• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was James Polk a good President?

Was James Polk a good President?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • No.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Maybe, let's discuss in detail.

    Votes: 6 33.3%

  • These polls are lame.

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Total voters
    18
Depends on weather or not you like Texas or think that you would be better off if it were still part of Mexico.
 
Well, he was pretty good looking. I love his long flowing locks. Wasn't he behind the first postage stamp?
 
I'm of the opinion that slavery and imperialism are bad, so no. Most presidents before Lincoln have to exceptionally good to generate a positive rating from me, given that the vast majority of either supported the slave trade or ignored it, which is essentially support for it.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I'm of the opinion that slavery and imperialism are bad, so no. Most presidents before Lincoln have to exceptionally good to generate a positive rating from me, given that the vast majority of either supported the slave trade or ignored it, which is essentially support for it.
Click to expand...

Can't really blame them for not wanting to cause a civil war and have the country split apart. Also they really couldn't done anything because the anti-slavery politicians of the time didn't have control of the Senate.
 
radcen said:
Was James Polk a good President?
Click to expand...

I've always liked him. He has his faults, as do all of our presidents, but his ability to set down what he was going to do and then actually do it is a trait that has not been found in many of them.
 
In context of the time, yes, one of our better ones.
 
 
 
cpgrad08 said:
Can't really blame them for not wanting to cause a civil war and have the country split apart. Also they really couldn't done anything because the anti-slavery politicians of the time didn't have control of the Senate.
Click to expand...

Ending slavery is one of the few points at which war is genuinely necessary. I'm not arguing they were awful because they didn't abolish slavery; J.Q.A. had abolitionist sympathies but didn't have the ability to abolish slavery. Most presidents before Lincoln either supported slavery or ignored it.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Ending slavery is one of the few points at which war is genuinely necessary. I'm not arguing they were awful because they didn't abolish slavery; J.Q.A. had abolitionist sympathies but didn't have the ability to abolish slavery. Most presidents before Lincoln either supported slavery or ignored it.
Click to expand...

Because they all knew that to end slavery before it would die out naturally ( which were it was going) it would cause a war that could destroy the country.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Because they all knew that to end slavery before it would die out naturally ( which were it was going) it would cause a war that could destroy the country.
Click to expand...

Allowing slavery to die out naturally doesn't excuse the multitudes of people that would suffer and die unnecessarily during their terms. But back on the subject of Polk, he thought a war to annex Texas, and bring slavery to it, since slavery was banned in Mexico, was necessary, but he thought war to end slavery should be avoided. I don't think that's excusable.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Allowing slavery to die out naturally doesn't excuse the multitudes of people that would suffer and die unnecessarily during their terms. But back on the subject of Polk, he thought a war to annex Texas, and bring slavery to it, since slavery was banned in Mexico, was necessary, but he thought war to end slavery should be avoided. I don't think that's excusable.
Click to expand...

Different times different opinions. Albeit I'll give Polk a Higher rating as president then Lincoln (He is actually in my BOTT 3 pres all time). But I rank presidents via their adherence to the Constitution and of course their adherence to keeping the powers of the president small. (Lincoln was a Tyrant by my standards). Anyways Yeah I'd say Mr. Napoleon of the Stump was a good pres.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Allowing slavery to die out naturally doesn't excuse the multitudes of people that would suffer and die unnecessarily during their terms. But back on the subject of Polk, he thought a war to annex Texas, and bring slavery to it, since slavery was banned in Mexico, was necessary, but he thought war to end slavery should be avoided. I don't think that's excusable.
Click to expand...

Please tell how a President before Lincoln would have ended slavery?
 
MasterLiberty said:
Different times different opinions. Albeit I'll give Polk a Higher rating as president then Lincoln (He is actually in my BOTT 3 pres all time). But I rank presidents via their adherence to the Constitution and of course their adherence to keeping the powers of the president small. (Lincoln was a Tyrant by my standards). Anyways Yeah I'd say Mr. Napoleon of the Stump was a good pres.
Click to expand...

They're within a fifteen year margin of each other. I wouldn't call it different times. Not to mention that Pennsylvania outlawed slavery during Polk's term.

cpgrad08 said:
Please tell how a President before Lincoln would have ended slavery?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that a president before Lincoln would've had to outlaw slavery in order to earn a positive opinion from me. I just want something more than supporting slavery or ignoring it, as John Quincy Adams had done. He couldn't do anything about slavery, but he thought it was morally wrong.
 
Let's discuss details.

What I know of him is that he was Speaker of the House - I think the only U.S. President to have been so. After being Speaker, he was elected to one 2-year term as Governor, but lost re-election, then lost a rematch another 2 years later.

In 1844, he wasn't even seeking the Presidency. He was seeking the Vice Presidency. I think in either 1836 and/or 1840, he had received some faithless electors electoral votes for Vice President. It might have been only 1.

But, he was nominated and elected in 1844. He didn't even seek re-election in 1848. And excluding all the Presidents who died in office, James Polk had the shortest-lived post-Presidency.

Jimmy Carter has the longest and as of September 2012 has surpassed Herbert Hoover to become that.
 
Given I'd not heard of him, I'll suggest he can't have been all that bad. :)
 
cpgrad08 said:
Can't really blame them for not wanting to cause a civil war and have the country split apart. Also they really couldn't done anything because the anti-slavery politicians of the time didn't have control of the Senate.
Click to expand...

You're talking to a one-issue wonder, there's no point. Trying to put modern politics on a 200 year old president is ridiculous.
 
He is better than GW bush. In fact there are 43 presidents better than gw bush. It's sad that the worst president that the US has ever had and will have in the future was in my lifetime.
 
American said:
You're talking to a one-issue wonder, there's no point. Trying to put modern politics on a 200 year old president is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I've never understood trying to shoehorn a 21st century mindset into the 19th century.

And even if the individual was ahead of their time, practical reality would have prevented them from doing much, if anything, anyway.
 
99percenter said:
He is better than GW bush. In fact there are 43 presidents better than gw bush. It's sad that the worst president that the US has ever had and will have in the future was in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Bush was bad, but Obama has given him a run for his money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom