Matthew Yglesias (December 03, 2006) - The Question of Polk (Foreign Policy)

Without the territories Polk got from Mexico by war and from Britain by diplomacy, the U.S. would still have had a Pacific coast, from the mouth of the Columbia to the northern border of California.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/dwe/16335.htm

Posted by David Tomlin | December 3, 2006 9:00 PM

Matt you misread Brinkley; he has Bush rated with Hoover and above Nixon and Harding.

Astoundingly, Brinkley takes the following position: "I also believe that he [George W. Bush] is an honest man and that his administration has been largely void of widespread corruption."

I think the Bush administration will be looked back upon as at least as corrupt as the Harding administration. Harding, himself, was not corrupt but his administration was and by that measure Bush and his administration, too, will be judged.

Posted by CMike | December 3, 2006 9:06 PM

Wasn't that one of the big neo-con arguments in favor of the Iraq war? That we should embrace the great American tradition of unprovoked invasions to turn swarthy countries into democracies, following that greatest of American presidents, James K. Polk? Or...no, wait...it was going to be like Polk/Mexico but without the annexation, and like McKinley/Spain except without the "insurgency" part of the Philippines, and like FDR/Germany-Japan except without the part where we were actually attacked by the countries in question, and not like LBJ/Vietnam at all in any way. Oh, and also like the American Revolution somehow I think, except not the whole volunteer-militias-resisting-foreign-armies way of looking things.

It was a very dense and layered historical analogy, as I recall.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 3, 2006 9:14 PM

I always had my suspicions about Old Kinderhook. The red heads who don't speak English have always made for poor presidents.

Posted by Jackson | December 3, 2006 9:21 PM

Matty Van, he's our man!

Posted by brooksfoe | December 3, 2006 9:35 PM

"At the end of the day, Polk's hard to evaluate just because it's so hard to imagine a world in which the United States doesn't extend from sea to shining sea."

Ah, but at the end of Era Bush it is is somewhat easier to imagine an Iraq that doesn't extend from sea to wherever-it-presently-ends.

Posted by Linus | December 3, 2006 9:43 PM

I'm curious about whether a Big Mexico from a non-Polk world would enjoy what is in our world a Mexican standard of living, or an American one. I'm guessing it's closer to Mexican, but I don't know a whole lot about what to say here.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 3, 2006 9:54 PM

If not for James K. Polk, imagine an American culture sans Las Vegas, Barry Goldwater, Mormons, and the entire state of California. We'd be much poorer for it.

Posted by DRR | December 3, 2006 9:55 PM

Apparently the TMBG Johns are at best Polk fans with reservations. From the Factory Show Room liner notes:

The lyrics are as factual as we could make them with the reference books handy. James Knox Polk, the 11th President of the U.S., was a dark horse candidate who unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination and the election based on his popularity in the South with his stated goal of annexing Texas, the Southwest, and the Oregon Territories. Once in office he fanned the flames of dispute between the U.S. and Mexico to achieve part of this aim. (The Mexican War is still commemorated in the expression 'Remember the Alamo!') Personally, we find his expansionist policies ruthless and unscrupulous, but the existence of the Western U.S. is largely due to him.

Posted by JP | December 3, 2006 10:08 PM

CMike said:
"I think the Bush administration will be looked back upon as at least as corrupt as the Harding administration. Harding, himself, was not corrupt but his administration was and by that measure Bush and his administration, too, will be judged."

Certainly there has been plenty of barely legal and illegal payoffs to the money = free speech party. But, corruption is about illicit power and money is just one form of power.

The main reason monetary corruption is so injurious is not because of the bribes per se, but because government that is focused on personal enrichment makes many long-term bad decisions that waste the countries assets.

So also, those in government focused on personal power also make lots of bad decisions. The elevation of oneself as an exception to the rules is the heart of corruption.

Posted by GregPStone | December 3, 2006 10:13 PM

I've wondered whether GW Bush was the worst president the U.S. has had for at least four years. Sadly, the answer is no. Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson were both worse. Wilson is the only president we have had to date to have jailed his political opponents, and he lied to get us into World War I, and then screwed up the peace settlement for that, which still rates worse on the disaster meter than Iraq. Jackson still holds the record among U.S. presidents for crimes against humanity, for his Indian policies, and screwed up the financial sector even worse than Bush has.

Yet, for some reason, historians consistently rate both as "near great presidents".

I like Polk. Polk promised to annex the Oregon territory, grab territory from Mexico, and lower the tariff, and did all three in four years. He is probably the only president to have made three controversial, significant promises to the voters and kept all of them. Its hard also to argue that any of these policies turned out badly.

