The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914/James K. Polk
, eleventh president of the
United States, born in Mecklenburg County, N.
C., November 2, 1795; died in Nashville, Tenn.,
June 15, 1849. He was a son of Samuel Polk,
whose father, Ezekiel, was a brother of Col.
Thomas, grandson of Robert Polk or Pollock, who
was born in Ireland and emigrated to the United
States. His mother was Jane, daughter of James
Knox, a resident of Iredell County, N. C., and a
captain in the war of the Revolution. His father,
Samuel, a farmer, removed in the autumn of 1806
to the rich valley of Duck river, a tributary of the
Tennessee, and made a new home in a section that
was erected the following year into the county of
Maury. Besides cultivating the tract of land he
had purchased, Samuel at intervals followed the
occupation of a surveyor, acquired a fortune equal
to his wants, and lived until 1827. His son James
was brought up on the farm, and not only assisted
in its management, but frequently accompanied
his father in his surveying expeditions, during
which they were often absent for weeks. He was
inclined to study, often busied himself with his

father's mathematical calculations, and was fond
of reading. He was sent to school, and had
succeeded in mastering the English branches when
ill health compelled his removal. He was then
placed with a merchant, but, having a strong
dislike to commercial pursuits, he obtained permission
to return home after a few weeks trial, and in July,
1813, was given in charge of a private tutor. In
1815 he entered the sophomore class at the
University of North Carolina, of which institution his
cousin, William, was a trustee. As a student
young Polk was correct, punctual, and industrious.
At his graduation in 1818 he was officially acknowledged
to be the best scholar in both the classics and
mathematics, and delivered the Latin salutatory.
In 1847 the university conferred upon him the
degree of LL.D. In 1819 he entered the law-office
of Felix Grundy, who was then at the head of the
Tennessee bar. While pursuing his legal studies
he attracted the attention of Andrew Jackson, who
soon afterward was appointed governor of the
territory of Florida. An intimacy was thus begun
between the two men that in after years greatly
influenced the course of at least one of them. In
1820 Mr. Polk was admitted to the bar, and
established himself at Columbia, the county-seat of
Maury County. Here he attained such immediate
success as falls to the lot of few, his career at the
bar only ending with his election to the 

 in 1839. At times he practised alone, while
at others he was associated successively with several
of the leading practitioners of the state. Among
the latter may be mentioned Aaron V. Brown and
Gideon J. Pillow.

Brought up as a Jeffersonian, and early taking
an interest in politics, Mr. Polk was frequently
heard in public as an exponent of the views of his
party. So popular was his style of oratory that
his services soon came to be in great demand, and
he was not long in earning the title of the “Napoleon
of the Stump.” He was, however, an
argumentative rather than a rhetorical speaker, and
convinced his hearers by plainness of statement and
aptness of illustration, ignoring the ad-captandum
effects usually resorted to in political harangues.
His first public employment was that of chief clerk
to the Tennessee house of representatives, and in
1823 he canvassed the district to secure his own
election to that body. During his two years in
the legislature he was regarded as one of its most
promising members. His ability and shrewdness
in debate, his business tact, combined with his firmness
and industry, secured for him a high reputation.
While a member of the general assembly
he obtained the passage of a law to prevent the then
common practice of duelling, and, although he
resided in a community where that mode of settling
disputes was generally approved, he was never

concerned in an “affair of honor,” either as principal
or as second. In August, 1825, he was elected
to congress from the Duck river district, in which
he resided, by a flattering majority, and re-elected
at every succeeding election until 1839, when he
withdrew from the contest to become a candidate
for governor.

