Western American Guilt & President Polk

My Dad has been on a genealogy kick the last few years, trying his best to trace his family tree back as far as possible. He has a particular interest in whether we are (likely) related in some way to our nation's 11th president, James K. Polk. This question admittedly holds great interest for me, although I think I take a dimmer view of Polk's presidency than my Dad does. 

Even his critics admit that Polk was certainly one of the most accomplished presidents. He campaigned on four large goals: cut tariffs, reestablish an independent U.S. Treasury, secure the Oregon Territory (from the Brits) and acquire the territories of (Alta) California and New Mexico from Mexico. He did all this, along with annexing Texas, in just one term as planned, indelibly and massively changing the United States forever. He promised to be a one term president and kept this promise, working himself to death in the White House. They say the presidency ages the office holder at an advanced rate, and this was certainly true of Polk. Portraits at the beginning and end of his 4 years show a rapidly aging man, and he died just three months after retiring from the presidency to his home in Tennessee with his wife Sarah.

Wanting to learn more about Polk's term and the oft-overlooked U.S.-Mexican war of 1846-1848, I recently read A Wicked War by Amy Greenberg. I wasn't optimistic of how Polk would be portrayed in this book, and sure enough Greenberg paints an account of a truly unprovoked war of aggression by the USA against its southern neighbor. An unabashed land-theft, with the added bonus of war crimes committed by unregulated militia/part-time troops sent from various American states to help the regular American army. While the (mostly immigrant) regular American forces did their grim duty in a relatively civilized manner, the militia (many of whom only signed up for a few months and went as they pleased) stole the glory, while often contributing little to the war effort other than raping and murdering civilians. 

Polk knew what he was doing. Annexing Texas in and of itself was largely seen by the world as illegal. Mexico maintained (and likely rightly so) that the Texan war of independence was illegitimate in large part because it was led by (white) pro-slavery American settlers who basically moved in and then decided they didn't want to be a part of Mexico anymore (because of slavery prohibition). This must be balanced by the fact Mexico encouraged lots of immigration from the U.S. into Texas. But yeah, there's lots of history there that most Texans are either ignorant or ashamed of. And no, despite the bizarrely widespread nature of the myth, Texas does not have some special agreement with the U.S. that they can secede at any time because the U.S. wanted Texas so badly. In fact, the Republic of Texas was desperate to be annexed so that their war debt could be acquired by the U.S. federal government (first petitioning to be the newest American state as early as 1836).

Polk in 1845 at the beginning of his presidency.

Many American politicians were opposed to both annexing Texas and starting the U.S.-Mexico conflict. But Polk put an expeditionary force in southern Texas with the intent of starting a battle. They goaded the Mexican forces into a skirmish by encroaching on their borders, then said "look at the fight the Mexicans started!". It was a rather naked lie, but communication between Texas and Washington D.C. took weeks. Many members of congress opposed to the conflict voted to authorize it anyway, under the pretext that war was in effect already begun weeks ago. Therefore, it only made sense to commit whole hog. There was face to save and troops to support. It's eerie how similar the situation reads compared to George W. Bush's administration and his Iraq invasion.

So Polk had his war. This was the first American war with significant amounts of embedded journalists, and as conflict progressed it was painted in a very poor light as military atrocities were reported. Polk was stopped short of Annexing all of Mexico (yes, many people wanted that). But he still stole an almost unimaginable amount of land (the conflict was largely one-sided, with American forces even successfully sieging Mexico City). His full territorial ambitions were slightly curtailed by turning public opinion, influenced in large part by Whig presidential candidate Henry Clay (a vocal opponent of the war - his famous speech against it cost him any chance at a second party nomination for president) and his young acolyte Abe Lincoln. Unsung hero Nicholas Trist (unfortunately a supporter of slavery earlier in his life, but he somewhat redeems himself here) was sent by Polk to sue Mexico for as much land as possible to resolve the conflict, only to betray the president - working on behalf of the Mexicans to secure a quick end to the bloodshed without forcing them to give up more land than necessary in what he saw as an immoral war (I do recommend Greenberg's book - it's part war history and part biography of Polk, Clay, Lincoln and Trist during this time). Trist later lamenting that, "My feeling of shame as an American was far stronger than the Mexicans' could be."

Between this war (including Texas annexation) and the purchase of the Oregon territory from the Brits, Polk successfully expressed Manifest Destiny to an almost absurd degree. For better or worse, his administration expanded the U.S. by adding through war & annexation what is now Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, & Wyoming, and through treaty with the British: Washington, Oregon and Idaho, as well as parts of Montana and Wyoming (Iowa and Wisconsin also became states during his presidency, unrelated to the aforementioned events). To say the U.S. would look different without James K. Polk would be an understatement. 

A rapidly declining Polk in 1849.

So how should I feel about this? Even if I am distantly related to a president, I don't feel guilt for the relation. I don't believe in inheriting the sins of the father (and thank goodness - my Mom's side of the family is definitely a mixed bag; part of her lineage traces back to revolutionary war fighters - hooray! - and other ancestors were slave owners in Virginia - boo!). I am, however, obviously a white man living in what used to be Mexico. I suppose it is what it is and it wouldn't have turned out any differently if I had stayed in Indiana, since time doesn't work in a loop or a squiggly line (that we know of). Nothing I do is going to give back territory to Mexico, undo slavery or reverse the mass rape, murder and land-theft perpetrated against native peoples in the U.S. and elsewhere.

But should we still feel guilty about this in 2024? We're doomed to repeat the sins of the past if we don't learn from them. Like most Americans, I was far too ignorant of this war and its specious origin. I still don't have much knowledge of other significant conflicts such as the Spanish-American war of 1898. And of course, our government has been involved in more nasty illegal military interventions in smaller countries than we can shake a stick at, most of which have flown under the radar. Maybe if I had a better grasp of history, I wouldn't have been so supportive of the 2003 Iraq War and its consequences that seem so predictable in hindsight. 

I'm not sure how to wrap this up, but I suppose I'll just say "what's done is done". Even if I had a time machine and could undo past wrongs, who knows what the consequences would be with the butterfly effect and all that. Maybe I would have triggered world-ending nuclear war between the still two largest superpowers of the world: England and France. Best I can do is try to keep a balanced perspective and not turn my back on history and current events. James K. Polk was one of the most ruthlessly effective U.S. Presidents in history. But his obsession with Manifest Destiny at any cost was evil. That's his legacy, not mine.