Its true that one of the effects of the Bush administration has been to make previous presidents with dubious records look better, particularly the Republicans Reagan, Nixon, Harding, and Grant, as well as his predecessor Bill Clinton.

Posted by Ed | December 3, 2006 10:23 PM

For quite a while I've thought it would be interesting to write an essay on the moral assumptions of presidential rankings. Most of this kind of historian usually rates presidents according to how effectively they accomplished the goals that they set out to do--unless those 'accomplishments' were quickly overturned and repudiated. These rankings favor the winners, even when it is clear that winning had a lot to do with getting lucky. This why they are able to make claims about why e.g. Reagan or FDR were good or great presidents, without making much reference to the actual goodness of these presidents' overall political aims. Meanwhile most ordinary people judge presidents based not only on whether they got what they wanted but also on whether what they wanted was good. Most of the policies which presidents push have explicit ideological aims which presidental historians seem to be largely agnostic about.

My guess is that 30 years from now historians will not be praising Clinton for passing a deficit reduction package or welfare reform that actually turned out to be a good policy, and giving him credit for being smart enough to see it would turn out that way, but rather because he pulled it off and turned it into a personal political success. And if everything had turned out well in Iraq, Bush would have historians wagging their fingers at us about how quickly we the voters forgot about Bush's kick-butt job as commander-in-chief and focused on his poor performance in other areas. They surely wouldn't be wringing their hands about civilian casualty estimates from the battle of Falluja. Kind of reminds me of Max Weber's statement that future generations will not remember our petty political squabbles but rather the amount of elbow-room we won and handed down to them.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | December 3, 2006 10:25 PM

I've yet to hear or read a persuasive argument Bush, Cheney and a few others in this administration shouldn't be hanged. Many thousands have died, been maimed or permanently displaced from their native lands as a result of Bushco's illegal actions. Why, exactly, shouldn't gallows be erected?

Posted by steve duncan | December 3, 2006 10:37 PM

Should have read the Brinkley article first. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

"Most Americans applaud Truman's dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they achieved the desired effect: Japan surrendered. Reagan's anti-communist zeal -- including increased defense budgets and Star Wars -- is only now perceived as positive because the Soviet Union started to unravel on his watch."

The fact that dropping the bomb on Japan was followed by some good event, and the fact that it didn't backfire on Truman politically, is enough for Brinkley to mark it down as the sign of a good president. Never mind about the very legitimate question whether dropping the bomb was necessary. It's as if presidential historians are simply preserving the public opinion of the past for us.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | December 3, 2006 10:37 PM

Like Ed, I would rank Woodrow Wilson as worse than Bush. In fact, I would rank Wilson the worst president in history. Not only did he use fraud and subterfuge to get us into WWI (after specifically promising to keep us out), he also, as Ed noted, actually criminalized dissent against the war. No doubt Bush would like to do that, but he hasn't, in fact, been able to. Furthermore, the results were utterly catastrophic: no Wilsonian intervention means no Treaty of Versailles, and thus no Hitler and no World War II. Wilson was a vacuous, airheaded fool who paved the road for horrors worse than the world had ever seen.

Let's not also forget Wilson's racism, manifested in praise for Birth of a Nation and the expulsion of all blacks from the federal civil service.

I'd rank Bush as the 2nd-worst president ever, after Wilson, although Ed makes a strong case that Andrew Jackson should rank higher. Why do academics like Wilson? Professional solidarity, mostly; he was one of them. And they're the ones making the rankings.

Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan are notable mostly for what they failed to do - namely, stop the slide into civil war. But they didn't cause much active harm. Both took over an angry, divided nation on the brink of war, and left behind an angry, divided nation still on the brink of war. Bush, on the other hand, took over a largely prosperous and optimistic nation and ran it into the ground faster than most people thought possible.

Ulysses S. Grant is underrated. Sure, there was corruption in his administration, but this was the Gilded Age, so that was nothing unusual. What was unusual about Grant's administration is that he took Reconstruction seriously, and made strong attempts to protect the civil rights of Southern blacks. Although he failed in the end, he deserves a great deal of credit for making the effort. Rutherford B. Hayes, who sold out blacks to win power, is a much worse president than Grant.

Warren G. Harding is often rated among the worst, but I don't see why. What did he actually do that was so bad? A few of his cronies stole money from the treasury. That happened under Bush, too, and unlike Bush, Harding never got the U.S. into any wars, nor were we attacked on our own soil after Harding had been warned of the possibility of an attack taking place. Harding was a caretaker president during a time of peace and prosperity. He wasn't expected to do much, and he didn't. Harding is basically what a lot of people thought they were going to get with Bush.

