James K Polk is probably the epitome of 'bad person [by modern standards] but good for the country,' with his haggling over the PNW for Britain, and his conquest of texas and the southwest via the Texan squatters and war with Mexico. However, at the same time, he enabled the massacre of thousands of natives and sent the military after the Mormons. Given that he promised to manifest America's destiny in only one term, but also that he pulled it off with aplomb and made good on his campaign, could he have won a second term if he wanted and what would that look like?
Could Polk Have Won A Second Term?
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
I’m not sure how popular Polk was with the people in general but he barely eked out a win in 1844 and the war with Mexico, even if it was won, was still controversial especially in the North. Nevertheless, I think Polk probably could have won without much difficulty, had he not promised he’d only serve one term and only if the Whigs had run someone other than war hero Zachary Taylor.
However if he had won, his victory would have been short lived. Polk’s health was rapidly deteriorating by the end of his term and he died shortly after. You could butterfly his disease away with a POD before his predecidme tila campaign (I believe that’s when he first got dysentery. But otherwise his second term is actually a Lewis Cass administration. Not sure how much this changes as a I don’t believe they differed too much on political opinions and practices.
However if he had won, his victory would have been short lived. Polk’s health was rapidly deteriorating by the end of his term and he died shortly after. You could butterfly his disease away with a POD before his predecidme tila campaign (I believe that’s when he first got dysentery. But otherwise his second term is actually a Lewis Cass administration. Not sure how much this changes as a I don’t believe they differed too much on political opinions and practices.
That was Buchanan who ordered the troops against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe. The Army had recruited the Mormon Battalion under Polk, so I think that may be off.
Does it have to be a *consecutive* term? Judging by the 1846 midterms, 1848 doesn't look like a Democratic year, esp as the Whigs are likely to nomminate a popular general.
OTOH had he not dies in 1849 and gone on to see the political storms that led to the aptched up Compromise of 1850, he might have felt that his retirement had been a mistake and that perhaps he was still needed. Given how long it took the divided Convention to settle on a canddate, I should think his chances of nominatiopn would have been quite good - and he would certainly have won in November.
Would the Northern Democrats (Liberty Democrats) be OK with his nomination though? Pierce and Buchanan both represented Northern states (even if they did not fully align with the "Liberty" wing of the party) and both appear to be compromise candidates to certain degree. His nomination might end up spliting the Democrats... emphasis on the might.
Quantum Immortal
Banned
By definition no. Polk was too pure for this world, the only US president to fulfill all his campaign/election promises. One of those was to not seek reelection. As he is Polk, he will not do so. He was so good that the best sheriff in the US serves a county named after him.
Bold words describing a slave owner who launched our second declared war and conquered huge swathes and luckily had an expansionist congress at the time.
But that's beside the point. Are there any scenarios you could see him coming out of retirement?
Quantum Immortal
Banned
I don't see how that changes the fact he actually fulfilled his campaign promises. Anyway seems like he left office exhausted and in ill health, but he was only in his mid-50's. It's conceivable he becomes reinvigorated, but he's so clearly pro-slavery that I can't see him getting elected in the tempestuous 1850's. You'd need a big POD to avoid a civil war or something similar in the decades after his presidency.
Quantum Immortal
Banned
Wrong but I forgive you
Just kidding but really, I'm not going to judge people who lived centuries ago by today's standards.I try to be the same, but after the 1830s, I tend to be less okay with the slavery thingWrong but I forgive you
But he also signed into law organic acts for Oregon and Minnesota Territories which *prohibited* slavery there. And northern Dems seem to have been unperurbed by the fact that Pierce's running-mate was from *Alabama*. And northern *Whigs* had accepted Zachary Taylor despite his 500 slaves. Would Dems necessarily be more picky?
Incidentally, if Polk did run a bit weaker than Pierce in the north [1], this might be a blesssig in disguise. Had a dozen or so more Northern Whigs been elected to Congress, this would almost certainly be enough to defeat the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. So slavery may stay on the back burner for a while yet.
[1] Losses in the North may to some extent be offset by wins in TN and KY - both of which went to Scott by slim margins.