On taking his seat as a member of the 19th
congress, he found himself, with one or two exceptions,
the youngest member of that body. The same
habits of laborious application that had previously
characterized him were now displayed on the floor
of the house and in the committee-room. He was
prominently connected with every leading question,
and upon all he struck what proved to be the
key-note for the action of his party. During the
whole period of President Jackson's administration
he was one of its leading supporters, and at times,
on certain issues of paramount importance, its
chief reliance. His maiden speech was made in
defence of the proposed amendment to the constitution,
giving the choice of president and
vice-president directly to the people. It was
distinguished by clearness and force, copiousness of
research, wealth of illustration, and cogency of argument,
and at once placed its author in the front
rank of congressional debaters. During the same
session Mr. Polk attracted attention by his vigorous
opposition to the appropriation for the

Panama mission. President Adams had appointed
commissioners to attend a congress proposed to be
held at Panama by delegates appointed by different
Spanish-American states, which, although they
had virtually achieved their independence, were still
at war with the mother-country. Mr. Polk, and
those who thought with him, contended that such
action on the part of this government would tend
to involve us in a war with Spain, and establish an
unfortunate precedent for the future.

In December, 1827, he was placed on the
committee on foreign affairs, and some time afterward
was also appointed chairman of the select committee
to which was referred that portion of the
message of President Adams calling the attention
of congress to the probable accumulation of a
surplus in the treasury after the anticipated
extinguishment of the national debt. At the head of
the latter committee, he made a report denying the
constitutional power of congress to collect from
the people for distribution a surplus beyond the
wants of the government, and maintaining that
the revenue should be reduced to the requirements
of the public service. Early in 1833, as a member
of the ways and means committee, he made
a minority report unfavorable to the Bank of the
United States, which aroused a storm of opposition,
a meeting of the friends of the bank being
held at Nashville. During the entire contest 

 the bank and President Jackson, caused by
the removal of the deposits in October, 1833, Mr.
Polk, now chairman of the committee, supported
the executive. His speech in opening the debate
summarized the material facts and arguments on
the Democratic side of the question. George
McDuffie, leader of the opposition, bore testimony in
his concluding remarks to the boldness and manliness
with which Mr. Polk had assumed the only
position that could be judiciously taken. Mr.
Polk was elected speaker of the house of
representatives in December, 1835, and held that office
till 1839. He gave to the administration of Martin
Van Buren the same unhesitating support he had
accorded to that of President Jackson, and, though
taking no part in the discussions, he approved of
the leading measures recommended by the former,
including the cession of the public lands to the
states, the pre-emption law, and the proposal to
establish an independent treasury, and exerted his
influence to secure their adoption. He was the
speaker during five sessions, and it was his fortune
to preside over the house at a period when party
feelings were excited to an unusual degree. Not
withstanding the fact that during the first session
more appeals were taken from his decisions than
were ever known before, he was uniformly
sustained by the house, and frequently by leading
members of the Whig party. Although he was

opposed to the doctrines of the anti-slavery
reformers, we have the testimony of their leader in
the house, John Quincy Adams, to the effect that
Speaker Polk uniformly extended to him “every
kindness and courtesy imaginable.”

On leaving congress, Mr. Polk became the
candidate of the Democrats of Tennessee for governor.
They had become disheartened by a series of
disasters and defeats caused primarily by the defection
of John Bell and Judge Hugh L. White.
Under these circumstances it was evident that no
one but the strongest man in the party could enter
the canvass with the slightest prospect of success,
and it was doubtful whether even he could carry
off the prize. On being asked, Mr. Polk at once
cheerfully consented to allow his name to be used.
He was nominated in the autumn of 1838, but,
owing to his congressional duties, was unable fairly
to enter upon the canvass until the spring of 1839.
His opponent was Newton Cannon, also a
Democrat, who then held the office. The contest was
spirited, and Mr. Polk was elected by over 2,500
majority. On October 14 he took the oath of
office. In his inaugural address he touched upon
the relations of the state and Federal governments,
declared that the latter had no constitutional power
to incorporate a national bank, took strong ground
against the creation of a surplus Federal revenue
by taxation, asserted that “the agitation of the

Abolitionists can by no possibility produce good
to any portion of the Union, but must, if persisted
in, lead to incalculable mischief,” and discussed at
length other topics, especially bearing upon the
internal policy of Tennessee. In 1841 Mr. Polk was
again a candidate for the governorship, although
his defeat was a foregone conclusion in view of the
political whirlwind that had swept over the country
in 1840 and resulted in the election of William
Henry Harrison to the presidency. In Tennessee
the Harrison electoral ticket had received more
than 12,000 majority. Although to overcome this
was impossible, Mr. Polk entered upon the canvass
with his usual energy and earnestness. He could
not secure the defeat of James C. Jones, the
opposing Whig candidate, one of the most popular
members of his party in the state, but he did
succeed in cutting down the opposition majority to
about 3,000. In 1843 Mr. Polk was once more a
candidate; but this time Gov. Jones's majority was
nearly 4,000.

In 1839 Mr. Polk had been nominated by the
legislature of Tennessee as its candidate for
vice-president on the ticket with Martin Van Buren,
and other states had followed the example; but
Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, seemed to be
the choice of the great body of the Democratic
party, and he was accordingly nominated. From
the date of Van Buren's defeat in 1840 until

within a few weeks of the meeting of the National
Democratic convention at Baltimore in 1844, public
opinion in the party undoubtedly pointed to
his renomination, but when in April of the latter
year President Tyler concluded a treaty between
the government of the United States and the
republic of Texas, providing for the annexation of
the latter to the Union, a new issue was introduced
into American politics that was destined to change
not only the platforms of parties, but the future
history and topography of the country itself. On
the question whether Texas should be admitted, the
greatest divergence of opinion among public men
prevailed. The Whig party at the north opposed
annexation, on the grounds that it would be an act
of bad faith to Mexico, that it would involve the
necessity of assuming the debt of the young
republic, amounting to ten or twelve millions of
dollars, and that it would further increase the area
of slave territory. At the south the Whigs were
divided, one section advocating the new policy,
while the other concurred with their party friends
at the north on the first two grounds of objection.
The Democrats generally favored annexation, but
a portion of the party at the north, and a few of
its members residing in the slave-states, opposed it.
Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Clay agreed very nearly
in their opinions, being in favor of annexation if
the American people desired it, provided that the

consent of Mexico could be obtained, or at least
that efforts should be made to obtain it.

In this crisis Mr. Polk declared his views in no
uncertain tones. It being understood that he would
be a candidate for vice-president, a letter was
addressed to him by a committee of the citizens of
Cincinnati, asking for an expression of his sentiments
on the subject. In his reply, dated April
22, 1844, he said: “I have no hesitation in declaring
that I am in favor of the immediate reannexation
of Texas to the government and territory of the
United States. The proof is fair and satisfactory
to my own mind that Texas once constituted a part
of the territory of the United States, the title to
which I regard to have been as indisputable as that
to any portion of our territory.” He also added
that “the country west of the Sabine, and now
called Texas, was [in 1819] most unwisely ceded
away”; that the people and government of the
republic were most anxious for annexation, and that,
if their prayer was rejected, there was danger that
she might become “a dependency if not a colony
of Great Britain.” This letter, strongly in
contrast with the hesitating phrases contained in that
of ex-President Van Buren of April 20 on the same
subject, elevated its author to the presidency.
When the Baltimore convention met on May 27,
it was found that, while Mr. Van Buren could not
secure the necessary two-thirds vote, his friends

numbered more than one third of the delegates
present, and were thus in a position to dictate the
name of the successful candidate. As it was also
found that they were inflexibly opposed to Messrs.
Cass, Johnson, Buchanan, and the others whose
names had been presented, Mr. Polk was introduced
as the candidate of conciliation, and
nominated with alacrity and unanimity. George M.
Dallas was nominated for vice-president. In his
letter of acceptance, Mr. Polk declared that, if
elected, he should enter upon “the discharge of the
high and solemn duties of the office with the settled
purpose of not being a candidate for re-election.”
After an exciting canvass, Mr. Polk was elected
over his distinguished opponent, Henry Clay, by
about 40,000 majority, on the popular vote,
exclusive of that of South Carolina, whose electors
were chosen by the legislature of the state; while
in the electoral college he received 175 votes to
105 that were cast for Mr. Clay.