Herbert Hoover can't be completely faulted for his response to the Depression, since no one really understood what to do at the time. Even FDR worked mostly by trial and error. That FDR was able to get things working again shows how great FDR was, not how bad Hoover was.

I'd rank James K. Polk around the middle of the pack. He accomplished his goals, but they were goals most Americans today would not consider particularly praiseworthy. Nonetheless, an argument can be made that from a utilitarian perspective (the greatest good for the greatest number), Polk's annexations were a net benefit.

I also agree with Neil the Ethical Werewolf that Mexico would be nearly as poor without losing the territory it did. There seems to be a fundamental reason why British-settled societies (the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) do better than Spanish and Portuguese-settled societies (most of Latin America). Part of this, I think, is that British-descended societies are more likely to have a broad and robust middle class, while Spanish-style societies are much more stratified. If Hugo Chavez manages to create a strong and independent middle class, it might help Venezuela break the mold.

Posted by Josh | December 3, 2006 10:54 PM

There may be a certain amount of decreased sympathy or outrage on the issue of how many people a given President got killed as time goes on, simply because, as time goes on, everyone that President did or didn't get killed wound up dead anyway.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 3, 2006 10:57 PM

Matt, it pains me to say this, but while I respect your opinions on foreign policy, the NBA, indie rock, education policy, and The Wire, you're really shit when it comes to history.

I think that last sentence reveals your profound lack of an historical imagination. If you were one of my students, and wrote something like that on an exam, I'd give you a C. (And that's even counting for Ivy League grade inflation.)

Posted by Charles | December 3, 2006 11:14 PM

Without the territories Polk got from Mexico by war and from Britain by diplomacy, the U.S. would still have had a Pacific coast, from the mouth of the Columbia to the northern border of California.

I'm not sure that's clear. From the site you link to: "Along with territorial disputes with Spain and Mexico over the Southwest, the fate of the Oregon Territory was one of the major diplomatic issues of the first half of the 19th century. The territory became a focus of those who believed that it was the United States’ obligation and right to extend its rule and liberties across the North American continent. The Oregon Territory stretched from the Pacific coast to the Rocky Mountains, encompassing the area including present-day Oregon, Washington, and most of British Columbia."

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 3, 2006 11:18 PM

Bush, on the other hand, took over a largely prosperous and optimistic nation and ran it into the ground faster than most people thought possible.

Really? Say what you will about Bush -- he's clearly headed for bottom 5-10 presidents of all time in my book -- but "ran [the country] into the ground" seems like a pretty serious overstatement here. Iraq's a disaster, and there are many domestic things I'd like to change, but honestly, some perspective here folks. Please.

Posted by right | December 3, 2006 11:31 PM

Madison and US Expansionism

If you're going to give Polk and his war of aggression against Mexico a free pass because, hey, it worked, and we got to keep the Southwest that we stole fair and square, you have to let Madison off the hook for the War of 1812 as well. Yes, it was militarily a disaster, but it let us keep the Louisiana Purchase.

We indeed bought Louisiana from France in 1803, with no coercion or other shadow on that transaction itself. But Louisiana was, in effect, "stolen goods", that Spain had no right to transfer to France in 1800, nor France to receive from them. When Great Britain took New France at the end of the Seven Year's War, they originally intended to keep the whole thing for themselves. But they wanted to placate Spain, and the defeated France, and so kept only Canada, letting Spain have Louisiana to round out its Carribean possessions. But because Spain and France were both ruled by branches of the Bourbons throughout the 18th Century, they not infrequently allied on the basis of their Family Compact. So Great Britain stipulated in the Treaty of Utrecht by which Spain was given Louisiana, that Spain could never give it in turn back to France. Bourbon Spain and Bonapartist France, both at war with GB in 1800, broke the Treaty of Utrecht, and Spain, under pressure from Napoleon, gave Louisiana to France in the secret 3rd Treaty of San Ildefonso. Subsequently, France sold Louisiana to the US, and Spain's Bourbons were replaced by a Bonaparte regime.

