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)

Vetos

Is there any objection to adding more information on the number of Tyler vetos? Possibly compared to other Presidents?

I added information on Tyler vetos in a note. Included veto information on Jackson and Van Buren. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Independent president?

Should Tyler be labeled an independent President? The Democratic-Republican Party had no platform. Its only purpose seemed to save Tyer's presidential reputation and annex Texas in the 1844 election. Plus Tyler apparently retired from candidacy so Polk could win. The Democratic-Republican party is called the "Tyler Party". Do any sources call Tyler an independent President? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I added the Tyler Party link to the article. Tyler was not even on the ballot in the 1844 presidential election. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

There's something of an explanation of Tyler's actions in the Polk article. Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I read the information on Tyler in the Polk article. Was the Tyler Party an independent party? There was no platform or Vice President. Was it even a political party at all? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Tyler's wealth

Here is the link to Tyler's wealth: Presidents Day trivia: Who were the 10 richest US presidents? The source Christian Science Monitor says $51 million. The contributor is Chelsea Sheasley (February 20, 2012). I would say this is a reliable source. I am assuming Sheasly was referring to the present value of money in 2012. Is this enough to be a reliable source? I thought that it was. I would say the Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia article that says Tyler was worth $68 million in 2022: List of presidents of the United States by net worth. I think this is a significant amount to be added to the article. 06:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The source is The Net Worth of the American Presidents: Washington to Trump This article was last updated on March 20, 2020 by Michael B. Sauter and Grant Suneson. The source is 24/7 Wall St. In 2020 Tyler was worth $57.7 million. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps if it were integrated into the text. As one of them mentions that Tyler became indebted during the war and died poor might be a hook to hang that on. Something along the line of "Although Tyler's wealth at its peak exceeded $50 million in 2020 dollars, he became indebted during the war and died much poorer". Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The article says "peak net worth", but does not say the year, presumably before the Civil War. It also does not say how many slaves Tyler owned. I suppose they were included in his wealth. A slave was worth about $1,000 in Virginia around 1849. Maybe more at the beginning of the Civil War. Yes. By all means, your edit sounds good and can be integrated into the article's family slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Information added to article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Working hard

The Post Presidency section stages that Tyler, “did not take farming lightly and worked hard to maintain large yields.” Tyler was a slave owner. To spotlight his work ethic without mentioning those who were doing the real hard work resulting in large yields seems to be quite a glaring omission. Billtaverner (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. It might be wise to review the source and see what can be added on that. Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Tyler owned 70 slaves. More can be said on his slave ownership. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If there's a word, use it.

If there's a word for a particular definition, then use it. As to whether a word is used frequently or less frequently, that shouldn't matter. Besides, it is common for Wikipedia to use lesser-known words. Rattatast (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Death Place

It seems misleading to omit "C.S." from his biography, considering he was a traitor to the United States. It's important to emphasize that he died in a failed breakaway, unrecognised state. Others who were born or died during the occupation of U.S. land during the C.S.'s existence have "C.S." in their infoboxes. Just because this is a former president we should downplay he treason, if nobody responds to this post in a timely fasion, I will change it. ChuckDabs (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed. The Confederacy had no legal existence. We're not responsible here for the content of other articles. I fail to see how this excuses anything. I'm sure many died, Union soldiers for example, in the so-called Confederate States who had nothing to do with it. Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

" I'm sure many died, Union soldiers for example, in the so-called Confederate States who had nothing to do with it." I concur and can see the disrespect in that.

Note, that I still think it should (somehow) be more apparent in the article somewhere how John Tyler was a traitor and had an impact on the creation of the aforementioned rogue state. Currently, how the article stands, gives no initial impression to a reader that John Tyler was anything but an insignificant President of the United States in the 19th century and should be amended to reflect his failure to his country. ChuckDabs (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention that Tyler is the only US president who received no national recognition after his death because he had adhered to the Confederacy? Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

I think the fact that a community college was named after him should be included. The college is Brightpoint Community College, which until around 2021 was called John Tyler Community College (https://www.progress-index.com/story/news/2021/07/08/brightpoint-recommended-new-john-tyler-community-college-name/7907945002/). Kdammers (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A community college seems rather a minor namesake. The change of name strikes me of more worthy of a mention, if there are other facilities that have taken his name off. In other words, I think it needs to be more than just the community college, which Tyler had nothing to do with. Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Other people have legacy entries that include high schools, buildings and even a mall (Carl Sandburg) and a tunnel (Dwight D. Eisenhower). Teddy Roosevelt's long legacy entry includes, ships, a submarine, and even an asteroid. I think a community college is worth mentioning. I'm not necessarily saying that Tyler elementary school (https://thehillishome.com/2010/03/tyler-elementary/) or Tyler High School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_High_School) should be included. I also think that the city in Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler,_Texas) that is named after him should be included in a legacy section. Kdammers (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a county in Texas too and possibly other things. If you want to put something together that is sourced to FA standards, since the article is a FA, I have no strong view. Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

More Accurate Info-Box Image.