On March 4, 1845, Mr. Polk was inaugurated.
In his inaugural address, after recounting the blessings
conferred upon the nation by the Federal
Union, he said: “To perpetuate them, it is our
sacred duty to preserve it. Who shall assign limits
to the achievements of free minds and free hands
under the protection of this glorious Union? No
treason to mankind, since the organization of society,
would be equal in atrocity to that of him who would

lift his hand to destroy it. He would overthrow
the noblest structure of human wisdom which
protects himself and his fellow-man. He would stop
the progress of free government and involve his
country either in anarchy or in despotism.” In
selecting his cabinet, the new president was singularly
fortunate. It comprised several of the most
distinguished members of the Democratic party,
and all sections of the Union were represented.
James Buchanan, fresh from his long experience
in the senate, was named secretary of state; Robert
J. Walker, also an ex-senator and one of the best
authorities on the national finances, was secretary
of the treasury; to William L. Marcy, ex-governor
of New York, was confided the war portfolio;
literature was honored in the appointment of
George Bancroft as secretary of the navy; Cave
Johnson, a prominent son of Tennessee, was made
postmaster-general; and John Y. Mason, who had
been a member of President Tyler's cabinet, was
first attorney-general and afterward secretary of
the navy. When congress met in the following
December there was a Democratic majority in both
branches. In his message the president condemned
all anti-slavery agitation, recommended a
sub-treasury and a tariff for revenue, and declared that
the annexation of Texas was a matter that
concerned only the latter and the United States, no
foreign country having any right to interfere.

Congress was also informed that the American
army under Gen. Zachary Taylor had been ordered
to occupy, and had occupied, the western bank of
Nueces river, beyond which Texas had never
hitherto exercised jurisdiction. On December 29
Texas was admitted into the Union, and two days
later an act was passed extending the United States
revenue system over the doubtful territory beyond
the Nueces. Even these measures did not elicit a
declaration of war from the Mexican authorities,
who still declared their willingness to negotiate
concerning the disputed territory between the
Nueces and the Rio Grande. These negotiations,
however, came to nothing, and the president, in
accordance with Gen. Taylor's suggestion, ordered
a forward movement, in obedience to which that
officer advanced from his camp at Corpus Christi
toward the Rio Grande, and occupied the district
in debate. Thus brought face to face with Mexican
troops, he was attacked early in May with 6,000
men by Gen. Arista, who was badly beaten at Palo
Alto, with less than half that number. The next
day Taylor attacked Arista at Resaca de la Palma,
and drove him across the Rio Grande.

[  ]

On receipt of the news of these events in
Washington, President Polk sent a message to congress,
in which he declared that Mexican troops had at
last shed the blood of American citizens on American
soil, and asked for a formal declaration of war.

A bill was accordingly introduced and passed by
both houses, recognizing the fact that hostilities had
been begun, and appropriating $10,000,000 for its
prosecution. Its preamble read as follows:
“Whereas, by the act of the republic of Mexico,
a state of war exists between that government and
the United States.” The Whigs protested against
this statement as untrue, alleging that the president
had provoked retaliatory action by ordering
the army into Mexican territory, and Abraham
Lincoln introduced in the house of representatives
what became known as the “spot resolutions,” calling
upon the president to designate the spot of
American territory whereon the outrage had been
committed. Nevertheless, the Whigs voted for the
bill and generally supported the war until its
conclusion. On August 8 a second message was
received from the president, asking for money with
which to purchase territory from Mexico, that the
dispute might be settled by negotiation. A bill
appropriating $2,000,000 for this purpose at once
brought up the question of slavery extension into
the new territory, and David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania,
in behalf of many northern Democrats,
offered an amendment applying to any newly
acquired territory the provision of the ordinance
of 1781, to the effect that “neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of
said territory except for crime, whereof the party

shall first be duly convicted.” The Whigs and
northern Democrats united secured its passage, but
it was sent to the senate too late to be acted upon.

During the same session war with England
regarding the Oregon question seemed imminent. By
the treaties of 1803 with France, and of 1819 with
Spain, the United States had acquired the rights
of those powers on the Pacific coast north of
California. The northern boundary of the ceded territory
was unsettled. The United States claimed
that the line of 54º 40' north latitude was such
boundary, while Great Britain maintained that it
followed the Columbia river. By the convention
of 1827 the disputed territory had been held jointly
by both countries, the arrangement being
terminable by either country on twelve months notice.
The Democratic convention of 1844 had demanded
the reoccupation of the whole of Oregon up to 54º
40', “with or without war with England,” a demand
popularly summarized in the campaign rallying-cry
of “Fifty-four-forty or fight!” The annexation
of Texas having been accomplished, the Whigs
now began to urge the Democrats to carry out their
promise regarding Oregon, and, against the votes
of the extreme southern Democrats, the president
was directed to give the requisite twelve months
notice. Further negotiations ensued, which
resulted in the offer by Great Britain to yield her
claim to the unoccupied territory between the 49th

parallel and Columbia river, and acknowledged
that parallel as the northern boundary. As the
president had subscribed to the platform of the
Baltimore convention, he threw upon the senate
the responsibility of deciding whether the claim of
the United States to the whole of Oregon should
be insisted upon, or the compromise proposed by
her majesty's government accepted. The senate,
by a vote of 41 to 14, decided in favor of the latter
alternative, and on June 15, 1846, the treaty was
signed.

Two other important questions were acted upon
at the first session of the 39th congress, the tariff
and internal improvements. The former had been
a leading issue in the presidential contest of 1844.
The act of 1842 had violated the principles of the
compromise bill of 1833, and the opinions of the
two candidates for the presidency, on this issue,
were supposed to be well defined previous to the
termination of their congressional career. Mr. Polk
was committed to the policy of a tariff for revenue,
and Mr. Clay, when the compromise act was under
discussion, had pledged the party favorable to
protection to a reduction of the imposts to a revenue
standard. Previous to his nomination, Mr. Clay
made a speech at Raleigh, N. C., in which he
advocated discriminating duties for the protection of
domestic industry. This was followed by his letter
in September, 1844, in which he gave in his

adhesion to the tariff of 1842. Probably alarmed
at the prospect of losing votes at the south through
his opposition to the annexation of Texas, and seeing
defeat certain unless he could rally to his
support the people of the north, Mr. Clay made one
concession after another, until he had virtually
abandoned the ground he occupied in 1833, and
made himself amenable to his own rebuke uttered
at that time: “What man,” he had then asked, “who
is entitled to deserve the character of an American
statesman, would stand up in his place in either
house of congress and disturb the treaty of peace
and amity?”

Mr. Polk, on the other hand, had courted criticism
by his Kane letter, dated June 19, 1844, which
was so ambiguously worded as to give ground for
the charge that his position was identical with that
held by Henry Clay. In his first annual message,
however, he explained his views with precision and
ability. The principles that would govern his
administration were proclaimed with great boldness,
and the objectionable features of the tariff of 1842
were investigated and exposed, while congress was
urged to substitute ad valorem for specific and
minimum duties. “The terms ‘protection to American
industry,’ ” he went on to say, “are of popular
import, but they should apply under a just system
to all the various branches of industry in our country.
The farmer, or planter, who toils yearly in

his fields, is engaged in ‘domestic industry,’ and is
as much entitled to have his labor protected as the
manufacturer, the man of commerce, the navigator,
or the mechanic, who are engaged also in ‘domestic
industry’ in their different pursuits. The joint
labors of all these classes constitute the aggregate
of the domestic industry of the nation, and they
are equally entitled to the nation's ‘protection.’
No one of them can justly claim to be the exclusive
recipients of ‘protection,’ which can only be
afforded by increasing burdens on the ‘domestic
industry’ of others.” In accordance with the president's
views, a bill providing for a purely revenue
tariff, and based on a plan prepared by Sec.
Walker, was introduced in the house of representatives
on June 15. After an unusually able
discussion, a vote was reached on July 3, when the
measure was adopted by 114 ayes to 95 nays. But
it was nearly defeated in the senate, where the vote
was tied, and only the decision of Vice-President
Dallas in its favor saved the bill. The occasion was
memorable, party spirit ran high, and a crowded
senate-chamber hung on the lips of that official
as he announced the reasons for his course. In
conclusion he said: “If by thus acting it be my
misfortune to offend any portion of those who honored
me with their suffrages, I have only to say to them,
and to my whole country, that I prefer the deepest
obscurity of private life, with an unwounded 

, to the glare of official eminence spotted by
a sense of moral delinquency!”

