Plain English with Derek Thompson - Plain History: The Astonishingly Successful Presidency of James K. Polk

Episode Date: February 21, 2025

Who is the most successful president in American history? George Washington secured American independence. Abraham Lincoln preserved the union and ended slavery. Franklin D. Roosevelt ended the Depression, remade government, and won World War II. But if we define "success" as the ability to articulate your goals and achieve every single one of them, perhaps only one president in American history was ever perfectly successful. In 1845, James K. Polk, newly elected by a whisker-thin margin, confided to his friend George Bancroft the four goals of his four years in the White House. Acquire Oregon from Great Britain. Acquire California from Mexico. Reduce the tariff. Establish an independent treasury. Four years later, he'd done all this and more. As the historian Daniel Patrick Howe wrote, "Judged by these objectives, Polk is probably the most successful president the United States has ever had.” And that’s why Polk is the subject of today’s show. I don’t think another president in American history has so large a gap between his modern reputation and his actual achievement. There are two great biographies about Polk that I’ve read that have been published in the last 20 years. I’m very pleased that today, we have both authors on the show. Walter Borneman is the author of 'Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America.' And Robert Merry is the author of 'A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent_._' If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [e-mail]. Host: Derek Thompson Guests: Walter Borneman and Robert Merry Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, it's Bill Simmons letting you know that we are covering the White Lotus on the Prestige TV podcast and the Ringer TV YouTube channel every Sunday night this season with Mallory Rubin and Joanna Robinson. Also, on Wednesdays, Rob Mahoney and I will be sort of diving deep into theories and listener questions. So you can watch that on the Ringer YouTube channel and also on the Spotify app. Subscribe to the Prestige podcast feed. Subscribe to the Ringer TV YouTube channel. And don't forget, you can also watch these podcasts on Spotify. White Lotus, let's go. Today, our second episode of Plain History kicks off with a fun, if impossible question.

Who was the most successful president in American history? I'd say we start with the obvious nominees here. George Washington defeated the British Army and then led the country born through his military accomplishment. Abraham Lincoln saved the Union and did slavery. Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office. when the U.S. was facing one of its worst economic crises ever, and more than a decade later, he'd remade the federal government and the U.S. economy,

with the U.S. bestriding the planet on the verge of total victory in World War II at the pinnacle of our geopolitical power. Those are three excellent, excellent choices. But according to the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Daniel Walker Howe, the answer to the question, who is America's most successful president? might be none of the above. If success means articulating your goals and achieving all of them,

none of those three are perfect fits. George Washington's negotiations with Britain failed to secure the recognition of U.S. maritime rights. FDR's court-packing plan famously and infamously backfired. And while it seems kind of mean, absurd to blame Abraham Lincoln for his own assassination, I don't think it's debatable that his second term was a failure by his own standards, since his vice president, Andrew Johnson, who became president, had policies that were totally at odds with Lincoln's vision of reconstruction. No, if success means achieving every single major thing you set out to do, then identifying the most successful president forces us to look a little

bit further. In 1845, James K. Polk, newly elected president by a whisker-thin margin, confided to a friend George Bancroft, the four goals of his four years in the White House. Number one, acquire Oregon from Great Britain. Number two, acquire California from Mexico. Number three, reduce the tariff. And number four, establish an independent treasury. as Howe writes in his book, What Hath God wrought? Quote, Judged by these objectives, Polk is probably the most successful president

the United States has ever had. End quote. In fact, if you really wanted to press the case, Polk's term was even more successful than his objectives. By winning the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848, he didn't just acquire what we now think of as California. He acquired what is now West Texas, most of Arizona and New Mexico,

half of Colorado, and all of modern Utah and Nevada. The original 13 colonies made up about 400,000 square miles. James Polk expanded the U.S. by roughly 1 million square miles, and he did it in one term. And that's why Polk is the subject of today's show, because I don't think another president in American history has so large a gap between his modern reputation

and his actual achievement. Now here's where it gets interesting because the nature of Polk's achievements are not what we associate with presidential greatness. Unlike Washington, he didn't wage war for independence, but rather for conquest. Unlike Lincoln's war and emancipation,

which ended slavery, Polk's embrace of Westport expansion and manifest destiny, extended the territory for and the market for slavery. And unlike FDR, Polk did not go to war for liberal humanitarian interests. He went to war for old-fashioned national interest. Now, I don't think it's useful for people in the 2020s to exclusively insist on judging history by 21st century values. but what makes Polk's presidency so rich is that even his contemporaries

considered him to be a manipulator. Ulysses S. Grant, who fought in the Mexican-American War, called it, quote, the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. There are two great books about James Polk that I've read, which have been published

in the last 20 years, and I'm very pleased that today we have both authors on the show. Walt Bornemann is the author of Polk, the man who transformed the presidency and America, and Bob Mary, who's the author of A Country of Vast Designs, James K. Polk, the Mexican War,

and the conquest of the American continent. I'm Derek Thompson. This is Plain History. Walt Bornemann, welcome to the show. Hi, Derek. Good to be with you. Robert Mary, welcome. Thank you very much.

