Uh why? Seems like you could easily argue that the war with Mexico and opposition to the Wilmot Proviso provided some essential fodder for the Civil War, which I would say hurts his rating.
I wrote a paper on Polk in my AP American History class in high school. And I remembered exactly zero facts about him other than the fact that he annexed more territory than any other president.
Interestingly, he still comes away with a loss if you ignore that. He lost the Palmyra Atoll to Hawaii, but managed to annex the Swan Islands, though they weren't big enough to compensate.
You forgot the US Virgin Islands, and are you counting the land they stole from the Native Americans? Strange how nobody ever really talks about Polk or McKinley even though they got that much land..
Basically all American land was stolen from indigenous peoples. Also nobody talks about McKinley because 95% of the land he gained was the Philippines, a move which seemed pretty imperialistic and heaven forbid the US seem like an empire!
Considering they were mostly hunter gatherers or infrequent and itinerant low-level agriculturalists, they never truly occupied most of the land to begin with, which is how Europeans even got such a large foothold in the first place. And they frequently broke and ignored treaties they made selling land to Europeans, claiming them to be invalid because they didn't have an impossible 100% consent from every tribe and tribe member (which is not how diplomacy works anywhere on Earth). To say land is stolen would make more sense in the case of a more settled, organized society like the ones in Mesoamerica and the Andes, though in that case it's simply a military conquest as a result of war between two states. Very anachronistic and biased to consider it immoral, which is what the term "stolen" implies. Hawaii is the only good example I know in the US that might actually be considered stolen territory via an underhanded coup
I'm sorry, the indigenous peoples were the ones who broke the treaties? At least in a US context I'm almost positive that's a completely baseless claim and in fact, the opposite is true. To my knowledge, American government on the state and federal level used treaties as a way to steal, yes steal, land from native people and routinely broke those treaties. You say it's anachronistic and biased to consider that immoral yet you presuppose that European notions of both diplomacy and land ownership are the default and implicitly superior. Regardless of the semantics, the overall message I got is that the European conquest of the Americas wasn't any sort of human tragedy and the fact that European peoples and cultures replaced those who "never truly occupied most of the land to begin with" is actually a good thing!
James was ok with playing a game of polk while thomas was in jefferson city but andy drew ray william johnson but his last name was mckinley while james liked monroe
The states that seceded during his administration hadn't been entirely recaptured by the time of his death.