straightforward prose, no
partisan varnish laid on, the composition as a whole sullied
chiefly by the unconscious appropriation of decidedly
post-Polkian locutions: e.g., “loose cannons like Nicholas
Trist,” “the document that would impact almost a third of the
future continental United States,” “The Tennessee Whigs were
quick to spin Van Buren’s recent message to their advantage.” The
age of crinoline and broadcloth knew not “spin.”
Jacksonian disciple though he was, and anointed heir to Old
Hickory himself, the sternly moral and non-effusive Polk stayed
true to his interior standards. There would be no demagoguing ,
no playing the crowd for whatever could be got out of it. It was
enough that he knew in his own mind the right thing to do, with
some accompanying sense of how to get the thing done well.
AN UNFAMILIAR flavor can fill the mouth of an American reader of
Borneman — the flavor of success. We win! Goals, during the Polk
administration, get set and met. The United States, in pursuit of
objectives that to many moderns would seem prideful or arrogant,
strides onto the stage, ready for action. It expands its borders,
opens new lands to exploration and development. A United States
shorn of its western portion due to political timidity would be a
different place from the nation that took shape under James K.
Polk.
In him, for all that, patriotism and personal confidence rubbed
elbows with an almost paradoxical humility. He would write, on
the final birthday of his life, “Upon each recurrence of my
birthday, I am solemnly impressed with the vanity and emptiness
of worldly honors and worldly enjoyments, and of the wisdom of
preparing for a future estate.”
Always a few stray movers, shakers, and arrangers of human
affairs share that complex and vital understanding of duty. Never
enough of them; never nearly enough. James K. Polk, as in his own
day, stands out from the herd.
(This review appears in the September
2008 issue of The American Spectator.
To subscribe to our monthly print edition, click
here.)
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...