Is James K. Polk Underrated?

[DevotedDemocrat]

Is President Polk underrated? What's your opinion of him and his Presidency?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Insanely underrated.

[Darth Plagueis]

War mongering slave owner/slavery expansionist.

[Deus Naturae]

Underrated as in his impact on American history is underestimated? I'd say so. Underrated in that he was a better POTUS than most people think? No.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Underrated as in his impact on American history is underestimated? I'd say so. Underrated in that he was a better POTUS than most people think? No.

[H. Ross Peron]

Insanely underrated.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No (imperialist slaveocrat)

[Goldwater]

Insanely underrated.

[RogueBeaver]

Insanely underrated.

[The Dowager Mod]

War mongering slave owner/slavery expansionist.

^^^this.

[PJ]

War mongering slave owner/slavery expansionist.

^^^this.

[The Mikado]

Why would I view a man who sought an Empire for Slavery by launching a vicious imperialist war against Mexico to introduce slavery, a practice unknown in post-independence Mexico, to a vast swathe of land in a favorable light?  

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why would I view a man who sought an Empire for Slavery by launching a vicious imperialist war against Mexico to introduce slavery, a practice unknown in post-independence Mexico, to a vast swathe of land in a favorable light?  

And this of course is why while his influence is underrated his actual 'goodness' as a president really, really, really is not.

[H. Ross Peron]

Why would I view a man who sought an Empire for Slavery by launching a vicious imperialist war against Mexico to introduce slavery, a practice unknown in post-independence Mexico, to a vast swathe of land in a favorable light?  

Because Polk's expansionism was not motivated primarily by a desire to expand slavery like the later Southern "Fire-Eaters" wanted and none of the territory annexed in the Mexican-American War with the exception of some areas gained by Texas ever became a slave state. Polk while a Southerner and a slave-owner was not ideologically obsessed with keeping and expanding the institution of slavery. Instead his desire for expansionism was primarily strategic with a view to providing the Republic with a window to the Pacific and preventing European powers from gaining control over areas such as California due to the weakness of the Mexican government.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

War mongering slave owner/slavery expansionist.

So I take it you don't like most of the first 18 presidents.

[The Mikado]

War mongering slave owner/slavery expansionist.

So I take it you don't like most of the first 18 presidents.

Ulysses Grant freed the one (1) slave he owned before the Civil War even begun, and was a tireless friend of freedmen after the war.  It's unfair in the extreme to lump him in with eg Zachary Taylor.

Why would I view a man who sought an Empire for Slavery by launching a vicious imperialist war against Mexico to introduce slavery, a practice unknown in post-independence Mexico, to a vast swathe of land in a favorable light? 

Because Polk's expansionism was not motivated primarily by a desire to expand slavery like the later Southern "Fire-Eaters" wanted and none of the territory annexed in the Mexican-American War with the exception of some areas gained by Texas ever became a slave state. Polk while a Southerner and a slave-owner was not ideologically obsessed with keeping and expanding the institution of slavery. Instead his desire for expansionism was primarily strategic with a view to providing the Republic with a window to the Pacific and preventing European powers from gaining control over areas such as California due to the weakness of the Mexican government.

The war was provoked by Tyler Sec of State John Calhoun, slavery's biggest proponent, admitting Texas to the Union, and most of the pro-war advocates in Congress were Southerners looking to secure that empire for slavery.  The Mexican Cession only didn't end up as slave states because, other than California, none of it was admitted to the Union before the Civil War.  Polk (and Tyler before him) provoked an utterly unnecessary war with Mexico in hopes of stealing a third of Mexico.  How is this something to celebrate?

[H. Ross Peron]

Why would I view a man who sought an Empire for Slavery by launching a vicious imperialist war against Mexico to introduce slavery, a practice unknown in post-independence Mexico, to a vast swathe of land in a favorable light? 

Because Polk's expansionism was not motivated primarily by a desire to expand slavery like the later Southern "Fire-Eaters" wanted and none of the territory annexed in the Mexican-American War with the exception of some areas gained by Texas ever became a slave state. Polk while a Southerner and a slave-owner was not ideologically obsessed with keeping and expanding the institution of slavery. Instead his desire for expansionism was primarily strategic with a view to providing the Republic with a window to the Pacific and preventing European powers from gaining control over areas such as California due to the weakness of the Mexican government.

The war was provoked by Tyler Sec of State John Calhoun, slavery's biggest proponent, admitting Texas to the Union, and most of the pro-war advocates in Congress were Southerners looking to secure that empire for slavery.  The Mexican Cession only didn't end up as slave states because, other than California, none of it was admitted to the Union before the Civil War.  Polk (and Tyler before him) provoked an utterly unnecessary war with Mexico in hopes of stealing a third of Mexico.  How is this something to celebrate?

The war started over a year after Texas annexation and Calhoun was opposed to the Mexican War for the very reason that slavery might be excluded from the annexed territories. Plus considering the Republic of Texas desired annexation, I don't see any objection for the United States to annex it.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

War mongering slave owner/slavery expansionist.

So I take it you don't like most of the first 18 presidents.

Ulysses Grant freed the one (1) slave he owned before the Civil War even begun, and was a tireless friend of freedmen after the war.  It's unfair in the extreme to lump him in with eg Zachary Taylor.

I knew that. I was talking to him, since he dismisses slave owners and much of the first 18 presidents were slave owners at some point. It certainly is unfair to lump Grant and Taylor.

[courts]

actually yes. his detractors forget that even the missouri compromise was better than *nothing at all.* which he could very well have done. and he fought against a lot of the more ridiculous speculation and financial excesses of the time. arguably much more so than a lot of the people liberals tend to gush over now on this forum.

(of course given my background i'm particularly leery over actual, sincere belief in imperialism as opposed to just cynical resource grabbing. the former is much worse...)

[7,052,770]

Do his detractors wish the Southwest were still part of Mexico?

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, I think many here just think imperialist = automatic HP. I'll forgive his imperialist foreign policy at that time because expanding land was very important.

[courts]

Yes, I think many here just think imperialist = automatic HP. I'll forgive his imperialist foreign policy at that time because expanding land was very important.

so you're anti imperialist except when it benefits you

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, I think many here just think imperialist = automatic HP. I'll forgive his imperialist foreign policy at that time because expanding land was very important.

so you're anti imperialist except when it benefits you

What? I didn't benefit from it, the Southwest did. I only support imperialism when the positives outnumber the negatives, and in my opinion, they did.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Insanely underrated.

[Princess Nyan Cat]

War mongering slave owner/slavery expansionist.

^^^this.

If it weren't for James Polk, you might be posting as MexicoGurl.