Regarding the question of internal improvements,
Mr. Folk's administration was signalized
by the struggle between the advocates of that policy
and the executive. A large majority in both
houses of congress, including members of both
parties, were in favor of a lavish expenditure of
the public money. On July 24, 1846, the senate
passed the bill known as the river-and-harbor
improvement bill precisely as it had passed the house
the previous March, but it was vetoed by the president
in a message of unusual power. The
authority of the general government to make internal
improvements within the states was thoroughly
examined, and reference was made to the corruptions
of the system that expended money in particular
sections, leaving other parts of the country with
out government assistance. Undaunted by the
opposition of the executive, the house of representatives,
on February 20, 1847, passed, by a vote of
89 to 72, a second bill making appropriations
amounting to $600,000 for the same purpose. It
was carried through the senate on the last day of
the second session. Although the president could
have defeated the objectionable measure by a
“pocket veto,” in spite of the denunciations with
which he was assailed by the politicians and the
press, he again boldly met the question, and sent

in a message that, for thoroughness of investigation,
breadth of thought, clearness and cogency of
argument, far excels any of the state papers to
which he has put his name.

The conflict between the friends and opponents
of slavery was also a prominent feature of President
Folk's administration, and was being
constantly waged on the floor of congress. During
the second session of the 39th congress the house
attached the Wilmot proviso to a bill appropriating
$3,000,000 for the purchase of territory from
Mexico, as it had been appended to one appropriating
$2,000,000 for the same purpose at the previous
session. The senate passed the bill without the
amendment, and the house was compelled to concur.
A bill to organize the territory of Oregon,
with the proviso attached, passed by the latter body,
was not acted upon by the senate. A motion made
in the house of representatives by a southern member
to extend the Missouri compromise line of 36º
30' to the Pacific was lost by a sectional vote, north
against south, 81 to 104. A treaty of peace having
been signed with Mexico, February 2, 1848,
after a series of victories, a bill was passed by the
senate during the first session of the 30th congress,
establishing territorial governments in Oregon,
New Mexico, and California, with a provision that
all questions concerning slavery in those territories
should be referred to the U. S. supreme court for

decision. It received the votes of the members
from the slave-states, but was lost in the house. A
bill was finally passed organizing the territory of
Oregon without slavery. During the second session
a bill to organize the territories of New Mexico and
California with the Wilmot proviso was passed by
the house, but the senate refused to consider it.
Late in the session the latter body attached a bill
permitting such organization with slavery to the
general appropriation bill as a “rider,” but, as the
house objected, was compelled to strike it off. In
his message to congress approving the Oregon
territorial bill Mr. Polk said: “I have an abiding
confidence that the sober reflection and sound
patriotism of all the states will bring them to the
conclusion that the dictate of wisdom is to follow
the example of those who have gone before us,
and settle this dangerous question on the Missouri
compromise or some other equitable compromise
which would respect the rights of all, and prove
satisfactory to the different portions of the Union.”
President Polk was not a slavery propagandist, and
consequently had no pro-slavery policy. On the
contrary, in the settlement of the Oregon question,
he did all in his power to secure the exclusion of
slavery from that territory, and, although the final
vote was not taken until within a few days after
his retirement, the battle was fought and the 

 virtually reached during his able
administration.