I want to propose changing the info-box image, as it does not accurately depict Tyler. This is a later 1860s image of Tyler edited by Brady to make him appear younger and more youthful. Tyler, as the youngest man to become president (up until that point) inspired Brady to reflect that. He did this with other's he photographed, notably James K. Polk. Brady edited his 1849 daguerreotype of Polk in the same manner. Polk was the youngest man to be elected president (up until that point) and the first to be elected under the age of 50. So, he edited the image to make him appear younger. Brady did this to create cabinet cards and Carte de Visites to sell in his gallery for the tourist trade.

I don't have a suggestion to which photo should replace it, as there are no known photos of Tyler while as president. We could replace it with a portrait of him while as president, similar to Andrew Jackson. Where there are photos known of him, but they were taken shortly before his death. Or we could do a later 1850s-1860s image of him unedited. Like John Quincy Adams, taken almost 20s after his presidency. (Though that image has also been edited, but more so quality than appearance.) Then that raises the question: it doesn't show how he would have looked as president... but photos take precedent over portraits. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a resource where we can read about Brady's alteration of the images of Tyler and Polk? Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Not directly... I really encourage you to check out the original 1849 daguerreotype of Polk by Brady vs. the edited one. As the edited one is the same that appears between the 1870s-1890s on cabinet cards and Carte de Visites produced by numerous galleries. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also trying to track down the unaltered image of Tyler to show my point. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's possible in the edited version Brady superimposed Tyer's face on another person's body? Compare it to this 1860 image of Tyler which I'm pretty sure is unedited. It is possible the edited version is a photo of an earlier lost Brady daguerreotype, similar to the lost 1848-1849 Sarah Polk daguerreotype. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Try https://dp.la. If you find a decent photo I'll restore it. Another option is to choose something where it's expected not to be fully accurate, like https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.70.23?destination=node/63231%3Fedan_q%3DJohn%2520tyler Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the only photo I can find of Tyler is the 1860 Brady daguerreotype. I can't find a single other photo of him after his presidency. A supposed unverified photo of him popped up on eBay awhile back, but I can't say for certainty if it's him. (There is a passing resemblance.) I would like to add, if we do a portrait, I recommend the 1842 Healy rather than the 1859. Mainly, because it was painted during his presidency. (And the 1842 one isn't used in the article.) The edited version of Tyler's photo has been debated before to its accuracy. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, there is a thing with daguerrotype reproduction where, since it's hard to get a sharp copy of a copy, it was normal procedure to draw on it to readd detail. ...Not ideal, but I've seen it before. Occasionally well-done enough that it's useful. File:Captain John W. Tarleton by John Jabez Edwin Mayall.jpg being a good example. It's called overpainting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's done well here for Tyler. I know that's subjective, but I believe that the info-box image should be the best representation of the subject. I feel the 1842 Healy portrait is better or the unaltered 1860 Brady daguerreotype. Brady didn't just make clearer outlines, but also altered it, as if trying to merge the photo with a lithograph. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the photo of Tyler taken in 1860 (not the Brady one), which is substantially higher quality, is a GREAT image to use for the lead Wcamp9 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to get the process moving on a vote between that one, the 1842 Healy portrait, or keep it the same. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I continue to believe that for presidents such as Tyler, Fillmore, Jackson, perhaps Polk, a painting should be considered as more closely resembling the individual as president. Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat agree but am cautious. I believe there are better daguerreotypes of Polk (than the one chosen for the info box) that accurately represent him while president. It is good to acknowledge, all the better daguerreotypes of him were taken near the end of his presidency. I somewhat agree with Fillmore but believe the 1849 daguerreotype a more accurate representation. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

When I search commons for "John Tyler", I don't get a lot of variety. If you are dissatisfied with the 1860 Brady/Handy photo and the Edwards & Anthony daguerrotype from 1860-1, I am sympathetic. In the latter, he looks too old and stern, while in the former, he just looks goofy. However, I don't have a clearly better one to propose.

The 1842 portrait by Healy is reasonable.

When I go to Amazon and search for "John Tyler", I see some pictures, not all of which are already in commons, so I don't know where I would find them, but some of them might be worth a look. But some of these books feature the Brady/Handy and the Edwards & Anthony, so those two photos can't be all bad. If we choose a painting or a photo that has already been chosen by some reputable author/publisher, we aren't going too far wrong, although I vigorously complained about one such photo in the discussion of the Infobox image at Talk:Martin Van Buren. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe the 1842 Healy is a better representation than the current. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)