Talk:1844 United States presidential election

Allusion to 2016 election
I appreciate someone's attempt to be timely, but someone who knows the history should fact-check the claim that Trump is the first candidate since Polk to lose both the state he was born in and his state of residence." Trump was both born in and lives in NYC.  So for him, the question reduces to whether any other President has lost the state in which he was both born and lives. Edgy4 (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistake on map
Whoever made the map mistakingly gave Tennessee 12 electoral votes. They had 13 in this election. If someone would be so kind as to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.24.220 (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting it back to an illegible older map wasn't exactly what I had in mind... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.24.220 (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Something to add
I think that Henry Clay didn't want to annex Texas or something for fear of inciting a war, and that that position was a major factor in his defeat. He changed his mind later in the election because of popular disapproval though.

The funny thing is that although Polk's supporters might have (I'm not sure) denied that annexing a very willing Texas would start a war, which is why they felt they could do that as well as capture Oregon, and annexing Texas definitely did start a war (in a way).

Well anyway, you should probably add a little tidbit about how Clay's opposition to annexing Texas contributed to his defeat. [right]~m.r.bob[/right]

Skipping some facts
Van Buren's candidacy was derailed because of a vote at the beginning of the convention that reestablished the rule of a 2/3 majority. It is interesting to note that Polk's supporters all voted against it so as to keep a good face with the Van Burenites. I did not add this because I no longer have the book(s) in which I read this and I think that if this were to be stated that it would be important to mention who brought forward the vote in the first place and I do not recall. I believe it was the New Hampshire delegate, but that is just a hunch.

Additionally, I think that it should be stated that Polk's statement about not previously seeking the presidency should be rebutted with contrary theories. I believe it was Bergeron who wrote that Jackson and Polk's friends devised a strategy to get the Presidential nomination and keep available the Vice Presidency if all else fails. Included in that strategy was to have a northernor first mention Polk's name after the failure of the Van Buren ticket, which was done. And now that I think of it, this is where New Hampshire came in as I think it was a New Hampsherite who first nominated Polk on the 8th ballot before he won on the 9th.

I no longer have these books so I won't post until someone can verify my facts. I'm going straightly on memory for this. Thanks! Bsd987 03:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

John Siegenthaler the elder (you'll remember him from the famously innaccurate Wikipedia profile) wrote a book on Polk. In it, he details at length the machinations that the Jacksonians went through to get Polk named the nominee. Indeed, his statement upon receiving the nomination was largely disingenuous. - Venicemenace 3/12/06


 * Comment on the Presidential roll call. According to Richard C. Bain and Judith H. Parris, Convention Decisions and Voting Records (page 34), which documents the national nominating conventions of the two major parties in each election from 1832 until 1972, "The critical vote was the one sustaining the two thirds rule. It was highly candidate-oriented, with a correlation of -.94 between the majority side of the issue and Van Buren's first ballot vote, and +.94 with the combined votes of the other candidates." It would be difficult to test the correlation with the Polk vote, as he received only 44 votes on the 8th ballot and all votes on the 9th ballot (after shifts). Chronicler3 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Frelinghuysen
On the Frelinghuysen issue, I just added to the note to the effect that Frelinghuysen was a New Jersey native and was politically associated with New Jersey. This would presumably explain the confusion of both the Vermont electors and the National Archives. john k 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyler's ambitions?
The article discusses in brief Tyler's desire to run for reelection but then sort of drops that thread. Did he make an attempt to secure the nomination of either the Whigs or the Democrats? Did his plans to set up a third party ever come to anything? At what point did he give up ... or was he actually on the ballot in some states? --Jfruh (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tyler's Campaign. For some reason, Tyler's candidacy has not been documented too well. A national convention called the National Democratic Tyler Convention assembled in Baltimore at the same time as the Democratic National Convention (5/27-28/1844). The convention nominated Tyler for a second term but did not recommend a choice for Vice President. It is possible that the convention hoped to influence the DNC. (Ohio Elects the President, p. 27). Tyler was at first enthusiastic about his chances. Tyler accepted their nomination; his address was referenced in the New Hampsire Patriot and State Gazette on 6/6/1844, but the paper did not print the text of Tyler's letter. Tyler spent much of the summer with his new bride and their honeymoon in New York City. While there, he discovered that his support was quite soft. He wrote a letter in which he withdrew from the race around 8/25/1844; it was announced in several newspapers on 8/29/1844, including the New-Hampshire Patriot and State Gazette, the Berkshire County Whig, and the Barre Gazette. The NHPSG stated that Tyler withdrew for fear that his candidacy would divide the anti-Clay vote and possibly elect him. Chronicler3 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I basically just stole Chronicler3's response here, massaging it and inserting it into the body of the article.


 * — DLJessup (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the lede
Related to the previous discussion, the lede to this article seems a little off to me:


 * The United States presidential election of 1844 was the first election to see an incumbent President seek nomination and fail to receive it. John Tyler achieved this dubious distinction, abandoned by his native Democratic party and despised by his adopted Whigs.

