Studying James K. Polk's Foreign Policy Record

---

James K. Polk: Served as President from 1845-1849

Personal Characteristics: Abrasive, insecure, stubborn, forthright, relentless.

A Hardline Expansionist: Polk’s territorial ambitions were clear prior to his time as President. As exemplified by a description from author Bruce Cumings, Polk “proclaimed to his cabinet his desire to put together Texas, California, and Oregon; gain harbors in San Francisco and San Diego; and turn the United States into a continental and Pacific power.” Furthermore, as part of his inaugural address in which he reaffirmed the Monroe Doctrine, Polk stated that “Foreign powers should therefore look on the annexation of Texas to the United States not as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend her dominions by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory once her own…” 

All Bark and no Bite?: Even though Polk was a self-proclaimed expansionist, with bold claims and actions, his moves in certain situations, as with the treaty that established the boundary of the Oregon territory, may show that Polk partially feigned a facade. One author wrote about the Oregon Treaty, and how it drew attention to Polk’s “shifting Oregon position, his disingenuous tactics, and his final dodging of responsibility for the final result. It projected a portrait of him on the screen as a man of short and narrow vision, of deviousness in thought and action, and by aggressiveness in dealing with other states to the point of recklessness.” 

Description by Author: When discussing Polk’s political contemporaries of the time, such as Sam Houston and David Crockett, “Polk was cool. He had chilly gray eyes and a stern mouth, and he wore his dark, unruly hair brushed straight back. Closemouthed, even sullen, formal in his words and calculating in his thought, he lacked a politician’s deft touch. Polk was not a man that people liked.” 

The International Context: 

Spain’s Firesale: Spain ceded both East Florida and the Oregon Territory. However, the important point regarding the international context was European states’ stakes in the territory. For example, Czar Alexander of Russia had a strong desire to maintain the country’s “monopoly” on fur trade in the area, down to the 51st parallel. Furthermore, the Czar proclaimed that all Russians had exclusive rights to trade and navigate the area and would enforce said proclamations, further adding to the issue of Oregon sovereignty. 

Turmoil in England: Food prices in England were soaring at the time as a result of the crisis and partially the effects of the prior 1842 Opium War against China, which they won. During this period, Britain’s foreign office proposed splitting the Oregon territory, adding to the conflict in an area that is outside the bounds of America’s control. These events would eventually lead to the passage of the Oregon Treaty in the U.S. Senate. 

British Intervention with Mexico: Prior to and during Polk’s Administration, Great Britain began to align with Mexico, initiating greater unrest regarding relations between the U.S. and Mexico. These relations would force Polk’s already aggressive hand in future situations.

Key Foreign Policies:

Monroe Doctrine: During the halcyon days of Polk’s presidency, he vehemently affirmed the core concepts of the Monroe Doctrine: disincentivizing any and all further European intervention in North America. His aggressive language on the subject created many detractors of him, with some outright calling him a bluffer. While they were correct in some respects, Polk had no hesitation in putting his money where his mouth was. In his reassertion of the Doctrine, Polk stated that the “United States, sincerely desirous of preserving relations of good understanding with all nations, can not in silence permit any European interference on the North American continent, and should any such interference be attempted will be ready to resist it at any and all hazards.” 

War with Mexico: As a result of his expansionist policies, Polk enticed a war with Mexico by claiming that Mexican troops murdered U.S. troops on American soldiers, providing him with a pretext for war, one of which future President, Abraham Lincoln, was sure to vehemently point out. The event that sparked the war very well could have been caused by U.S. troops goading Mexican forces into an attack, making the events much different than the fiery nationalistic speeches that Polk would go forward with. It is clear that his expansionist desires driven by Manifest Destiny entrenched his stances on Mexico before he had even set foot in office. 

Oregon Ambitions: Polk’s aggressive tendencies once again came into play in the situation of the Oregon territory. During Polk’s campaign for President, he discussed his desire to acquire all of Oregon, leading to much criticism from politicians and journalists and little support from those he needed it from most. These vicious speeches, stoking the fire for possible poor relations with Britain, did little to help him in gaining his preferred amount of territory in Oregon. 

Desire for Texas: Polk’s desire to annex Texas was a key reason for his victory in the Presidential election against Kentucky’s Henry Clay. However, this lust for Texas was also a major reason that the war with Mexico occurred, which Polk was fine with. Polk’s forceful acts in Texas against the Mexicans and his refusal to accept anything less than full acquisition of the land, incited war. 