Great to be here. Before we dive into this material, I just want to first say it's really thrilling to be able to have two different James Polk biographers here to help me understand this incredibly pivotal time in American history. And before we dive into the material, I'd love to know what drew you to the subject.

So, Walt, let's start with you. There are so many stories to tell about American history. What's so interesting to you about James Polk? Well, you know, I actually started thinking I was going to write a book about the election of 1844, because I think it really is a pivotal election in American history. And then, you know, how things go when you develop a book, one thing leads to another, and suddenly I'm writing a full-blown biography of James K. Polk. But certainly, he's front and center in that election and all of the policies of the four years of his presidency. And Bob, same question to you. Oh, yeah. I have to give full credit to my editor, Simon Schuster at that time, the late Alex Mayhew, who I had written a book on American foreign policy.

But that was kind of a polemical book. And she knew that my passion was narrative history, as was hers. So when that was done, we came up with a few ideas. She didn't really like them. And she finally said, so what do you know about the Mexican war? And I said, well, I'm not a military historian. That's not my meat. But I love politics. And I know that it was a yeasty political time. And I know that James Polk is a very fascinating character. So how about if I come up with some ideas of how we would go about doing that? And she liked them. And there we were. So I want to draw back the curtains here in the election year of 1844. And the U.S. is defined at this time, it seems, along two axes, north, south. east and west. And in the north, industrialization is surging. In the agrarian south, slaves make up

about a third of the population. Cotton is by far America's biggest export. East of the Appalachian Mountains is home to still 90% of the U.S. population. But west of the Mississippi, migration is booming. We are about to enter the heyday of the Oregon Trail. The concept of manifest destiny is on the people's lips. And the year 1844 also happens to be an extraordinary one in telecommunications history. the year that Samuel Morse sends the first telegraphic message with four words, what hath God wrought? And on top of all this, there's the seismic presidential election and the looming issue of Texas, newly independent Texas. Bob, why don't you set the table for us with Texas? What should we know about Texas in the year 1844? Well, Texas had been an independent

country, according to its own lights, for 10 years, got its independence from Mexico in 1835. And Mexico never, however, acknowledged that, and always suggested that it was going to get Texas back. And it was a delicate situation for the United States because we wanted to recognize Texas independence, but we also didn't want to have a terrible warlike situation with Mexico. So even Andrew Jackson, as bellicose as he could be, was wary about it and didn't recognize Texas until the end of his second term.

So that was kind of the state of play, and it was essentially a status quo situation. Texas was thriving as an independent nation. Sam Houston was playing a major role and bringing it into fruition. And then John Tyler, who was kind of in a political no man's land. He had been a Democrat and he was a Whig, but he wasn't really a very good wig based on the wig sensibility. Certainly Henry Clay didn't think so. And he was looking for a way to get himself some attention so that he might have a chance to retain the presidency. He had succeeded to the presidency after the death of William Harrison.

And so he entered into negotiations with Texas about annexation. And it exploded upon the political scene in America because it really did encapsulate that concept of American expansion of being a country across the midsection of North America from sea to sea. What a concept, what an idea, and that was beguiling American politics. Walt, I want to connect some dots here before I throw it back to you. As Bob said, Texas defeats Mexico, and Sam Houston very quickly appeals to the U.S. to annex Texas, to protect it from Mexico. President Martin Van Buren says no. In the 1840 election, Van Buren gets walloped by William Henry Harrison.

Harrison is elected. he dies in a month. John Tyler takes over the presidency. Tyler promises Sam Houston. Trust me, I can get annexation through the Senate. You can trust me. He fails. The Whig Party soundly rejects that annexation treaty.

And that sets us up to appreciate, I think, the full stakes of the 1844 election. I think that's a key point to the 1844 election. And let me back up just one second and say that the leading candidates, for both parties' nominations in 1844. On the Whig side, Henry Clay, Henry Clay is opposed to the annexation of Texas. And on the Democrat side, the leading candidate at that point

in the spring of 1844 is, in fact, Martin Van Buren, who would like to be back in the White House for a second term? Well, sitting at the hermitage in Nashville, here's Andrew Jackson basically saying, we've got to have Texas. And when Clay says, I don't want Texas, old Hickory is ecstatic. He thinks that this is the Democrats' ticket to electing Van Buren again.