It's not clear to me, in light of the rest of the article, that this is really true. If Tyler actively sought the nomination of either the Democrats or the Whigs, it's not discussed here; he was in fact nominated by the "Tyler National Democratic Convention", whatever that was. The article sort of implies that this was a ruse to get the Democratic nomination, but that isn't clear. I think the lede should be modified but I'm not how; it would depend on what his plans were in the leadup to the nominations, which are not discussed here. --Jfruh (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * good point; I tried to fix it. The lede should tell the main story: Polk defeats Clay. Rjensen 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Democratic nomination balloting?
In a lot of other presidential election articles there are exact ballot counts for the nominating conventions; does anyone have numbers for the Democratic convention ballots? This is one of the more interesting conventions, with its dark horse victor. —pfahlstrom 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The information is posted here (and possibly elsewhere): http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=58091 Chronicler3 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage of term "dark horse"
Polk is generally considered to have been the first "dark horse" candidate to be nominated for President (and then to be elected). The term warrants some discussion, as later "dark horse" nominees were of a different caliber than Polk.

In early 1844, James Polk was better known than may be assumed at first. He had served as Speaker of the U.S. House at a time when the proceedings of Congress were printed verbatim on the front pages of newspapers. Then as state Democratic conventions were held to appoint and instruct delegates to the 1844 Democratic National Convention, Polk's name was put forth as a contender for the vice presidency. Thus the delegates attending the convention were aware of who he was.

Compare this to Franklin Pierce in the following decade. Pierce's own campaign biography of 1852 states that he rarely participated in debates when he served in Congress, 15 years before running for President. Pierce was mentioned in one newspaper account of early 1852 as a "favorite son" candidate for New Hampshire, but by the time of the convention that state had switched to Levi Woodbury. Pierce did not have the name recognition, the extensive legislative record, or the web of influence that Polk had in 1844. Chronicler3 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I always assumed the term just indicated a candidate who was not running before the convention, or at least was not considered anywhere near a front-runner before the convention. —pfahlstrom 03:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes but in an era before primaries, thus placing the entire decision at the convention, and with the public fiction that "a candidates doesn't seek the office but accepts it as his dutiy if he is offered it" it's hard to define whether or not someone was running before the convention. Timrollpickering 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Really BAD mistake on map
The map of the election shows New York as having gone for Clay. It went for Polk, as the text of the article states. Doug (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maryland is incorrectly shown as having 10 votes on the map, when it should be 8 MrMingsz (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Who did New York vote for?
In the PNG version of the 1844 presidential election, it shows that New York voted for James K. Polk, but in the svg version, it falsely tells us that New York went for Henry Clay, when they definitely went for Polk. It says that New York went for Polk in Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential elections. Could you please change the svg version from having gone from Clay to Polk. I can imagine people are starting to get confused. Please change it with a more updated version of the svg map. Thank you. Darren Monaghan, 21 March, 2009, 09:40

"Fifty-four forty or fight!"
The article is in error when it says that "Fifty-four forty or fight" is not associated with this election as the author says it did not appear until 1845. That is not accurate. True, "Fifty-four forty or fight!" was not Polk's campaign slogan as many may believe it to be; however, it WAS being used by extreme proponents of the re-occupation of Oregon. Polk, himself, didn't want a fight with Great Britain, but his politics on the situation certainly put the U.S. on a potential collision course with Great Britain. The fact is, Great Britain didn't want to fight over Oregon, either, and that is possibly what helped us avoid conflict.

As for the slogan, however, yes "Fifty-four forty or fight" should most definitely be associated with Polk's election, as it was his position on Manifest Destiny that won him the Democratic nomination and the election. This slogan may not have been the way that Polk approached the situation, but it was certainly a hot topic at the time. Plus, it was an aggressive voicing of a call to action that most of the nation's people held anyway - a call that Polk answered, minus the "fight".

This information can be verified at http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/JamesPolk/ as well as others.

LivingDedGrrl (Jessica), 13:45 June 1, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingDedGrrl (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE someone change the electoral vote map to show New York giving it's electoral votes to Polk, not Clay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.22.95 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Electoral map
It occurs to me that, in order to maintain uniformity amongst our election articles, some user should create and upload a .PNG map that corresponds to the correct .JPG map currently in use and place it on the page in place of the aforementioned .JPG. I cannot do it because my computer does not support the software as it should! But, surely, someone can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Two-face Jackie (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How exactly can we do it? Tilliego (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Major revision for Election of 1844
I've worked up a complete revision for the article, with mainstream sources. See references.

My sources concur that the central theme of the election was slavery and Texas annexation, rather than Manifest Destiny. My emphasis of these issues in the article simply reflects this. 36hourblock (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Photographs for lead images
I feel like we should use photographs for the lead images. This was the first election (unless you count 1840), that both major party candidates had contemporary photographs taken of them. Because of this, I believe we should use photographs for the lead images, instead of the paintings. Here are my proposals. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)