As the US conflict with GB (over their incitement of Native American attacks on the US, and over their aggressive blockade of Europe) worsened in 1812, the British army in the Peninsula broke out of Portugal, and invaded Spain, advancing inexorably on Madrid. The views of the branch of the Bourbons that GB supported to return to the Spanish throne suddenly became relevant. And these folks, not surprisingly, agreed with His Majesty's Government that the 3rd Treaty of San Ildefonso was illegal, violating the Treaty of Utrecht, and only acceded to by Spain in 1800 under duress. Folks in the US who liked the Louisiana Purchase saw in 1812 a crisis in our prospect of keeping that territory. A small chunk of the territory was hastily admitted as the state of Louisiana, and war with GB was pushed through Congress, both to remove Canada as a platform for attacks on Louisiana, and to generally help GB lose its struggle with Bonaparte, who, whatever his other failings, at least was the only power left in Europe who recognized the legality of the Louisiana Purchase. Our help was not sufficient to keep GB from installing its puppet on the throne of Spain, and otherwise defeating Bonaparte, but at least Andrew Jackson kept the Royal Army from taking New Orleans in 1815. The Treaty that ended the war would not have required GB to give back New Orleans had they captured it, and they certainly did not intend to do so, since they came prepared with an army of occupation drawn from their Carribean possessions, and so not subject to crippling losses from malaria and Yellow Fever if they summered in New Orleans.

Had the war hawks not pushed through war with GB in 1812, there is every likelihood that GB, through its Spanish puppet, would have come after Louisiana after they had disposed of Bonaparte. At that point, no one but the US would have recognized our claim as legal. Restoring at least the mouth of the Mississippi to Spanish or British control would have stymied US expansion past the Alleghenies (well, at least until the railroad), and so would have probably merited at least some military effort to restore the claim of the restored Bourbons to Louisiana, had that even been necessary. The New Orleans campaign was a near run thing as it was, and a similar expedition against the peacetime military establishment of the US of that time would not have met significant resistance.

Militarily, the War of 1812 did not go as brilliantly as the War with Mexico. But we won the only battle that counted, the one that let us keep New Orleans, and with it the Louisiana Purchase. Without this successfully defensive war with GB from 1812 to 1815, it isn't clear that we would have been allowed to keep the "stolen goods" that was the Louisiana Purchase.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | December 3, 2006 11:56 PM

"...just because it's so hard to imagine a world in which the United States doesn't extend from sea to shining sea."

It was, to quote the Duke of Wellington, a very near run thing. Polk nearly lost to Henry Clay, who was opposed to the annexation of Texas. The candidacy of anti-slavery third-party candidate James G. Birney siphoned off enough popular votes to throw the election to the expantionist Polk. In fact, Polk wasn't supposed to get the Democratic nomination at all; it was supposed to go to former president Martin Van Buren (another anti-annexationist) but Andrew Jackson threw his support to Polk because Van Buren displeased him. Without the annexation of Texas, it's extremely unlikely that there would ever have been a Mexican War (at least between the US and Mexico; probably would have been a couple between Mexico and Texas). Without Texas, though, I can easily see a US war against Great Britain for the Oregon Territory.

Posted by The Local Crank | December 4, 2006 12:07 AM

While we're at it, the War of 1812 was an often-overlooked turning point in American history. If the Cherokee and the Muscogee (Creek) had listened to Tecumseh in 1811 and joined his alliance, the US would've lost that war and might not have made it as far as the Mississippi (at least not without a couple more wars) much less the Pacific.

Posted by The Local Crank | December 4, 2006 12:10 AM

Historians generally rank Polk low among Presidents for more short term reasons than are being discussed here. Beyond his basic dishonesty in getting us into war, historians note that the results precipitated sectional conflicts that eventually broke the existing two-party system, which was designed to minimize sectional conflicts and postpone conflict and war as long as possible. Texas Annexation was opposed not just because it would provoke war, but because northerners and abolititionists saw it as a blatant attempt by southerners to increase their power in government by adding more slave states. Same with the Mexican War, since most of the territory was directly adjacent to other southern states. Hence the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850. The death of the Whig Party led more or less directly to the rise of the Republican Party, the election of Lincoln, and the Civil War.

As far as Wilson goes, we're judging him almost entirely by the longterm results of his foreign policies, and even there the debate is not entirely fair to him. We're not giving due credit to his vision for America - one that fundamentally altered our relationship to the world at large. In principle, Wilson opposed the many punitive provisions of Versailles - but he did not have enough clout to outmanuver the French and the British diplomatically. He also of course was the brainchild for the League of Nations, the precursor to today's United Nations, and was the first to espouse a grand philosophy for a world of democratic nations. Their is much to lament about the results of the "Great War," but the fall of all the world's major conservative autocratic regimes does not register on that list. Domestically, much of his legislation laid the groundwork for modern day liberalism - the Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, lower tarriffs, the first federal income tax, and of course women's suffrage.