But then almost on the same day that Henry Clay says, he and the wigs are not in favor of annexing Texas. And to your question specifically, there are a lot of reasons for that in terms of uncertainty about how Mexico is going to react, because as Bob has just said, Mexico never recognizes the independence of Texas. So what happens in the spring of 1844, having Henry Clay said, no, we don't want Texas, Martin Van Buren of the Democrats, says the same thing. He says, no, our policy should be that we don't want to annex Texas either. So suddenly both parties have said no on Texas. Well, setting up our man James K. Polk, who is infuriated the most by this? It's Andrew Jackson. Let me try to set up the election of 1844 in a way that allows you to expand

a bit on the role of puppet master Andrew Jackson here. So the Texas question is simmering, and Democrats have to choose their presidential candidate to face Henry Clay in the election. And at first, this looks like a murderer's row of mid-century luminaries. Andrew Jackson is not running for president. He's practically on death store. But almost everybody else is trying to get on the ticket. John Calhoun, the pro-slavery state's rights champion, has tried to get on the ticket. Martin Van Buren, Jackson's former vice president and one of the Democratic Party's founders,

he's interested in being on the ticket. Lewis Cass, Jackson's Secretary of War, who was in charge of Indian removal, also wants to get on the ticket. But somehow none of these men make it through the final ballot, and the presidential nomination swings to James K. Polk, the Dark Horse who nobody saw coming. Walt, how did Polk's political career set him up for this moment? I think to your point about Dark Horse, certainly what I would say is that, yes, perhaps James K. Polk was a dark horse in coming from behind. at the convention that was held in Baltimore.

But James K. Polk is a very astute politician, just the thumbnail history. He spent 14 years in Congress, four of them as Speaker of the House. He was elected governor of Tennessee once, strangely enough, he lost re-election once and then tried to regain it twice. So here he is twice defeated for governor of Tennessee, but he stocked the vice presidency in 1840, and he really sees himself, remember, Martin Van Buren is from New York, he really sees himself as the logical vice presidential candidate for the Democrats in 1844 to balance the ticket geographically. And then when Van Buren says no to Texas, suddenly Polk gets to thinking, well, you know, maybe we can

do a few things a little bit sooner than 1848 or 1850. whenever he might have seen the presidency. But I just want to note, I think it's been noted, but I think I want to emphasize the extent to which James K. Polk was washed up after that second defeat when he was running for governor against James Jones, lean Jimmy Jones, who was a jokster and kind of ran rings around Polk because he was a serious-minded,

sober-sighted fellow. And at one point he suggested that, that maybe Lean Jimmy was more suited to the circus than a presidential campaign. And Lee Jimmy said, you're right. They were in a debate. You're right, governor. I would be the clown, of course. And you'd be that little guy in the red jacket on the little tiny pony running around the circus circle.

And so when he suggested to himself that he wanted to run for the vice presidency, it was a last-dish effort to basically resurrect himself as a person. potential down the road presidential candidate. Bob, so it's Polk for the Democrats, and on the opposing side, we have Henry Clay for the Whig Party. And Clay, I remember from my high school American history classes, is basically being the most important statesman of the 19th century to never become president. Like every compromise to delay or allay the threat of civil war has Clay's name on it. And this poor guy, he runs for president more or less continuously between the 1820s and 1840s losing over and over and over again. He's like the Buffalo Bills of the 19th century.

So that's the showdown. You've got the great statesman Clay with maybe his best chance of becoming president. He's facing the dark horse, Polk. Bob, what is this election about? Is Texas the overriding issue or other broader economic issues that define this race? Well, Texas becomes the absolute overriding issue. As soon as it as soon as emerged and exploded on the scene with Tyler's actions that we talked about. Now, behind Texas, however, are other ancillary issues that cannot be ignored. The concern of both Clay and Van Buren, among others, was that this was going to exacerbate the slavery issue because we get this vast new territory and how's that going to affect the

slavery debate in America, which everyone knew was the most incendiary debate that we we could get into. And there was also the question of what are we going to do in terms of expansion. Are we going to continue to just move all the way west, or is there a place where we can sort of say, let's consolidate our position on this continent? And that was Clay's position, as well as the concern about slavery. And Van Beren shared that. It's interesting because looking at it from sort of the 30,000-foot Wikipedia level, you think James Polk is not a dark horse. He's the only person in American history to serve as Speaker of the House and President. That sounds like somebody who would be very firmly in the political limelight.

But to both of your points, he had a bit of the stink on him because he had just lost in consecutive elections to resume his governorship of Tennessee. So he had that feeling of a loser about him until Jackson's people got behind him and pushed him over the finish line. So we have this election of 1844, and it's fascinating. It's one of the closest elections in American history. Clay in what is certainly his best chance to become president, fumbles the Texas question, and loses support among immigrants and anti-slavery voters in the north. It should also be said this election is rife with fraud. both you point in the plaque-mines parish near New Orleans, the Democratic vote is larger than the entire white male population of all ages,

including toddlers and babies. So historians are quite sure now that Democrats essentially boarded voters on a steamboat and just sent them down river to vote over and over and over again, a little riverboat tour of voter fraud. But, Walter, to you, before we dive into the meat of the show, which is Polk's presidency and what he accomplished in his four years, How do you think we should remember the 1844 election, the initial subject of your book project? Well, in the broadest sense, it really is a referendum on manifest destiny, and that Polk is going to be given free reign not only in the southwest, but also in Oregon.

