2016/09/01 by Stephen J. Heidt · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Academic Freedom and Politics #Archaeology #Art #History #Law #Literature #Literature, Film, and Journalism Analysis #POLK #Philosophy #Political science #Politics #Power (physics) #Presidential system #Rhetoric #Rhetoric and Communication Studies #Rhetorical question #Sociology #Spanish Civil War #Theology
paper · doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.19.3.0365
openalex publication_date 2016/09/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
Abstract President James Knox Polk is often lauded for his achievements as president, including the territorial acquisition of the western portion of the nation. Critical attention to this legacy mostly focuses on his rhetorical strategy for putting the nation into war with Mexico. To date, no studies focus on Polk’s rhetorical strategy for ending the war. In this article, I examine Polk’s end-of-war rhetoric, attending to his rationalizations for exiting the war, his justification for resuming diplomatic relations with Mexico, and his identification of a new enemy requiring presidential and national attention. I argue that Polk’s pivot from Mexicans to Indians rhetorically transferred tropes of savagery to Indians, reenergized violence against Indians, and facilitated the institutionalization of management of Indian affairs via the creation of the Department of the Interior. I conclude that rhetorical critics should closely attend to the ways end-of-war rhetoric enables presidents to transition from one enemy to another while reaping institutional benefits.