Talk:John Tyler/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

John C. Frémont

It would be good to mention John C Fremont's 1st and 2nd western explorations. The migration West started under Tyler. Any comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Fremont = good idea. However Tyler had little to do with it and the topic belongs in the Presidency of John Tyler article. Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I agree, but there should be some brief mention of the explorations in this article because Fremont's 1st and 2nd expeditions led to a mass exodus of Americans into the West while Tyler was President. Wasn't Tyler's Secretary of War involved? It certainly would be appropriate neutral information. I only suggest a brief paragraph on Fremont for this article. One to three sentences. Any objections? Tyler did want military forts built for the safety of American settlers. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I would not add a new section. It could just be one sentence in the first part of Tyler's presidency section. Sample sentence: During Tyler's presidency, Major John C. Frémont completed two popular and successful western interior expeditions, in 1842 and 1843-1844, which led to an exodus of American settlement into the open West. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned Frémont in the article with one sentence. At least the reader will know that Frémont's first two expeditions were under Tyler. I don't think Frémont published his 1845 expedition prior to the Mexican American War. I think in fairness Tyler was not trying to upset Britain and Mexico, or cause a war. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Rjensen. I added information to the John Tyler presidency article on Fremont expeditions. Feel free to make any improvements. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to mention it in proximity to the Texas and Oregon discussions, since they all have to do with westward expansion. Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved the information on Frémont and retitled the "Oregon issue" section to "Oregon and California". I could add that Frémont visited Sutter's Fort to draw in California more. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Tyler and reform

It might be worth mentioning Tyler considered himself a reformer. He pledged to reform the government in 1841 and said that was why Harrison was elected. One of his impeachment charges was actually spending money to investigate the New York Customs House dominated by Tammany Hall. This upset the Whigs. Tyler appointed David Broderick, an Irish Catholic immigrant reformer as an inspector to the New York Customs House. The Whigs were anti-Catholic. My source is Leonard L. Richards's The California Gold Rush and the coming of the Civil War (2007) pages 28-29. Tyler also investigated Cherokee fraud in the Department of War. Any suggestions or comments? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I added information on New York Customs reform using Michael F. Holt (1974) as the source found in Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This led to one of Tyler's impeachment charges. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Tyler and Frémont meeting?

Is it known whether President Tyler and John C. Frémont ever had a White House meeting over Fremont's (1842-1844) two western explorations? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything that Frémont actually met with President Tyler. The only thing I found is that a Mormon leader Orson Hyde visited Tyler at the White House telling Tyler about the harsh treatment of Mormons in Missouri and Illinois. The Mormons during Tyler's presidency were looking for a place in Oregon and wanted to move West. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Source: John C. Fremont, 1813-1890 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say it would be useful to draw a connection between Tyler and Fremont that is more than "this happened during his administration". Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I did say in the sentence that Frémont's first two expeditions opened the West to American settlement. Two accounts were published by Frémont and his wife after his two returns. The direct connection with Tyler is that Tyler wanted American forts to the Pacific in 1841. One of Frémont's duties in 1842 was to find suitable places to build forts. Also, Frémont claimed the Rocky Mountains and the West to America on his first expedition in 1842 under Tyler. The first two expeditions produced a map in 1845, possibly under Polk, but I would think Tyler deserves some credit for opening up the American West. But you are right. That is why I only mentioned Frémont's first two expeditions in one sentence in the main article. I think it is worthy of mention. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I could add that Frémont claimed the Rockies and the West for America in 1842. Frémont placed a U.S. Flag [on a Wyoming mountain]. I believe in what is now the Colorado Rockies. That seems like an important event. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked the narration for more relevancy and added that Frémont planted the U.S. flag on a mountain in Wyoming and claimed the Rockies and the West for the United States. The mountain was in Wyoming, not Colorado. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it amazing that President Tyler apparently never met Frémont at the White House. Also, the report on Frémont's 1842 and 1843-1844 expeditions does not even mention Tyler. Polk met Frémont. It seems as if Tyler had no interest in western exploration. Tyler could have used Frémont to gain popularity. A missed opportunity. There is not that much more to add. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Planting the flag had no effect on the map as the US claim to land in the Rockies derives from elsewhere, either the Louisiana Purchase or the later cession of Mexican land or Oregon. None of which had much to do with Fremont's expeditions. Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the flag planting was symbolic. It was more a symbol of Manifest destiny for America. The flag was real. It was made by Fremont's wife. Someone from Redding California bought it and it is in some bank in California. The purpose of the flag planting was to show America intended to take the land over. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I added the term "symbolically" to the flag-planting narration for clarification. I changed the title to "Oregon and the West". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Presidency confirmation?

Was there any actual Congressional joint resolution that said Tyler was President of the United States? Basically, Congress accepted Tyler's view that he was "President of the United States". Does that make it so? Tyler's friend, Congressman Henry Wise, offered the resolution that Tyler was in fact President of the United States. I can't find any Congressional joint resolution that said Tyler was in fact, President. So was it actually official that Tyler was President? Does it matter? Any suggestions or ideas? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article states that recognition Of Tyler’s presidency came indirectly. Through the resolutions that Congress sends to the president stating that it has convened and can receive messages. Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Is indirect recognition the same as legal or elected recognition? I am not sure the reader would understand what indirect recognition is. Cmguy777 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the reader understands that if you sent a letter to the President of the United States, that carries with it a recognition that there is a president, and that the person you are sending it to is the president, especially when you reject calling him "Vice President" or "acting president". That, combined with Tyler's stubbornness and determination to win that point, established a presidential precedent that served the successors in the same position well. Fillmore did not hear the same suggestions, and the fact that he was sworn in at a joint session of Congress, shows that Tyler had won his point and there was broad acceptance that the Vice President who succeeds is a President. Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point that Congress has to recognize the person as President to be President. But apparently there was no formal vote in the House or Senate that confirmed Tyler as President. I am not sure there was a formal vote in the House to call Tyler President. That is my main point. It seemed like Congress chose to defer to Tyler and call him President. The resolution to call Tyler "President of the United States" was made by Tyler's fellow Virginian Henry Wise. Wise's resolution was not voted negative. Do resolutions have to be voted on to be confirmed or rejected? Was Wise's resolution voted on by the House or just accepted? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have to research the matter, look through the Congressional Globe and Niles' Register and other primary sources. I'm not sure there's any great need. The majority of Congress was quite content to go along with Tyler as president. Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I found a good source: Dinnerstine (October 1962) The Accession of John Tyler to the Presidency. There was a joint resolution on May 31 by the House and Senate. The House confirmed Wise's resolution to call Tyler President of the United States. The resolution was sent to the Senate and was adopted by the majority including Clay and Calhoun. So at least there was something official that said Tyler was President of the United States. This can be added to the article. Objections to the resolution were defeated by both the House and Senate. The controversy was that there was even a debate over the issue. Resolutions are usually adopted outright. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it will help the reader to know there was a Congressional joint resolution that Tyler was President. Clay and Calhoun supported the resolution in the Senate. I added the information. Interestingly it took until May 31 1841 to "settle" the matter. Over a month. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Congress was not in session when Harrison died, which is why Tyler was in Virginia. Harrison had called a special session but it did not convene until May 31. Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The House met on May 31, 1841. The Senate met on June 1, 1841. The days between April 6, 1841 (taking the oath), and June 1, 1841 (joint resolution), is 56 days. Was there a reason why it took so long to convene Congress? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Congress met then at Harrison's call, basically to enact the Whig agenda. Given communication speeds at that time, it might have been difficult to move that up. Assuming Tyler even wanted to, he was busy establishing the facts on the ground that he was POTUS, not some other formulation like Acting President. Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like Tyler got a presidential honeymoon with his Congressional confirmation as President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)