Posted by Chris | December 4, 2006 12:12 AM

[Bush] "ran [the country] into the ground" seems like a pretty serious overstatement here.-- Right

Right, I think you're wrong. This is not a serious overstatement. I think "ran the country into the ground" is as wildly on-target as Shinseki's troop estimates.

Posted by Scenic Route Mile 49 | December 4, 2006 12:31 AM

"should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States."

Enh. 'Unprovoked' would be the problem here. If you will recall Texas (along with the Republic of the Rio Grande and the Yucatan) had all seceded from Mexico at one point or another after Santa Anna made himself dictator. (SA put down 11 different rebellions during 1835-1845 including waging two different campaigns that would currently fall under the term ethnic cleansing.) Only Texas managed to retain independence however. (The failure of the Yucatan to succeed in breaking away is partly the fault of Sam Houston who didn't want to pay for the upkeep of the Texas Navy and didn't want to supply the Yucatanian rebels.)

At which point, southern Democrats decided it would be a keen idea to annex Texas to bolster the slave states, and managed to talk the Texans into it. (Annexation had originally been requested by Texas, and then that request had been retracted while Texas made friends with the French and the British.)

John Tyler, Not-Whig extraordinaire, pushed this along on the theory that the Democrats would nominate him. That plan failed.

Polk comes in, and accepts Tyler's handiwork. The Mexicans had already threatened war over annexation; Polk sent troops into the (disputed) territorial claim. I note here that the same thing was done with Oregon territory. Which brings us to the British who were trying to maintain their alliance with Mexico, establish an alliance with Texas to prevent any further gains by the US in that direction plus capture all of Oregon territory down to and including San Francisco (they had a claim on that as well).

So Polk sent troops in, the Mexicans attacked and we declared war and they counter-declared war. Both countries were spoiling for war. One could argue that Mexico was defending its claims - except that I could respond that Santa Anna's campaign had been essentially about conquering New Spain for the dictatorship of Mexico City. (Further adding that they had a claim in Oregon as well!).

So, yes, everybody was into territorial aggrandizement. The Mexicans wound up on the short end of the stick. (A fact that they haven't forgotten.) Polk then won his war. And did not run for reelection as he had announced before winning the election.

Bush, on the other hand, picked another hemisphere and a country that wasn't spoiling for a fight to engage in some new century-style imperialism primarily for the purpose of...winning elections. And he's losing.

The interesting thing is that Tyler sold out his party, attempting to accomplish the same things as Polk for the purpose of winning the election and didn't manage to accomplish anything except stagnation for almost four years. I'd argue that Tyler on any measure was far worse than Polk. (And thereby, making him comparable to Bush.)

Lind:
But cold geopolitics should have led Washington to prefer a British victory, which would have preserved a balance of power in Europe, to a French victory that would have left France an unchecked superpower.

That was the argument made by the defacto-seceding states of the Northeastern states in 1808-1814. The problem was, was that Madison was trying to steer a neutral course between the two powers, not assist in a French victory and the British were trying to coerce us onto their team. There was no way the French posed a threat to the United States. This was bitterly opposed in the Northeast which worked hard to undermine Madison's policy (since principle and profit went together; they wanted the money from trading with the British). Madison did not, however, start a civil war with the Northeast (perhaps leading to something like the 'Burning of Boston') and managed to lose to the British gracefully enough that the whole is listed as a victory. Which was in the sense that the French went away and the British left alone.

Whether we should have persued that policy, Madison suceeded in carrying it out without turning the US into a lackey of the Birtish OR the French. (And why, in fuck's name, Lind wants to compare Napoleon to Hitler is beyond me. What, it was 1938 in 1810? Seriously, Napoleon was more-or-less the Sun King II except that his empire fell apart so he lost his crown. BFD. Hrmm. Maybe Louis the XV would be a better comparison, but he was personally weak. Whatever.)

Hrmm. Missed a line. Lind:
Instead, eager to conquer Spanish Florida and seize British Canada, Madison sided with the more dangerous power against the less dangerous.

France had no navy, fool! Madison sided with the power less dangerous to US against the power that was MORE dangerous to us. I'm not fucking British, I'm fucking American!

Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.

Um, RFK? Wiretapping? Johnson tapping Nixon campaign headquarters? (Mind, Nixon was trying to persuade Thieu to stay in the war; Johnson knew this and knew Nixon was thwarting his efforts to get the South Vietmanese to sign an agreement (ANY agreement) to help Humphrey win the election. Johnson couldn't do anything about it due to that illegal wiretap thingy. And let's not get started on Diem.)

Brinkley, hrmm. McKinley was cautious about going to war with Spain, his advisors weren't.

Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes.

Bullshit. Nixon was personally distasteful and paranoid, but he was playing the game as it had been played for some years. Bush got his money as a political gift, he got his nomination the same way, he was on the winning (i.e. cheating) end of the 'too close to call' election, and he ducked a war that he could have fought against a country that actually attacked us, in favor of a war that he thought he could win quick which would get him reelected. Jesus Christ, if it was a choice between Nixon and Bush, I'd take Nixon any day. Nixon wasn't that personally vile, plus, he had a working brain.

And Hoover? Hoover was a fool. And he certainly did NOT 'fail to respond' for ideological reasons, unless you wanta sorta overlook the fault that he was the guy that kept the Soviets supplied with food during 1921-22. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once he was booted, Roosevelt basically did HooverPlusMore, in his first time. Interestingly, it didn't much work for Roosevelt either.

Hrmmm. You can make an argument for Buchanan; he agreed with slavery, but weirdly didn't support secession (on what grounds I've never understood) but didn't work against it either. He didn't 'end it' or 'mend it'. He persued a (heh heh heh) a 'centrist' course of whinging a lot and sitting around with his thumb up his ass.

In fact, honestly, I don't see how Tyler and Buchanan aren't considered the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of fuckup presidents. The one got the fire going (the annexation of Texas was Tyler's (a de facto Dem, BTW, I'm not picking on the Whigs, since they rejected him) deal, and the other didn't put it out.

Hrmmm. Ya know, I think I can finally put my finger on what has bugged me before, during and now sorta after Iraq II. The historical spin offered up by the pundits of New York and Washington are almost invariably identical to the London-centric view of the work. Anti-French, anti-German, pro-Russian (pro- when they were communists, anti- when they aren't), pro-Spain (sorta), pro-Mexican (see above about Mexico and Britain ...and Santa Anna was 'the Napoleon of the West'), anti-Hindu, pro-Chinese and quasi-pro-Moslem. That'd be fine if I was fucking British (Liberal Imperialist/ Tory/ loyal to the Crown).

m, I'm so disapppointed in Michael Lind

Posted by max | December 4, 2006 12:43 AM

Do you suppose Bush will be immortalized in another 150 years by a street in a major west coast port of entry noted for male prostitution and rough trade, as well as a gay disco song that mentions said street, and his name?

Posted by Linus | December 4, 2006 1:38 AM

Josh,

Very interesting generalization of yours here:

I also agree with Neil the Ethical Werewolf that Mexico would be nearly as poor without losing the territory it did. There seems to be a fundamental reason why British-settled societies (the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) do better than Spanish and Portuguese-settled societies (most of Latin America). Part of this, I think, is that British-descended societies are more likely to have a broad and robust middle class, while Spanish-style societies are much more stratified.

Thanks for deciding to throw it in at the end of your comment.

Posted by artappraiser | December 4, 2006 1:39 AM

How about Millard Fillmore?

He sent Commodore Matthew Perry to Japan in 1853...which led to Japan attacking America in 1941.

The actions of presidents can reach far into the future...

Posted by alphie | December 4, 2006 2:29 AM

. . . to wherever-it-presently-ends.

That would be the Zagros Mountains.

Posted by David Tomlin | December 4, 2006 5:34 AM

The Mexican War is still commemorated in the expression 'Remember the Alamo!'

Wrong. That phrase commemorates the Texas Independence War of 1836.

It's not enough to have the books handy. You have to open them.

Someone who doesn't know the difference between the Texas Independence War and the U.S.-Mexico War, might be wise to stay out of Texas.

Posted by David Tomlin | December 4, 2006 5:42 AM

Matt:

From the site you link to: "Along with territorial disputes with Spain and Mexico over the Southwest, the fate of the Oregon Territory was one of the major diplomatic issues of the first half of the 19th century. . . .'

If you read further, you will see that U.S. possession of the part of Oregon south of the Columbia River was the Brits' opening offer.

It would take a President as incompetent as Bush to come out of a negotiation with less than the other side's first offer.

Posted by David Tomlin | December 4, 2006 5:50 AM

I always liked the idea of a British New Orleans..

Posted by Alex | December 4, 2006 6:06 AM

josh -

Latin-American societies are much more stratified than the USA or Australia. But an important part of the cause of this stratification is that Latin America ended up with a very large indigenous underclass versus a small European elite, while the USA and Australia ended up all but exterminating their aboriginals.

Imagine 19th century America as a giant South-Africa, with an 80% American Indian population living in Homelands/Reservations.

