As with all of the books in this series, this is a level-headed analysis of an administration which is still rather polarizing, to the extent that it is still remembered, which is mostly by academics. There is minimal subjective evaluation, but for a narrative, the book is a very solid and informative achievement. ( )

If you were a land-grabber or a manifest destiny expansionist, Polk was the president for you. I think there must have been enough of those people voting in 1844 because he ran on the "expansionist" platform which demanded, at least, the annexation of Texas - and he beat the wily politician, Henry Clay, whose Missouri Compromise of earlier times might have shot him in the foot.
Many of the historians I have read put Mr. Polk up in the top ten of the presidents so far. To accept that, I believe that you have to accept that it's OK to steal land (territory) from the native land-users and by force of arms if necessary. At least there were purchases made of some earlier acquisitions, even if the purchases were from others who had done the stealing.
Those (my left-leaning sensibilities dealt with) were positive actions for the country we now inhabit. There were other positive things done during his administration - reduction of tariffs, reorganization of the Treasury, establishment of the Smithsonian - and, apparently, few negative things.
He said during his electioneering that he would serve but one term and he stuck to that promise. I doubt that he was fatalist, but he died of illnesses 6 months after handing over to Zachary Taylor. Author Bergeron suggests that the 1850s, et seq, would have mystified Mr. Polk, that he would not have understood them and that he would not have approved of them. The age in which he functioned as an American and a politician vanished at the beginning of the 1850s. Modern America pretty much began then and, although it could be said that his hand set it up, he is unknown or un-thought-of by most Americans today. I have asked around and will defend that statement.
This book is more about the politician and the time than it is about the man. ( )