Text: William Henry Gravely, Jr., “Chapter 03,” The Early Political and Literary Career of Thomas Dunn English Story, dissertation, 1953 (This material is protected by copyright)

[page 96:]

Not long after President Harrison's death, Thomas Dunn English became an active and enthusiastic supporter of his successor, John Tyler. Nor did his zeal for the Tyler cause ever waver, even after many fair-weather friends had deserted the ranks, having given up the cause as lost. The political connections which English formed as a result of this attachment were destined in no small degree to color the future events of his life. They were to determine largely the trend of his political thinking as well as where both his ideological and personal sympathies would lie. Of course, it is not to be supposed that English, as a young man of only twenty-two years when he cast his lot with the friends of President Tyler, would have played a major part in the turbulent politics of that day. But his rôle, though minor and restricted, was nonetheless significant, and a clear understanding of it cannot fail to lead also to a clearer understanding of the rôles of the more important actors. Indeed, that a man of English's age should have been capable of playing the part he did attests both the brilliancy of his mind and his talent as a politician.

In order to gain an accurate conception of English's rôle as a local politician and journalist during the Administration of John Tyler and especially how this role forms a [page 97:] vital part of the stirring political drama of the early eighteen-forties, let us consider in some detail John Tyler's political philosophy, the circumstances of his succession to the Presidency, and the general state of national politics after he had been in the White House about a year. This survey will bring us to the early months of the year 1842, when English as a young Philadelphia politician had become instrumental in the organization and conduct of large meetings held to defend and promote the policies for which President Tyler stood.

Any impartial examination of John Tyler's political career prior to his selection by the Whigs as a running mate for Harrison in the campaign of 1840 will reveal that he consistently opposed those measures which he considered detrimental to the doctrine of States’ rights and which he felt he could not conscientiously support because of his belief in a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States. Although never an extremist or nullificationist like Calhoun, he was unswervingly an anti-Federalist at heart, and regardless of political nomenclature was always very much a democrat in the Jeffersonian sense of the term.(1) it was because he had built a wide [page 98:] reputation for pursuing an independent course of action in accordance with his conception of the nature and functions of government as regulated by the Constitution that he was widely referred to during the period of his Presidency as “honest John Tyler.”(2)

Since John Tyler was so loyal and jealous a guardian of the doctrine of States’ rights, it is not surprising to find him firmly opposed to those centralizing tendencies which marked the Administrations of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. He had owed his election to the United States Senate in 1827 primarily to the anti-Jackson forces in the Virginia Assembly and, even though he supported the Democratic ticket in the national election of 1828, he was never without misgivings as to the policies that Jackson would pursue.(3) But he knew that President Adams was a strong federalist and doubtless believed Jackson to be the less objectionable of the two men. True, Tyler considered some of Jackson's views to be offensive to Virginia, but he felt that the General, if elected, would avoid antagonizing a State whose support was so essential to his political success. “Should he abuse Virginia,” said Tyler in a letter to John Rutherfoord, “by setting at naught her [page 99:] political sentiments, he will find her at the head of the opposition, and he will probably experience the fate of J. Q. A.”(4)

By the end of Jackson's first term as President, John Tyler's relations with the Administration had deteriorated considerably, and it was not long after the national election of 1832 that a clean break occurred. When Jackson let it be known in his famous Proclamation of December 10, 1832, that he would take a firm stand against South Carolina's efforts to nullify the tariff laws passed in 1828 and 1832, Tyler felt that the doctrine of States’ rights was in mortal jeopardy. Although disapproving South Carolina's course and thereby clearly not identifying himself with the nullificationists, he was unwilling to support Jackson's uncompromising stand. Therefore, when Congress sustained the President by passing the “Force Bill,” which authorized him to employ the armed forces of the United States to compel obedience to the laws, Tyler voted against it. His was the only vote recorded by the opposition, for Calhoun and his fellow nullificationists, holding that their combined votes would not provide a true barometer of the sentiment against the “Force Bill,” left the Senate chamber before the voting [page 100:] took place.(5) Earlier, Tyler had spoken earnestly in the Senate against the “Force Bill,” and his lone rote in opposition to it merely emphasised how deep-rooted his political convictions were.(6)

Another clean break between Jackson and Tyler occurred over a question upon which the two were in basic agreement. Ever since Alexander Hamilton had advocated a national bank in 1791, the opposition to it cane chiefly from men of the Jeffersonian school of thought. In 1816 President Madison approved a bill passed by Congress calling for the establishment of such a bank oven though he had vetoed an earlier bill passed in 1815.(7) In 1819 came Chief Justice Marshall's decision, in the case of McCulloch vs. The State of Maryland, in which the Supreme Court uphold the constitutionality of the United States Bank on the ground that it was essential to the successful execution of the fiscal powers of the national government.(8) Since this central bank was given the power to establish subsidiary banks which although located in various States could not legally be taxed by them,(9) it is small wonder that men of Jeffersonian principles considered the chartering of a national bank to be a severe blow against the sovereignty of the individual States. John Tyler was a consistent opponent of [page 101:] the United States Bank, and on this question of national policy he was in general agreement with President Jackson, who despite his federalistic leanings with respect to the tariff and other matters was unalterably opposed to the Bank.(10)