Posted by jasper emmering | December 4, 2006 7:13 AM

Consider Brinkley comment, quoted above: "I also believe that he [George W. Bush] is an honest man and that his administration has been largely void of widespread corruption." I too did a double take when reading this. But it could be read as a pretty careful bit of historical evaluation.

If the Democratic Congress uncovers systemic corruption in the Bush administration, then Brinkley has provided himself with the ability to lower his rating of Bush. Further, he's done so based on an evidence-based, rational framework. Basically, Brinkely says "If he's corrupt, then Bush's rating falls. If not evidence of widespread corruption develops, then his rating is higher." There's a probability that Congress will uncover corruption, therefore it's possible that Brinkley will lower the rating in the future.

He's a historian and therefore takes a longer view of things. What he's doing here, at least in part, is laying out a framework to evaluate the president for future historians.

Contrast this with Foner, who's never afraid to come to a conclusion regardless of whether it's supported by evidence. Take for example the introduction to Foner's, "The Story of American Freedom." He engages in a long attack on Bill Clinton's conservative tendencies. But he fails to place Clinton in a historic framework which includes the rise of the Christian right and increasing congressional partisanship. In short, Foner complains that Clinton was unable to enact a sweeping liberal agenda which was, realistically, unachievable.

Personally, I much prefer Brinkley's approach to history. It's focused on the long-term and it's based in a rational, rather than an ideological, framework.

Posted by b | December 4, 2006 8:50 AM

I've yet to hear or read a persuasive argument Bush, Cheney and a few others in this administration shouldn't be hanged. Many thousands have died, been maimed or permanently displaced from their native lands as a result of Bushco's illegal actions. Why, exactly, shouldn't gallows be erected?

Because, then, the next time a president screws up this badly, he'll face the choice of becoming an absolute dictator or being killed, and will attempt to become a dictator.

This is part of the reason why autocratic Presidents-for-Life keep popping up in various countries; an important part of stable democracy is making it easy for rulers to leave office peacefully, though it may offend justice to some degree.

Posted by Matt McIrvin | December 4, 2006 8:50 AM

Do you suppose Bush will be immortalized in another 150 years by a street in a major west coast port of entry noted for male prostitution and rough trade, as well as a gay disco song that mentions said street, and his name?

By that time, society will have long since degenerated into having man-on-dog streets.

Posted by JP | December 4, 2006 11:30 AM

None of these historians mentioned that Polk was pro-slavery and extended slave territory. THAT was a big reason why half the country opposed the war, not just because they were peaceniks. I believe Lincoln and U.S. Grant, who served in Mexico, were against it for that very reason.

If I'm right about this (correct me if I'm wrong) it's a rewriting of history similar to the one done to make Andrew Johnson described to us in our schoolbooks as a principled opponent of "Radical Republicans" (one of the historians makes this excellent point).

Posted by brendan | December 4, 2006 12:24 PM

Re: I'm curious about whether a Big Mexico from a non-Polk world would enjoy what is in our world a Mexican standard of living, or an American one.

A more likely alternate history would feature the still-independent Republic of Texas glomming on to portions of the Southwest at around the same time la Republica de California successful declared its independence from Mexico and took the rest of the region.

Re: What was unusual about Grant's administration is that he took Reconstruction seriously, and made strong attempts to protect the civil rights of Southern blacks.

Grant also put the lid on war fever against Great Britain. Many northerners were still angry about Britain's thinly veiled support of the CSA and were hoping to provoke a crisis so as to justify an invasion of Canada. Grant negotiated a favorable settlement and put the issues to rest.

Re: If Hugo Chavez manages to create a strong and independent middle class, it might help Venezuela break the mold.

I don't see that happening at all. Chavez is just one more caudillo in a long line of populists who promise the moon but mostly end up feathering their own nests instead while their bone-headed economic policies impoverish the masses, who are however taught to blame el caudillo foes, foreign and doemstic, for their plight.

Re: Yes, it was militarily a disaster, but it let us keep the Louisiana Purchase.

Huh? The Louisiana Purchase was never seriously threatened. True, the british attacked New Orleans at the edn of the war, but if there had been no war in the first place there would have been no British attack either.

Re: But Louisiana was, in effect, "stolen goods", that Spain had no right to transfer to France in 1800, nor France to receive from them.

OK, I see where this is coming from. But Spain's american possessiiosn were in full scale revolt when the Napoleonic Wars ended, but the Congress of Vienna made no move to restore Spanish rule to any of them, nmostly because of British opposition to such a move. I very much doubt the European powers (who really didn't care much about the New World by then) would have taken on America over the issue, and Spain was in no position to make any such demands.