But I think in terms of focusing on how narrow the margin, 5,000 votes in the state of New York determined this election and made Polk instead of Henry Clay president. And there's a third-party candidate, James Bernie of the Liberty Party, which is an abolitionist party in the state of New York, who takes about, oh, two to three percent. of the vote. And there's always been the debate about, well, where would those votes have gone? But here's a guy that's getting tens of thousands of votes, and Polk's only winning by 5,000. Now, what happens because New York has so many electoral votes, the final result, Polk gets 170 electoral votes to something like 105, looks pretty big. But again, 36 of those votes are from New York State.

So, but for 5,000 votes, it would have swung the other way. Henry Clay would have been president. And, you know, I think Bob and I both definitely agree that if Henry Clay had been president, I'm not sure how the slavery question would have necessarily come out in the short term. But certainly, Clay had no expectations of taking Oregon to the fold, California like Polk wanted, or, you know, Texas, I think it might have, the issue might have ridden with him for a while. Incredible that something as significant as is the state of California, part of America or Mexico, part of Canada or Mexico hangs on 5,000 votes cast 180 years ago.

So James K. Polk, heir to Andrew Jackson, dark horse candidate, miraculously becomes president. the world is aghast, the Times of London calls Polk's election, quote, the triumph of everything that is worst over everything that is best in the United States, end quote. And immediately upon becoming president, Polk proves that he's an absolute force of nature, especially in the arena of foreign policy, as you alluded to, and as we'll discuss, I think, for the rest of this interview. Bob, there's this term that's floating around in the ether in the mid-1840s,

manifest destiny. Where did this term come from? And what did it mean at the time? Well, the term was coined by a journalist named O'Sullivan. And it was to represent the idea that this midsection of North America was going to fall to the United States eventually somehow or another. And that was manifest as the destiny of America. And that pretty much summed it up. It was, This was a country that was being built, and the sense of it being built was a part of the east, watching it happen, but also especially part of the West. When these people were engaged in moving westward, inexorably westward and larger and larger numbers in building towns and cities and churches and communities and farmlands and all the rest. So, no, it was definitely a significant part of the zeitgeist. When Polk becomes president, the U.S. doesn't have Texas.

We don't have the territories comprising California, Nevada, Utah, or much of what is now Arizona or New Mexico. We certainly didn't have Oregon or Washington State. And when Polk leaves the office four years later, we have all of this. Half a million square miles, more than the entire acreage of the original third colonies appended to the United States. I want to talk about Oregon first, and then I want to talk about the Mexican-American War that wins America so much of its western flank. Let's start with Oregon. When we say Oregon in the 1840s, this is not the Oregon that we know today. It's a vast

stretch of land that goes from the 42nd parallel, which is the current California-Oregon border, all the way up through what is now most of British Columbia. Area had been home to Native Americans for thousands of years before the British come in. Walt, why do you pick up the story here? How did this territory go from being dominated by the British and the Hudson's Bay Company specifically to even being a target of U.S. acquisition? I think the two words that we start with are fur trade. I mean, it's been an area that both the Americans and the British have,

have been in. In 1818, there is a treaty that basically sets the boundary between Canada and the United States along the 49th parallel all the way out to the Rockies. Now, beyond that, to your point, is this territory Oregon, you know, the big picture all the way from the northern border of what's now California to the 5440 line of Alaska. Most of the activity and most of the activity, and most of the interest, I think, as the years go by, focuses along the Columbia River and the Columbia River access to that country, as well as Puget Sound Area. Now, in a nutshell, in 1818, the Americans and the British agree to a 10-year period of joint occupation. They're going to focus on the fur trade. They're not going to build forts. There's not going to be any armed warfare. Let's

see what happens. Well, 10 years. goes by, and what does indeed happen is that they can't agree in terms of an additional 10-year period, they decide to go from a situation where either party can give one-year notice of termination. And basically, that's what Polk wants to do in terms of saying, look, we're not going to do joint occupation anymore. The United States wants all of Oregon, all the way up to the 54-40 boundary, southern boundary of Alaska. 1843, first caravan of the Oregon Trail settlers. That multiplies by additional wagon trains in 1844.

And suddenly, the United States, and this is going to be played out a number of times in this Western expansion, but suddenly the United States, by 1844, has the one thing on the ground in Oregon that Great Britain does not. Settlers. Settlers basically farming and building towns and building communities. It's not this transitory fur trade. So that sort of sets up who's going to control all of Oregon. Walt, I want to stay with you for a bit to talk about Polk's acquisition of Oregon, before we go back to Bob.

You wrote in your book that Polk's winning Oregon, his successful negotiation with Great Britain, required a considerable amount of diplomatic skill, because in a way, Polk was trapped between two extremes. On the one hand, the Democratic Party wanted him to risk war against Britain to obtain all of Oregon country, all the way up to 5440, 5440 your fight, that northern parallel right up against modern Alaska. But Polk is savvy enough, or just plain not stupid enough, to know the U.S. can't afford to go to war against the British Empire.

