PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 1
The Executive and Legislative Balance of Power Pre-Spanish American War
Lauren Eaddy
Liberty University
NSEC 501
Michael Harris
July 8th, 2025
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 2
Abstract
In the decades before the Spanish-American War, a significant transformation occurred in the
relationship between the executive and Legislative branches of the United States, redefining the
lines of presidential power and legislative control. This transformation was masterminded by
President James K. Polk, and his presidency prefigured the role of the president in foreign
policies and the use of military power that would become even more significant. The increased
activism of the executive leadership version was channeled through diplomatic relations,
territorial desires, and the national power practices that prevailed during this time. Meanwhile,
Congress did not deprive itself of its constitutional rights to challenge and restrict the actions of
the president, and many controversies related to the expansion of presidential power emerged. At
the same time, international wars like the Mexican-American War highlighted the power of the
president to dictate national policy, despite the long-term effects of the checks on the legislation.
The moral aspect of the ethics taught in the Bible focused on justice, moderation, and
accountability in decisions made by war and government, as well as the ethical requirements and
needs of biblical doctrine. Such precedents, formulated in the historical setting, still hold
relevance in the interpretation of presidential authority in the contemporary context. This aspect
is particularly important, considering the balance necessary between national security, legislative
controls in American politics, and moral leadership.
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 3
The Executive and Legislative Balance of Power Pre-Spanish American War
The United States Constitution has established a system of divided powers to prevent the
unregulated concentration of power in one branch of the state and to regulate the processes of
foreign and national security policy (Calabresi et al., 2012). This was because changes in the
political environment always shaped the power of presidential or congressional control, the
introduction of new priorities in a state, and the addition of another rider to the Constitution in
the nineteenth century (Danyaya et al., 2024). An imperial urge to extend their rule and enhance
economic development divided the country into opposite sides of the debate on the level of
executive power to influence foreign interactions and military actions. The case of President
James K. Polk serves as a notable example of active presidential leadership, highlighting the
advantages and challenges that accompany the executive position in matters of international
affairs. The use of diplomacy, land expansion, and a propensity for bloodshed under Polk's rule
spoke volumes to the intricacies of employing National power. The experiences of this period
contributed to lasting principles governing the relationship between the Executive and
Legislative branches, influencing contemporary discussions about constitutional authority,
legislative checks, and the ethical dimensions of political leadership.
Historical Foundations of Executive Power
The US Constitution, adopted in 1789, established a system designed to prevent the
accumulation of power that characterized the political structures of European monarchies. It
divided power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches (Currie, 2020). In foreign
policy and military affairs, Congress was granted the authority to declare war, to call up and fund
armies, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Meanwhile, the President became the
Commander-in-Chief and the primary diplomat (Katsky, 2019). Even with such allocations, the
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 4
Constitution introduced considerable ambiguity regarding the executive's power, and this has
been debated since its enactment, particularly regarding the limit of presidential authority in
national or international emergencies.
Early leaders, such as George Washington, established significant precedents regarding
executive independence in foreign policy, most notably in the 1793 Proclamation of Neutrality,
which asserted presidential authority to decide diplomatic positions without congressional
authorization (Leibiger, 2025). This move demonstrated a broad approach to executive power
and set a precedent for succeeding presidents. With the pace of territorial expansion and an
increase in international challenges, the extent of independent action manifested by presidents in
foreign affairs increased significantly, setting the coming years on a path of dynamic equilibrium
between legislative control and the use of executive authority.
Presidential Pursuit of International Relations
In the nineteenth century, American presidents were more actively engaged in shaping
foreign policy, seeking to safeguard national interests and expand the nation's territory. The
Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823, marked a clear attempt at demonstrating executive
leadership as it cautioned European powers against future interference in the Western
Hemisphere, thereby establishing an American principle of influence in the region (Bryne,
2020). Despite its presentation as a defensive policy, this doctrine introduced a baseline of
greater American leverage in the international diplomacy domain and a developing presidential
ability to dictate foreign policy matters outside of congressional directives.
The administration of President James K. Polk, from 1845 to 1849, marked a significant
milestone in the expansion of executive power in foreign affairs. Driven by the Manifest Destiny
ideology, Polk wanted to annex an enormous piece of land, with the annexation of Texas and
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 5
acquisition of regions, including Oregon and California, being the primary goals (Von Bibra,
2022). Bargaining with Britain led to a peaceful settlement of the Oregon border dispute,
demonstrating diplomatic skills and strategic bias (Edling, 2021). However, when Mexican
diplomacy failed to reach mutually desirable outcomes, Polk resorted to the use of military force
after his attempts at negotiation broke down over territorial claims. His actions were
representative of the evolving ability of presidents to influence foreign affairs and initiate
legislation with long-lasting effects on national growth and diplomacy.
Presidential Projection of Force
When President James K. Polk ordered US troops into the disputed land between the Rio
Grande and the Nueces River, he was purposefully testing the limits of executive authority with
the aim of eliciting action that might justify sending American soldiers into battle (Scigliano,
2017). Such a tactical deployment placed American forces in an area that both Mexico and the
United States claimed as their territory, making conditions prone to conflict initiation. Polk
announced that Mexico had been aggressive by shedding American blood on American land
when Mexican forces confronted U.S.-manned troops in April 1846, casting the incursion as
defensive as opposed to expansive (Currie, 2020). These frames were effective in building public
opinion and influencing Congress to vote in favor of military action, despite significant doubts
about the constitutionality of Polk's unilateral move toward a military strike.
The ensuing congressional debates manifested significant anxiety over the growing
concentration of presidential power to launch conflicts without any explicit congressional
approval. Figures such as Abraham Lincoln voiced skepticism over Polk’s assertions,
introducing the “Spot Resolutions” demanding evidence of the precise location of the initial
clash to determine whether U.S. territory had truly been violated (Katsky, 2019). These
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 6
challenges raised greater concerns over executive overreach and the possible undermining of the
legislative branch's sole prerogative to declare war.
Nevertheless, despite this resistance, the military campaign by Polk eventually led to the
signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo where the United States managed to obtain vast
regions, including its modern states of California, Arizona, and New Mexico, transforming the
national landscape not only geographically but also politically (Von Bibra, 2022). The Mexican-
American War highlighted a significant shift in power regarding American governance, as
presidents were able to utilize their status as Commander-in-Chief effectively to initiate war,
even without direct congressional declarations. Although constitutional law granted Congress
war-making powers, realities increasingly shifted towards presidential discretion in times of
crisis or perceived danger to national interests.
Congressional Restrictions on Presidential Action
Although presidents had become more active in leading foreign policy, Congress still
maintained critical constitutional checks against the President's power, thus preserving the
balance of authority that the framers had envisioned. Funding appropriation was a solid
legislative means of control, as Congress could restrict or define military actions through the
amount of financial support required to finance protracted conflicts (Katsky, 2019). The
oversight functions placed legislators in a position to inquire into presidential decisions, hold
hearings, and control discourse, as they were essential checks on unilateral executive decision-
making and accountability within the larger framework of government.
Under the presidency of James K. Polk, opposition, anchored by intense debates and
partisan examination in Congress, emerged (Calabresi & Yoo, 2020). Despite the end of the
Mexican-American War, Congress nonetheless voiced its concerns about the growth of executive
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 7
power. The introduction of the so-called Spot Resolutions by Abraham Lincoln himself was
viewed as the pinnacle of legislative vigilance, where Lincoln seemed to require hard evidence
of where bloodshed had taken place, thereby undermining the legality of the Polk justification
for military action (Scigliano, 2017). These conflicts were an indication of wider fears that
executive authority was usurping Congressional constitutional authority to declare war and
control national defense policy.
On a broader level, outside immediate wartime factors, congressional inertia influenced
the legal framework under which the military was permitted to operate, established how long or
how far military commitments were allowed to extend, and also influenced popular opinion
through the sounding board of congressional debate (Currie, 2020). However, the practical
efficacy of congressional limits was often compromised by political realities, such as partisan
affiliations and popular support for territorial expansion ambitions. Nonetheless, despite these
restrictions, the consistent assertion of legislative power throughout the Polk presidency
underscored the critical importance of Congress as the necessary balance to the presidential
capabilities of intervention in foreign policy and military actions.
Ethical and Biblical Considerations
The use of executive power, particularly in areas such as war and foreign policy, has
significant ethical implications that intersect with religious and philosophical considerations. The
Bible consistently teaches about justice, humility, and moral accountability, principles that
provide a strong framework for any nation to evaluate its political leadership and national
decision-making. Political leaders who are given the authority to enter a military conflict have
tremendous responsibilities, not just to protect national interests but also to ensure that their
actions do not contradict the ethical norms of right and wrong, as well as the protection of human
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 8
lives (Merida et al., 2015). The accounts of 1 and 2 Kings depict monarchs who were evaluated
according to their pursuit of justice and observance of divine law, indicating that political power
should be wielded with integrity and care, but not driven by ambition or patriotism. The
intersection of religious beliefs and political goals in American political history was highlighted
by Li and Froese (2023), who identified a dual purpose of American Christian nationalism in
shaping people's attitudes towards foreign policy goals and perceptions of national identity. The
Manifest Destiny ideology, under the guidance of President James K. Polk, was used to
legitimize the nationwide expansion and appeals to the sense of divine mission and national
purpose (Von Bibra, 2022). However, biblical values provide a restraining perspective, as they
remind us of the necessity to limit the pursuit of geopolitical interests in light of moral
requirements, such as the avoidance of excessive violence and the need to respect human dignity
(Merida et al., 2015). This kind of moral direction cannot remain critical in assessing the validity
and implications of executive action, especially when the stakes are war and the lives of millions
of people are at risk.
Conclusion
During the decades leading up to the Spanish-American War, disputes over the
constitutional power of the President and the Congress sought to reconcile the differences in
foreign policy and military action. The administration of President James K. Polk was also one
that demonstrated the increased range of executive authority with bold foreign policy and firm
military measures that pushed the limits of presidential capacity. Resistance, in the form of
debates and oversight, confirmed the key role of Congress in ensuring checks on executive
power and upholding the constitutional balance. The biblical principles of ethics, which
emphasize justice, humility, and responsibility, can be incredibly helpful to leaders in a country
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 9
where national power is present. The issues arising during this historical era remain informative
in contemporary debates on the boundaries of presidential authority, the need for legislative
restraint, and the duty of morality in national policy, underscoring the timeless relevance of the
Constitution to the American system of governance.
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 10
References
Bryne, A. (2020). The Monroe Doctrine and United States National Security in the Early
Twentieth Century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43431-1
Calabresi, S. G., & Yoo, C. S. (2020). The Unitary Executive during the Second Half-
Century.IHarv. JL & Pub. Pol'y,I26, 667.
Calabresi, S. G., Berghausen, M. E., & Albertson, S. (2012). The Rise and Fall of the Separation
Powers.INw. UL Rev.,I106, 527.
Currie, D. P. (2020). The Constitution in Congress: The Jeffersonians, 1801-1829. University of
Chicago Law Review, 87(2), 421–456.
Danyaya,IM.IS., Rashida,IM., & Suwaiba,IM.IB. (2024). The nature and scope of diplomatic
history.IAfrican Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research,I7(1), 152-
161.Ihttps://doi.org/10.52589/ajsshr-uqsv4qlj
Edling, M. M. (2021). United States expansion and incorporation in the long nineteenth century.
In the American Empire in global history (pp. 36–63). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003255642-3
Katsky, C. S. (2019). The role of Congress in the history of US foreign relations. Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of American History.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.716
Leibiger,IS. (2025).IGeorge Washington and the proclamation of neutrality. Bill of Rights
Institute.Ihttps://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/george-washington-and-the-proclamation-
of-neutrality
PRE-SPANISH AMERICAN WAR 11
Li, R., & Froese, P. (2023). The duality of American Christian nationalism: Religious
traditionalism versus Christian statism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 62(4),
770–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12868
Merida, T., Platt, D., & Akin, D. L. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 and 2 Kings. B & H Publishing
Group, pp. 89–91.
Scigliano, R. (2017). The War Powers Resolution and War Powers. In R. Scigliano & T. Cronin
(Eds.), The presidency in the constitutional order (pp. 115–153). Routledge.
Von Bibra, M. L. F. (2022). Manifest mythmaking: The role of US ‘Manifest Destiny’ in
nineteenth and twenty-first century Indigenous dispossession. The Webster Review of
International History, 2(2).