Posted by JonF | December 4, 2006 12:33 PM

"I've yet to hear or read a persuasive argument Bush, Cheney and a few others in this administration shouldn't be hanged."

Because peaceful transitions of power are absolutely crucial to the stability of a democratic republic? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Posted by MQ | December 4, 2006 12:59 PM

On the question of the relative prosperity of big Mexico v diminished Mexico let me point out the rather large economic stimulus of the California Gold rush, happening with percise coincidence, with the end of hostilities with our Southern neighbors. What helped us in our western expansion may have helped them in their northern expansion.

Posted by LowLife | December 4, 2006 1:32 PM

40 comments later we're still debating the utilitarian value of La Gran California. And I thought only Niall Ferguson took this stuff seriously.

Posted by Wade | December 4, 2006 2:39 PM

Re:If the Cherokee and the Muscogee (Creek) had listened to Tecumseh in 1811 and joined his alliance, the US would've lost that war and might not have made it as far as the Mississippi

I rather doubt they would have enjoyed the fruits of such a victory for long. The Sioux and Cheyenne annihilated Custer at Little Big Horn but in the end it made not whit of difference as to their eventual fate.

Re: What helped us in our western expansion may have helped them in their northern expansion.

Most likley the gold would have paid for the secessionist movement making good its break from Mexico. On thing forgotten here is that rule from Mexico City was very unpopular even with the Hispanic population of the Southwest, which is why I suggested the world wpould have seen a Republica de California in an alternate history in which the Mexican War never happened.

Posted by JonF | December 4, 2006 8:59 PM

For a look at what would have happened if Henry Clay had defeated Polk in 1844 (actaully, there is a case to be made that Clay did win, and was defeated by fraud in Louisiana and by illegally naturalized voters in New York), see my post at http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/7b49abad1596c343 where I summarize Gary J. Kornblith's
"Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise," *Journal of American History* (Volume 90, No. 1, June 2003).

Basically, Kornblith concludes that had there been no Polk and no Mexican War, there would have been no American Civil War. On the bright side, this would have saved several hundreds of thousands of human lives. On the not-so-bright side, it would also probably have prolonged the existence of slavery for decades.

Posted by David T | December 4, 2006 11:12 PM

"The Sioux and Cheyenne annihilated Custer at Little Big Horn but in the end it made not whit of difference as to their eventual fate."

True, but the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne & Arapaho didn't have the world's largest superpower as their military ally burning down Washington, DC at the same time. Tecumseh by himself might have fought off the white invasion for a decade at most; Tecumseh, supported by the British Army (which was his plan all along), could well have suceeded in his goal: an Indian nation in the Old Northwest. I do, however, agree with you about the Republic of California, though; not sure if it would have survived an influx of '49ers (including battle-hardened veterans of the Oregon War).

Posted by The Local Crank | December 4, 2006 11:17 PM

By that time, society will have long since degenerated into having man-on-dog streets.

Is this a reference to the post-apocalyptic (post-rapturistic for kirk cameron fans ) "A Boy and His Dog" ?? nyah probably not.

Anyhoo let me stand up for ol' Tricky Dick and say Bush will never rise above Nixon's admittedly low bar, from now on till god's chosen are wisked away. Nixon passed actual good stuff (EPA and such), did actual good stuff (china anyone). Sure he had his "silent majority" dreck and there was that whole watergate thing. But in the end if if wasn't for Dean (who thinks bush is way worse) what would have been the problem. No midnight massacre, Colson wouldn't have found jesus and nobody would have heard from G. Gordon again.

Even if we don't find out one more thing about Bush, the damaged caused by that man and his handlers will dwarf the post-watergate malaise (maliaise is good on a blt). Bush had all of nixon's bad qualities and he is a fool.

Call me old fashioned but I'll take a venal political creature like nixon over a rich-frat-boy with delusions of grandeur or sainthood.

Although if Nixon had 9/11 to play with ...

Posted by blank_stare | December 4, 2006 11:50 PM

"Harding never got the U.S. into any wars, nor were we attacked on our own soil after Harding had been warned of the possibility of an attack taking place. Harding was a caretaker president during a time of peace and prosperity."

I would add that Harding released some of W. Wilson's political prisoners such as Eugene Debs. Wilson is truly our worst president

Posted by clark | December 5, 2006 7:49 AM

Regarding the war of 1812, it seems kinda relavent to me that the British navy was abducting large numbers of American naval personel, including American citizens, and basically enslaving them on British ships. Is this really as small a concern as people seem to think? It seems to me to be a rather huge issue.

Posted by Julian Elson | December 5, 2006 5:04 PM

The Question of Polk

Comments (47)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories