Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

An accident waiting to happen: The Presidency of John Tyler

An accident waiting to happen: The Presidency of John Tyler
Getty Images

Rabbi Charles E. Savenor serves as the Executive Director of Civic Spirit that provides training in civic education to faith based day schools.

When the USS Princeton set sail on February 28, 1844, it was supposed to be a celebration for both the ship and America’s commander in chief, President John Tyler. The 300 dignitaries in attendance were fascinated as much with this new state-of-the-art warship on the Potomac River as its cannon ironically called “the Peacemaker”. During the cruise the cannon exploded, killing members of Tyler’s cabinet and congress and torpedoing Tyler’s hopes of winning reelection.


This mishap was one of many that plagued Tyler’s administration. In fact, the circumstances surrounding his ascension to the presidency were considered an accident by some of his contemporaries.

The fate of America and its highest office was in a precarious situation 182 years ago. Exactly one month after the wet and cold inauguration of former war hero William Henry Harrison on March 4, 1841, the new president died from what is commonly believed to be pneumonia.

Since this was the first time a president passed away in office, a cloud of uncertainty emerged about what happens next. While America’s founding fathers had established provisions for such a scenario, it was not clear how to proceed. In essence, this was an accident waiting to happen. Regarding presidential succession, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President.” The debate centered on whether the vice president would fully assume the office or merely fulfill its responsibilities.

Despite the prevailing opinion of late President Harrison’s cabinet and the leadership on Capitol Hill that Tyler would essentially be the interim or acting president, the Vice President’s unequivocal position was that he would become President. Settling the immediate matter and setting a precedent for all time, he arranged to be sworn in without delay. His rivals may have not appreciated his expeditious approach, yet the 10th president maintained a peaceful transfer of power valued as a hallmark of American democracy.

Never fully accepting Tyler as president, his political rivals continually derided him with the label “His Accidency.” Despite Tyler’s determination not to be perceived as an accidental president, one of Tyler’s very first acts as president inadvertently created an uncomfortable conversation about the religious character of the United States. Proclaiming a national day of mourning for President Harrison, he opened: “When a Christian People feel themselves to be overtaken by a great public calamity…” Although recognizing that every citizen worships according to their own denomination, this Virginian’s introductory words were perceived to run counter to those of another famous citizen of his home state, namely Thomas Jefferson who penned the 1786 Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that served as the basis for religious freedom in the Bill of Rights. What can be excused as a poor choice of words may have actually reflected Tyler’s beliefs about a stratified country.

Tyler’s overall political viewpoint embroils him in ongoing conflict not just with the opposition party, but also his own, the Whigs. His liberal use of the presidential veto power about matters most dear to Whigs led to Tyler being expelled from the party and later being the first president to face a resolution of impeachment. Even though he was not formally impeached, Tyler became a president without a party.

Tyler’s approach to slavery throughout his life was anything but accidental. According to historian Edward P. Crapol, the 10th president had a “lifelong ambivalence about the morality of the South’s peculiar institution,” yet fervently defended it. Born and raised in the land of Washington and Jefferson, he suffered from their same blind spots regarding equality and slavery.

Twenty years later, in 1861, Tyler’s commitment to slavery and white supremacy ultimately swayed him to forgo a reconciliation of the states and to support Virginia’s secession from the USA and subsequent entry into the Confederacy. Despite the odds, Tyler could have been a peacemaker at the Peace Conference of 1861, but his exit certainly torpedoed any last hopes of preserving the Union.

The final chapter of his long political career featured this former US President’s election to the Confederate House of Representatives. When Tyler died in January 1862, there was no proclamation from the White House. In fact, President Lincoln purposely did not order flags to be lowered to half-staff for this leader now branded a “traitor.”

By contrast, a little over 110 miles away in the new Confederate capital in Richmond, Virginia, Tyler received a prestigious send-off. However, it is important to note that his funeral marked the first and only instance that an American President was buried with a foreign flag – the Confederacy’s flag, without the familiar stars and stripes to which he originally pledged his loyalty.

President John Tyler has a complicated legacy. As much as he preserved the US government by establishing the “Tyler Precedent” for presidential succession later ratified with the 25th Amendment, he undermined his country by endorsing the secession of pro-slavery states.

Tyler’s presidency, remembered by few, represents a tragic, yet informative, chapter in American history about the battle for our country’s soul. The path towards a more perfect union will always require effort, collaboration, and civic education. To actualize the vision of a more perfect union, we must think and act like peacemakers who not just navigate troubled waters, but also build bridges for the sake of our future.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less