Hey, Polk, you damned fool, did you not know that working your ass off for the political and economical profit of your country is not enough to be remembered by your fellow citizens, let alone to be remembered as a great President? You'd better have talked your head off for the country's moral renown. Or you'd better have done both. And with a smile, you dull-faced nerd. Now, seriously. I deem that Polk's decisions were appropriate on the whole. Four stars for enacting them diligently and responsibly and with resource though somewhat poorly commented and explained. As for Polk-criticism I find most of it arguable, but some of it is unrealistic, if not unfair. Objections to the Mexican War and suggestions of alternative strategies to solve the problems with Mexico or Oregon are generally worth discussing. Knocking Polk for his stance in the slavery issue is pointless in my opinion. It was already difficult enough for him to act as moderate as he did. Anything in the line of backing the Wilmot proviso would have been political suicide and could not be expected.

Faced 2 potential crisises and resolved them both. He cannot get more than a 4. He lacked a crisis during his term.

President Polk was inaugurated just days after the Senate had voted to annex Texas as a slave state. In response, Mexico broke off all diplomatic relations with the United States. Polk, a strong believer in Manifest Destiny, insisted on making the Mexican territory of California a part of the United States, and sent an envoy to Mexico City to propose $20,000,000 for the land. The Mexican leader, willing to compromise, was quickly overthrown my radical militants who refused to recieve the envoy. In response, Polk, with hopes of provoking the Mexican Army, sent General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande, which he considered Texas' border with Mexico. The Mexicans considered this an invasion of their country (the Rio Grande was 100 miles south of the traditional border), and attacked Taylor's troops. In response, Polk urged Congress to declare war, citing the attack on American soldiers as the reason, when in fact, he had purposely sent the troops in an effort to provoke the Mexican Army. Congress complied on May 11, 1846. Polk, despite several major disputes and disagreements with his top generals, took a very active role in managing the war. Within seven months, the United States had defeated the much larger Mexican Army in three successful military campaigns. Soon thereafter, Polk and the top general, Zachory Taylor, began their own political war. Polk, worried about Taylor's personality, attempted to shift much of Taylor's army to General-in-Chief Winfield Scott. Taylor, in what was arguably a popularity ploy and a personal blow to Polk, met Santa Anna's 18,000 man army at Buena Vista and crushed the Mexican forces. As a result, much to Polk's disdain, Taylor's popularity sored, and already many citizens were announcing their support for him should he run for President in 1848. Meanwhile, General-in-chief Scott, after a bloody battle, captured Mexico City. With Mexico sorely defeated, Polk sent an envoy to negotiate terms of peace. Under pressure from radical expansionalists, Polk ordered his diplomat, Nicholas Trist, to wring every possible concession from Mexico. Trist ignored Polk's instructions, however, and signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, which authorized U.S. payment of $15 million for California, New Mexico, and a Texas border on the Rio Grande. Polk submitted it to Congress and it was approved on March 10, 1848. The war had raged on nearly two years, and nearly 13,000 Americans had died, although only around 1,600 died in combat. Polk's wartime management, despite all the political game that was going on behind the scenes, was exemplary. He appointed the most competent generals he could find to command U.S. forces, and as a result, the war effort was relatively successful. However, as history has shown us, winning a war is much easier than winning peace. And with the Mexican-American War ultimately came further disputes over slavery in the newly acquired territories. Before the war had even ended, a Pennsylvan ia Congressman, David Wilmot, submitted his Wilmot Proviso to the Congress, which called for the banning of slavery in any territories acquired from Mexico. The bill failed in the Senate but passed in the House. By the time the war ended in 1848 and the Treaty of Guadeloupe was ratified, talk of the Wilmot Proviso had disappeared. Polk secretly supported the plan, but feared alienating the southern base that had been so instrumental in his election, and thus, made no attempt at ensuring its implementation. By the time Polk left office in 1849, the debate over slavery was raging now more than ever. As more territories came into being, the debate grew louder. The Civil War just twelve years later resulted in the deaths of millions of Americans. Polk was the last politically competent President who could have addressed this issue. By 1848, it was evident that he did not intend to seek re-election. He should have had no fear of alienating the South- he did not need their support anymore. Had he atleast attempted to stop the spread of slavery and address the issue, the Civil War may have been prevented, or at the very least, would've occured much earlier when the South was relatively weaker. Over the next ten years, several territories would become states, many of which joined the Confederacy, thus adding to its strength. Even if Polk had failed, he still would've left behind a legacy of being the only man to try and stop the madness that led to the death of millions of his fellow countrymen over a decade later. Winning a war is easier than winning peace. And Polk's record is no exception. He became so hell-bent on gaining as much territory as possible that he forget about the possible ramifications and divisions that their acquisition would cause. The peace, not the war itself, was Polk's greatest crisis, which he, unfortunately, was unable to deal with.