So how does he maneuver his way through this? So the short story is that the United States and Great Britain, James Buchanan is Polk's secretary of state at this point, leading some of these negotiations, kind of go back and forth of what can we do with this central area? There's really very little settlement north of Puget Sound to be had between there and Alaska. The big stuff that the United States really wants is the rich farmland that's being developed by these Oregon train. the trail, Oregon Trail folks, into the Willamette Valley and other places. So Polk's genius really is, as these negotiations go back and forth, and he finally ends up with a proposal from the British, and he's very adamant in wanting them to make sort of the first offer of the most recent round of negotiations at least. What Polk says to the Senate is, I'm not just going to come to you

for advice and consent and say, do this treaty. I'm going to say, what's your advice first? And by doing that, they approve and say, this is a good idea to strike the compromise at the 49th parallel. And then, of course, Polk comes back and says, well, fine, having given your advice, give your consent, the treaty as well. So the point is, is that, you know, Polk becomes the guy who acquires the better part of the Oregon territory and by giving advice to the British offer of making that division rather than standing firm and asking for all of it, the Senate's sort of on the hook for the fact that the northern part of the territory remains with Great Britain. But Polk has gotten the better part of the territory, the Senate's taken responsibility for at least some of that,

and to the point that we're about to get into, Polk's kept us out of a two-front war, because while all of this is going on, things are simmering in Texas. Bob, as Walt just explained, one really interesting thing about Polk's negotiating strategy here is that he is playing up the Democrats' unreasonableness as a bargaining chip, at the same time that he's negotiating down his position with the Brits. What do you consider the most impressive piece of Polk's diplomatic accomplishment here? In his inaugural address, he said that we had a clear and appropriate claim on all of Oregon. That was highly incendiary, and the Brits went crazy.

But he was prepared to accept the 49th. He was trying to be a little bit Trump-like in coming up with what was. considered an outrageous opening bargain demand, but he was willing to come down. But even that became difficult in terms of negotiating with the British. He had sort of iron nerve. He could be very outrageous, but totally tenacious and come up with a compromise at the last minute that made it work. So what I find so interesting about this deal is not just its success,

but the fact that it comes together in truly the nick of time, because not 10 days after the British accept the Oregon partition proposal, which, again, gives the U.S. modern Washington state in Oregon and leaves Britain in control of what is now British Columbia. Just 10 days later, word reaches London that war has broken out between Mexico and the United States. Like one of those amazing pieces of history, because I wonder sometimes, like, if the Mexican-American War had started two weeks earlier, Britain might have driven a much harder bargain, and Seattle and Portland might now be parts of Canada. But Walt, this now brings Mexico into the picture, and it brings

Texas back into the picture. How does war with Mexico begin? Well, to Bob's earlier point, Texas, really, in the last couple of days of John Tyler's administration, is on the road to American statehood. Few hoops to jump through and everything before it's actually admitted as a state. But being on that road, James K. Polk, who really owes his election, certainly owed his nomination, to standing firm on acquiring Texas, is bound and determined to protect Texas. So by the spring of 1846, we have American troops in Texas, and the issue really, is where's the boundary of Texas? Is it the Nuasis River or is it the Rio Grande? Well, Polk and many people

in the American government and military, for long historical reasons, really feel that it's the real grand. Mexico, of course, is not recognizing Texas independence anyway, but if they were to, they would say the boundary was at the nuasis. And just a quick geography asterisk here, Texas, in 1840, is not Texas, as we know it today. The Nuisas River is both north and east of the Rio Grande. So much of West Texas, or what we call West Texas today, was disputed territory back then. So back to you, Walt. How does war with Mexico begin? So the long and the short of it is that Polk sends Zachary Taylor and American troops to the border of the Rio Grande on what's today the Texas side of the Rio Grande.

and basically puts them out there, almost like pushing a pawn, if you will, see if Bob agrees with that analogy, but putting them out there in a place where there's a likelihood there's going to be some level of confrontation. That confrontation with Mexican cavalry patrols that cross the Rio Grande are on the Texas side occurs in April of 1846. and Zachary Taylor is able to report that military conflict back to Polk. And we can talk about the war powers and declaration of war in a second. But basically, Polk's message to the American Congress is that American blood has been spilled on American soil,

meaning all of that ground north of the Rio Grande. Bob, I think the conventional wisdom today is that the Mexican-American War, was an extraordinary act of manipulation and aggression by the U.S. I mean, here you have Polk sending Zachary Taylor and American soldiers into contested territory, essentially daring Mexico to fire the first shot, and then running back to the Senate to scream that war has already begun. What part of this conventional wisdom? This idea of Polk is an imperialist manipulator who used illegitimate power.

to manufacture a necessary war. What part of that analysis do you think we might get wrong? I think one thing that it doesn't really take into sufficient account is the extent of which Mexico at that time was very much a dysfunctional entity of dysfunctional country. And one of the manifestations of that was a big amount of reparations, payments that were due from Mexico to American citizens who had been abused by, in some cases, Mexican governmental officials and sometimes by rogue elements, people who were trying to do business in Mexico, who were there for various reasons. And Mexico couldn't protect citizens of other countries who were in the region,

in the area, or in Mexico, and ended up with his large demands of reparations. This doesn't get much attention in today's history and some of the anti-Polk people ignore it almost entirely. But a self-respecting nation doesn't allow itself its citizens to be abused by other countries and people from other countries. And France actually went to war with Mexico over their reparations demands and fired on Veracruz. And the Brits threatened to do the same thing. They got their payment, but we didn't. The Mexicans were pretty much ignoring us. So there was, and there were congressional hearings and investigations about this. So there was a serious issue here. And that doesn't get much attention. So Polk in his inimitable way is trying to figure out how he can get this

territory. And you're absolutely right. He wanted this territory. And he was centering his thinking on these reparations requirements because Mexico didn't have the money to pay it. So they could give us land and we could pay the reparations to our own citizens. That was sort of an underlying concept that doesn't get too much attention today. Walt, I'd love to know where you stand here because I can see both sides. On the one hand, it seems very clear that Polk essentially engineered a war by sending Zachary Taylor into a contested area and then using Mexican aggression to tell the Senate that they had to declare a state of war or recognize, I should say, a state of war. On the other hand, independent Texas had just

won a war, a war of independence. Santa Ana had been captured by Sam Houston and had said that Texas could be independent. Mexico refused to ratify that agreement. They refused to pay debts that they owed to other countries. They had no ability to really hold on to this vast territory that Mexico City itself couldn't defend with its military. And so it was an unstable and declining empire facing a much more competent and rising empire to the north. And when power faces power in this way, it's the more powerful country that always gets its way. How do you feel about the real politic or moral question around the beginning? ending of the Mexico-American War?

Well, I think Bob's correct in his analysis of the debts and the fact that the Mexican government itself is pretty dysfunctional. I mean, over the course of Polk's administration, it's almost going to be a revolving door of Mexican leaders, and Santa Ana's going to go through that door more than once. To your point about Texas, after basically the Alamo in 1830, You know, Texas really does be, of course, it does become an independent nation, but it's got some issues, too, in terms of debt and solvency and really wants to be, I would say the majority of people there want to be part of the United States. So in terms of being able to support that claim, and there certainly are historic claims and reasons why the Rio Grande is, you know, is the appropriate boundary. I feel that Polk was justified in terms of putting troops out there

and maybe pushing the envelope a little bit and going after not only the commercial claims, but territory. And I would suggest, we haven't talked a lot about California yet, but I would suggest that Polk, in kind of pushing this pawn on the Rio Grande, recognizes that the northern part of Alta, California, certainly, is something that he desires. And it's kind of interesting, you know, there are some negotiations before this goes to outright warfare by a man named Slydell that Polk sends down to Mexico.

And they're actually talking about in a way of resolving these commercial claims that Bob talks about that perhaps California north of a certain parallel, that would certainly include San Francisco, wouldn't necessarily include the southern part of Los Angeles, might in fact be concluded, recognized the Rio Grande, give California north of that line to the United States and all's well and good. So that amount of territory that the United States is desiring in terms of those negotiations is, of course, much less than what's going to be the end result of the peace treaty at the end of the war. So the U.S. attacks Mexico and multiple fronts.

Zachary Taylor comes down from the north. Winfield Scott leads an amphibious assault on Vera Cruz before encircling, capturing Mexico City. And America wins the war in about two years. And the legacy of war with Mexico is really immense. I mean, just from the raw political standpoint, the Brigadier General is, Zachary Taylor. Another general is Franklin Pierce. Another general is Ulysses S. Grant. Polk's Secretary of State was James Buchanan at the time. So within two decades, all of those men become elected president. And in fact, besides Abraham Lincoln, every president elected between 1844 and

1876 played a key role in the Mexican-American War. I mean, that's 32 years. It's like of every president elected between 1992 and 2024 all fought in the Gulf War, truly a very, very different time. But I want to make sure that we go deeper on the issue of slavery. Bob, first you, how does the acquisition of all of this new territory affect the economics of the slave trade and the debate around slavery? Well, let's talk about the debates first. It was immense. It was a turning point in the saga of America's struggle with the slavery issue, because with all this new territory, the question had inevitably was going to rise, and it arose even while the war was going on with the Wilmot Proviso, which basically said that there would be no territory acquired

through this war that would be allowed, where slavery would be allowed. So that, I just had a book come out last July on the decade leading up to the Civil War, decade of disunion. And it was all stemming from the Mexican-American War, as you point out. So it was pivotal and seminal. Absolutely seminal. Of quoting the historian Daniel Walker Howe here, the consequences of the election of 1844 went far beyond Texas annexation, important as that was. If Henry Clay had won the White House,

almost surely there would have been no Mexican war, no Wilmot proviso, and therefore less reason for the status of slavery in the territories to have inflamed sectional passions. End quote. Walt, as the north and the south are falling to quarreling over the spoils of war in the West, something else is happening.

In 1848, gold is discovered in California. how does the discovery of gold and the gold rush play into polk's legacy well i i guess i would say the the gold rush may prove up polk's interest and reasons for taking california um the gold rush occurs much after polk has has done his uh maneuvers in terms of of getting in this is 1846 1847 getting California to fall into the American orbit. And it's not until, I think, December of 1848 that someone comes to the Oval Office, or it's not the Oval Office yet, but it's the White House.

Someone comes to the White House and basically shows him glimmers of gold from the initial discoveries in California. So what happens is that with the Great Rush to California in 1849. There's this huge flow of population. California becomes a state by 1850. And in those short two years from discovery of gold two years later, I mean, my goodness,

think back to Henry Clay saying, no, I don't really think that we ought to acquire more land or, you know, that's a long-term deal. The California Gold Rush really proves up Polk's climate. claims and interest in why California should become part of the United States and puts that window on the Pacific. And also, if I may add, Lynn's credence to Bismarck's comment that God watches over small children, drunks, and the United States of America. America seemed to be the country of good fortune. Everything seemed to go its way. And it was expanding. It was the country of vast design. and here we are, we fought a war, and sure enough, we discover gold in California, just as if

there was a good fortune in America that God watches over us. Well, I would just agree with that and say to some of the what ifs that you posed before, Derek, I mean, what if gold had been discovered in California a couple of years earlier? Mexico, I'm not sure they would have been successful, but might have tried an awful lot harder militarily to hold onto that territory. What if it had been discovered 40 years ago? Britain probably would have tried to wage war against Mexico and might have extended the Oregon territory, and British Columbia might be a kind of long column from Baja, California,

all the way up to Alaska, if Britain could have sent its Navy against the Mexicans and, say, the 1820s, 1830s. It really is unbelievable that the discovery of gold happens 12, 24 months after the end of the Mexican-American War. It's just it's ludicrous, ludicrous providence. And do remember, just as a footnote, that Russia has a presence in California at this point at Fort Ross, north of San Francisco. It's pretty far removed, and eventually they're going to sell all of Alaska. But Russia's a player in this, too, at that point. But I would posit the point that that territory was not going to remain with Mexico indefinitely in any event.

It was going to be acquired by some larger entity, probably the Brits. I just jotted down some interesting numbers. In terms of population, in 1790, Mexico had 5 million people. The United States had 4 million people. By 1840, the U.S. had 17 million, and Mexico had but 7 million. And so Mexico was not in a position, nor would it have been able to maintain that territory indefinitely. You know, one question, before we get to Polk in his death and legacy, one question I'm not sure I have clarity on. I'm not sure the best way to ask it, but it seems very important to me that the people who lived in Texas, you know, certainly at the time 1840s, the white men who lived in Texas, who had political power, wanted to be annexed by the U.S.

that there was a self-determination case for Texas to belong with the U.S. With the rest of the Mexican territory, from modern New Mexico up through Utah, Nevada, into northern California, do modern historians have any sense of that area's self-determination in the 1840s, or was it such a motley group of settlers and Mexicans and Native Americans that it's hard for us to say that there was any self-identifying nationality. It's hard to say.

I would say that that territory that you just described was very sparsely populated, which was one of the reasons that many people in America were interested, the United States of America, were interested in that land

because they wanted to populate it with people of their own culture, their own background, their own ethnicity. And when we talk about self-determination at that point, the interesting thing is that the numbers of people who are involved who are pro-American and lead, for example, the bare flag revolt in California, in Sonoma, literally numbers in the dozens or at least 100 or so. So there's not, to Bob's point, I agree, there's not much population. and it's amazing to think of today, but a few hundred people make a determination in California.

So after he leaves the presidency, James Polk goes on a speaking tour through the South. Unfortunately, he essentially travels directly into the hurricane of a cholera outbreak. And for a man with a long history of stomach issues, this is courting disaster. He dies soon after leaving the presidency. I believe he has these short.

shortest post-presidency lifespan of any president, even to date. And on his tombstone, AOP Nicholson supplies the following lines, quote, by his public policy, he defined, established, and extended the boundaries of his country. He planted the laws of the American Union on the shores of the Pacific. Bob, if you're writing Polk's tombstone epitaph, what would you write? What would you remember about this man? Well, I think that AOP Nixon had it about right. That's what he did.

His legacy, as I wrote, is manifest in the outlines of the map of the United States of America. And it was, as you have noted throughout this conversation, quite a remarkable achievement that reflected some tremendous capacity on the part of this,

rather unprepossessing man. I describe him as small of stature and drab of temperament. And he was a smaller than life figure with larger than life ambitions. But those ambitions were backed up

with a tremendous amount of force. We've talked a lot about Polk's expansion. You know, welcoming Texas into the Union, bluffing the British out of half of Oregon, going to war with Mexico to grab California and the southwest. We haven't talked as

about how we expanded the executive power of the presidency. But in fact, Arthur Schlesinger in his classic book, the imperial presidency, he gives a lot of room to Polk. He describes him as a micromanager who totally redefined the presidency in his brief four years. How would you say Polk expanded and redefined the executive power of the presidency in his time? I think the first point is really about war powers. You know, the only prior declaration of war has been in the war of 1812, where James Madison, who, of course, is an author of the Constitution, basically says to Congress, well, you know, what do you think we ought to do? He understands that the power to declare war is lodged in Article 1 with Congress. By the time Polk comes to send a war message,

he basically says, as we've discussed before, that a state of war exists. And, and And that pendulum, I think, in terms of war powers and presidents, even when they go to Congress after Polk and ask for a declaration of war, really puts the president ahead of where certainly James Madison would have argued the presidency was. He is a micromanager. It's hard to believe today. but in the six cabinet officers that he had at that particular point, they met twice a week. He was the one directing each of those cabinets. And we're talking about a handful of people at state and likewise in those other six departments that are state, Treasury, War, Navy, Attorney General, and Postmaster General.

And he really confers with that cabinet. We haven't talked about his diary. He begins to keep a diary in the summer of 1846, and it's really insightful in terms of the interactions with his cabinet, how much he relies on them, but more to the point, how much he instructs them on what to do. We haven't talked about the issue of one of his goals was basically being, like Andrew Jackson, against the national bank. He wants to establish an independent treasury, essentially the four.

of the Federal Reserve System. He does that. I think there are a lot of critics who would say, oh, my gosh, you know, Andrew Jackson was going to be this military chieftain. Well, the truth of matter is that Polk comes into office. And as I'm right, I think really outdoes Jackson, not only in terms of his war power stand, but also when war is declared, he's really giving instructions to Zachary Taylor in the north and Winfield Scott after Scott lands at Veracruz. And, you know, we can contrast that with Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. It really, I think, takes Lincoln a while to get into the point where he's directing a little bit more.

I mean, he gives McClellan pre-free reign. And Polk was determined not to do that from the very beginning, in part because Taylor and Scott are are Whig generals, and he keeps looking for a good Democrat general to lead the campaign. So those are some of the things why I think Polk's certainly the strongest executive of the early 19th century. I want to close by asking what both of you think American history would look like without James K. Polk. What if Henry Clay had won the election of 1844? You know, is California part of America today?

Does Clay find a way to avoid or somehow minimize a civil war by paying off southern slave owners, as he said he wanted to do in several occasions? I know that, you know, counter histories are a little bit difficult, or maybe the problem with them is that they're too easy. You can always make something up and it's unfalsifiable. But I'd love to get your brains on it. So Bob, we'll start with you. What is American history like with that James K. Polk?

Well, I think American history would be very different. I think that the slavery issue would probably have not come to a head as early as it ended up doing. But I think that ultimately that territory that Polk brought into the union was going to be brought into the union. And that the basic outline of the United States would be roughly the same today as it. as it ended up being. Getting into the whole question of the Civil War and the slavery issue is much more difficult, and I hesitate to really sort of toss that out. It's hard to say.

But there was going to be a comeuppance in a confrontation on slavery. I don't see how it could have possibly been avoided, which is one of the themes of my book that came out in last July. So history has a way of moving along a broad course, and it can, rivulets can move here and there, but basically it's going to continue on the course that it sets for itself. It's interesting because there are two ideas there that I think are intention. The idea on the one hand that the discovery of gold in California in the 1840s immediately changed the fate of and the value. of California to any empire that wanted to acquire it. And on the other hand, the idea that maybe the

U.S. would have expanded to the Pacific, even if Polk didn't try to acquire California in the mid-1840s. Do you see attention there? Oh, I see attention there, but I just think that American expansionism was a force of nature, and there was an inevitability to what was going to come about. Walt, what about you? What does American history look like without Polk? Well, I agree about that inevitability of expanding across the North American continent. I think maybe one of the intriguing what-ifs.

And, you know, Polk kind of went back and forth on this a little bit, is what would the United States look like today if, in fact, Polk had basically supported some of the folks who wanted, quote, all of Mexico as part of the terms of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I mean, if all of Mexico had become part of the United States, or even if the northern tier of provinces, like some people were advocating, had become part of the United States, you know, what would that say today to some of of the issues of where we are. And, of course, there are other people at the same time who are wanting Polk to acquire Cuba. So there's the inevitable expansion, which I definitely agree with Bob

on in terms of across the continent, but there's sort of the intriguing what-ifs of what if Polk had gone even farther. This was a lot of fun. I really appreciate it. Walt Bournemann, Robert Mary, thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Derek, very much. Many thanks to Bob Mary and Walt Borman for this show. We would love to hear your feedback for Plain History. What do you think about this little podcast than a podcast?

What are some Plain History episodes that you think we should cover? Send emails to PlainEnglish at Spotify.com, and we will see you next week.