Positive Achievements:

Victory Against Mexico: While this achievement should not be given to Polk himself, as Nicholas Trist’s insubordination against him was the sole reason that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo happened. Polk’s insecurity led him to ordering Trist back to America, which he declined to do and ended up crafting a Treaty that would benefit Polk’s image. With that being said, this achievement did occur during his term, so he deserves some credit. 

Acquisition of Oregon Territory: Similar to the war against Mexico, Polk does not deserve the lion share of the credit for the Treaty struck with Britain, mainly because he looked like a fool to some for arrogantly and idiotically proclaiming that all of the Oregon territory would be his, when the U.S. only gained land up to the 49th parallel. Following this acceptance, the proper land was obtained, and Polk gained another achievement that he partially whiffed on. However, an achievement is an achievement.  

Territorial Gain: Going in tandem with the war against Mexico, Polk was able to maintain Texas and ensure U.S. sovereignty over the state. While he made some questionable decisions regarding the war and was even duped by Santa Anna halfway through his term, he still gained swaths of land even outside of Texas that helped mold the U.S. into the power it is today, making his land acquisitions the grand achievement of his time in office. 

Negative Drawbacks:

Pedestrian Batting Average: Compared to his original ambitions, Polk swung and missed on many of his original plans. He partially fumbled his reputation after the war with Mexico, forcing him to defend his decision making, as was seen by his address to continue putting the blame on Mexico for starting the war, completely ignoring valid complaints by many that the U.S. incited the war through Polk’s territorial ambitions, not honest defense. Furthermore, those like Albert Gallatin argued that “All these allegations of superiority of race and destiny neither require nor deserve any answer; they are pretenses… to disguise ambitions… Polk’s gung-ho nature was easy to see through, making his stated reasons for war a faux to many. 

Rash Decisions: This is mainly seen through his insecurity of actors such as Nicholas Trist, Winfield Scott, and Zachary Taylor. Even though Polk attempted to recall Trist back to the states, His steadfastness proved Polk wrong, furthering the narrow-mindedness of Polk and his insecurity of others. Fortunately for him and America as a whole, Trist ceased any further fighting and created a treaty that was beneficial to the United States. 

Final Grade: B/ Polk deserves tremendous credit for playing a crucial part in creating the geographical America that we know today (the continental U.S.A.). His aggressiveness, while a little over the top, did succeed, for the most part. However, it seemed that for every step forward that Polk took, he took another one backwards. He was able to maintain sovereignty over Texas, but caused a war to do so; Polk was able to gain copious amounts of territory after the war with Mexico, but would not have happened if Trist followed Polk’s recall to the states; he could have garnered better relations with the British than creating a heated rivalry for the Oregon territory, but failed, in which he did not gain the amount of territory that he set out to, even with the war-mongering attitude. My thoughts of Polk go in a continuous circle. I feel as if he made some risky gambles that paid off, but also acted like a buzzsaw, which ended up negatively impacting his Administration in some situations. In short, Polk deserves credit for his accomplishments, but much criticism for his handling of relations with other powers and his insecurity that led to his rash decisions. 

References:

1. “Texas and Oregon: Extractor from Polk’s Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1845,” in Commager and Cantor, eds., Documents of American History, vol. I, 307-9.
2. “Polk’s Reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, Dec. 2, 1845,” in Comager and Cantor, eds., Documents of American History, vol. I, 68-70.
3. Amy Greenberg, “Who Is James K. Polk?,” A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2012), 25-43.
4. Wayne Cole, “Territorial Expansion: Oregon and the Canadian Border,” Interpretive History, 151-61. 
5. Thomas P. Brockway, “Polk’s Defense of the Mexican War, December 8, 1846,” Basic Documents In United States Foreign Policy (Beinhold Company), 27-30.
6. Thomas Paterson et al., “The War with Mexico and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,” “The Lessons and Costs of Expansion, 1815-1848,” American Foreign Relations, vol. I, 5th ed., (Boston, MA; New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin), 116-124.
7. Rodolfo Acuña, Legacy of Hate: The Myth of a Peaceful Belligerent,” in Cord and Gerstner, eds., Myth and the American Experience, vol. I, 285-301.
8. Norman Graebner, “Empire on the Pacific,” in Clarfield, ed., U.S. Diplomatic History, vol. I (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), 167-77.