Mr. Polk, in a letter dated May 19, 1848,
reiterated his decision not to become a candidate
again for the presidency, and retired at the close
of his term of office to his home in Nashville with
the intention not to re-enter public life. His health,
never robust, had been seriously impaired by the
unavoidable cares of office and his habit of devoting
too much time and strength to the execution of
details. Within a few weeks after his permanent
return to Tennessee he fell a prey to a disease that
would probably have only slightly affected a man
in ordinary health, and a few hours sufficed to bring
the attack to a fatal termination. Thus ended the
life of one of whose public career it may still be
too soon to judge with entire impartiality. Some
of the questions on which he was called upon to
act have remained for half a century after his death
party issues. Polk evidently believed with Mr.
Clay that a Union all slave or all free was an
impossible Utopia, and that there was no good reason
why the north and the south should not continue
to live for many years to come as they had lived
since the adoption of the constitution. He deprecated
agitation of the slavery question by the
Abolitionists, and believed that the safety of the
commonwealth lay in respecting the compromises
that had hitherto furnished a modus vivendi 

 the slave and the free states. As to the
annexation of Texas and the war with Mexico, his
policy was undoubtedly the result of conviction,
sincerity, and good faith. He believed, with John
Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, that Texas
had been unwisely ceded to Spain in 1819, and that
it was desirable, from a geographical point of view,
that it should be re-annexed, seeing that it formed
a most valuable part of the valley of the Mississippi.
He was also of opinion that in a military
point of view its acquisition was desirable for the
protection of New Orleans, the great commercial
mart of the southwestern section of the Union,
which in time of war would be endangered by the
close proximity of a hostile power having control
of the upper waters of Red river. Holding these
views and having been elevated to the presidency
on a platform that expressly demanded that they
should be embodied in action, and Texas again
made a part of the national domain, he would have
indeed been recreant to his trust had he attempted
to carry out as president any policy antagonistic
to that he had advocated when a candidate for that
office. The war in which he became involved in
carrying out these views was a detail that the
nation was compelled to leave largely to his judgment.
The president believed that the representations
and promises of the Mexican authorities could
not be trusted, and that the only argument to which

they would pay attention was that of force.
Regarding his famous order to Gen. Taylor to march
toward the Rio Grande, it was suggested by that
officer himself, and for his gallant action in the
war the latter was elected the successor of President
Polk. The settlement of the Oregon
boundary-line was made equally obligatory upon the new
president on taking office. He offered Great
Britain the line that was finally accepted; but when
the British minister hastily rejected the offer, the
entire country applauded his suggestion to that
power of what the boundary might possibly be in
case of war.

But whatever the motives of the executive as to
Texas and Oregon, the results of the administration
of James K. Polk were brilliant in the
extreme. He was loyally upheld by the votes of all
parties in congress, abundantly supplied with the
sinews of war, and seconded by gallant and competent
officers in the field. For $15,000,000 in addition
to the direct war tax expenses, the south
western boundary of the country was carried to
the Rio Grande, while the provinces of New Mexico
and Upper California were added to the national
domain. What that cession meant in increased
wealth it is perhaps even yet too soon to compute.
Among the less dazzling but still solid advantages
conferred upon the nation during Mr. Polk's term
of office was the adoption by congress, on his

recommendation, of the public warehousing system
that has since proved so valuable an aid to the
commerce of the country; the negotiation of the 35th
article of the treaty with Grenada, ratified June
10, 1848, which secured for our citizens the right
of way across the Isthmus of Panama; the postal
treaty of December 15, 1848, with Great Britain,
and the negotiations of commercial treaties with
the secondary states of the Germanic confederation
by which reciprocal relations were established and
growing markets reached upon favorable terms.

Mr. George Bancroft, the last surviving member
of Polk's cabinet, who carefully revised and
enlarged this biography, in a communication to the
editor, dated Washington, March 8, 1888, says:
“One of the special qualities of Mr. Polk's mind
was his clear perception of the character and
doctrines of the two great parties that then divided
the country. Of all our public men — I say,
distinctly, of all — Polk was the most thoroughly
consistent representative of his party. He had no
equal. Time and again his enemies sought for
grounds on which to convict him of inconsistency,
but so consistent had been his public career that the
charge was never even made. Never fanciful or
extreme, he was ever solid, firm, and consistent.
His administration, viewed from the standpoint
of results, was perhaps the greatest in our national
history, certainly one of the greatest. He 

 because he insisted on being its centre, and
in overruling and guiding all his secretaries to act
so as to produce unity and harmony. Those who
study his administration will acknowledge how
sincere and successful were his efforts, as did those
who were contemporary with him.”

Mr. Polk, who was a patient student and a clear
thinker, steadfast to opinions once formed, and not
easily moved by popular opinion, labored faithfully,
from his entrance into public life until the
day when he left the White House, to disseminate
the political opinions in which he had been
educated, and which commended themselves to his
judgment. His private life was upright and
blameless. Simple in his habits to abstemiousness,
he found his greatest happiness in the pleasures of
the home circle rather than in the gay round of
public amusements. A frank and sincere friend,
courteous and affable in his demeanor with
strangers, generous and benevolent, the esteem in
which he was held as a man and a citizen was quite
as high as his official reputation. In the words of
his friend and associate in office, Vice-President
Dallas, he was “temperate but not unsocial,
industrious but accessible, punctual but patient, moral
without austerity, and devotional though not
bigoted.” See “Eulogy on the Life and Character
of the Late James K. Polk,” by George M. Dallas
(Philadelphia, 1849); “Eulogy on the Life and

Character of James Knox Polk,” by A. O. P.
Nicholson (Nashville, 1849); “James K. Polk,” by
John S. Jenkins (Buffalo, 1850); “History of the
Administration of James K. Polk,” by Lucien B.
Chase (New York, 1850); “Diary of James K.
Polk During His Presidency, 1845 to 1849,” edited
by Milo M. Quaife, 4 vols. (Chicago, 1910); and
Bancroft's large MSS. collection of Polk's letters
and extracts from his diary, extending to twenty-two
quarto volumes, now in the possession of the
New York Public Library. Referring to these
type-written copies, made for him in 1887 with a
view to the preparation of the president's life, Mr.
Bancroft wrote to a friend: “His character shines
out in them just exactly as the man was, prudent,
farsighted, bold, exceeding any Democrat of his
day in his undeviatingly correct exposition of
democratic principles; and, in short, as I think, judging
of him as I knew him, and judging of him by
the results of his administration, one of the very
foremost of our public men, and one of the very
best, most honest, and most successful presidents
the country ever had.”

His wife, , born near
Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tenn., September
4, 1803; died in Nashville, Tenn., August 14, 1891,
was the daughter of Joel and Elizabeth Childress.
Her father, a farmer in easy circumstances, sent

her to the Moravian institute at Salem, N. C.,
where she was educated. On returning home, she
married Mr. Polk, who was then a member of the
legislature of Tennessee. The following year he
was elected to congress, and during his fourteen
sessions in Washington Mrs. Polk's courteous
manners, sound judgment, and many attainments gave
her a high place in society. On her return as the
wife of the president, having no children, Mrs.
Polk devoted herself entirely to her duties as
mistress of the White House. She held weekly
receptions, and abolished the custom of giving
refreshments to the guests. She also forbade dancing,
as out of keeping with the character of these
entertainments. In spite of her reforms, Mrs.
Polk was extremely popular. “Madam,” said a
prominent South Carolinian, at one of her receptions,
“there is a woe pronounced against you in
the Bible.” On her inquiring his meaning, he
added: “The Bible says, ‘Woe unto you when all
men shall speak well of you.’ ” An English lady
visiting Washington thus described the president's
wife: “Mrs. Polk is a very handsome woman. Her
hair is very black, and her dark eyes and
complexion remind one of the Spanish donnas. She
is well read, has much talent for conversation, and
is highly popular. Her excellent taste in dress
preserves the subdued though elegant costume that
characterizes the lady.” Mrs. Polk became a 

 of the Presbyterian church in 1834, and
maintained her connection with that denomination
until the close of her long life. After the death
of her husband she continued to reside at
Nashville, in the house known as “Polk Place.” In the
foreground is the tomb of her husband, by whose
side she was buried. The courts, in 1891, having
decided that Mr. Polk's will, leaving his estate “to
the worthiest of the name forever,” was void, as
constituting a perpetuity, the tomb, with the
remains of President and Mrs. Polk, were removed
by the State and reinterred with appropriate public
ceremonies on Capitol Hill, Nashville, September
19, 1893, with a view to the division of the land
among the heirs.