The break between the two men, however, was the result of Tyler's disapproval of the methods which Jackson employed to destroy the Bank. Before the end of his first term Jackson vetoed a bill sanctioned by both houses of Congress providing for a recharter of the Bank. John Tyler thoroughly approved of this veto, and the reelection of Jackson in 1832 apparently indicated that the people of the United States approved of it also. At any rate, Jackson felt that the people had expressed themselves unequivocally. He therefore embarked on a policy [page 102:] which Tyler and others regarded as dictatorial and as exceeding his authority. In order to hasten the end of the Bank, Jackson determined not only that no further funds should be deposited in it but that those deposits already there should be removed. Consequently, when the Secretary of the Treasury, William J. Duane, refused to remove the deposits, Jackson dismissed him and appointed Roger B. Taney in his stead. Taney, whose views accorded with those of Jackson, then carried out the President's orders.(11)

So strongly did Tyler disapprove of Jackson's methods of handling the Bank problem that, when Henry Clay led the fight to secure from Congress a vote of censure against Jackson and his Secretary for their summary removal of the deposits, he determined to support Clay's resolutions. Inasmuch as his support of Clay was later referred to by Tyler's enemies as indicative that he was not always consistent in his attitude toward the Bank, it cannot be emphasized too strongly here that the very fact that Tyler appeared in both the pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson camps points to his consistency rather than to his inconsistency. A strict constructionist, he regarded the Bank as unconstitutional. It was on this belief that his opposition to the Bank was primarily based. How then could he be expected — even in order to hasten the end of an institution [page 103:] so obnoxious to him as the Bank to desire the accomplishment of this end by means which he regarded as an unconstitutional assumption of power by the President?(12)

At any rate, Tyler spoke out vigorously in the Senate against the course pursued by the Administration,(13) and when the General Assembly of Virginia instructed him, as one of the State's two Senators in Congress, to vote for the resolutions censuring Jackson, he not only willingly concurred but became instrumental in securing their passage Virginia had been strongly opposed to the removal of the deposits, and consequently the anti-Jackson forces were [page 104:] firmly in control of the legislature.(14)

But their control was not long-lived. The passage of the resolutions of censure meant that many Democrats had come to the parting of the ways with Jackson and his Administration. Consequently, in Virginia as in other States, men of varying political creeds who were opposed

to Jacksonianism put aside their differences and united in the spring of 1834 to form the new Whig Party.(15) John Tyler and his friend, Henry A. Wise, were among the Virginians who abandoned the old Democratic label, but not their Democratic principles. Therefore, when the Jacksonian Democrats regained control of the Virginia legislature in 1835, they proceeded to make plans to instruct Tyler and his Whig colleague, Benjamin Watkins Leigh, out of the Senate of the United States.(16) Accordingly, in February of 1836, the legislature passed resolutions instructing the two Senators to vote in favor of expunging from the journal of the Senate the vote of censure previously recorded against Jackson. Tyler,(17) who was unwilling to vote as directed and who at the time believed in the doctrine of instructions, thereupon relinquished his seat.

Even before Tyler gave up his membership in the Senate, the Whigs of his native State had endorsed him for the [page 105:] Vice-Presidency of the United States. Unfortunately, however, sentiment in Virginia was divided as to whether William Henry Harrison or Hugh Lawson White of Tennessee should have first place on the ticket, and consequently, in the national election of 1836, Tyler had to suffer the handicap of running in his own State on a split ticket. He lost Virginia but won Tennessee, where no candidate vied with White for the honor of first place. He also carried Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia.(18)

Defeated for the Vice-Presidency, Tyler retired to private life, but it was not long before he became active again as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Shortly thereafter he once more became a formidable contender for a seat in the United States Senate. The term of the incumbent, William C. Rives, was to come to an end in March, 1839, and Tyler was generally regarded as the proper Whig candidate to oppose him. Rives, however, had recently deserted the Democratic ranks and become a leader of a group opposed to Van Burenism who were called Conservatives. The Conservatives, although they had broken with the Democrats, had not united with the Whigs. Consequently the Whigs were exceedingly anxious to win them over and thus greatly strengthen their own position in Virginia and their chances of carrying the State in the national election of 1840. Whereupon a substantial number of the Whigs [page 106:] determined to abandon their own candidate and support Rives.(19)

When it became evident that many Whigs were endorsing a scheme to elect Rives, Tyler's friends were naturally incensed. Tyler had previously lost his seat in the Senate because of his support of policies for which the Whigs stood. How, when there was an opportunity to reward him for his self-sacrifice, he was being abandoned on grounds of expediency. Tyler's friends had reason to suspect that Henry Clay was largely to blame for the support that Rives was receiving.(20) Consequently, if one can credit the account of Henry k. Wise, Judge John B. Christian wrote to a friend in Congress (obviously Wise himself) inquiring about the suspicious actions of the Whig leaders. The friend then saw Clay, who acknowledged that he was familiar with the plan to elect Rives. Clay insisted, however, that he had advised the election of Rives only in the event that Tyler could not be elected and in the event also that the cause of the Whigs in Virginia would thereby be improved. As the contest dragged on, however, the Whig leaders felt it to be more and more urgent that Rives be elected. Therefore, according to Wise, Clay promised to do everything in his power to secure Tyler's [page 107:] nomination for the Vice-Presidency provided the latter's friends would agree to support Rives.(21)

How far Wise's account may be trusted is doubtful. Lyon G. Tyler accepts it in part, but denies Wise's statement that Tyler and his friends were parties to the agreement. He points out that Tyler and his friends continued to vote against Rives and that Rives’ election to the Senate did not occur until after Tyler had already been chosen as the Vice-Presidential nominee.(22) But even

though much of Wise's account is open to question, Tyler's withdrawal as a contestant for a seat in the Senate placed him in a favorable position for serious consideration as the Vice-Presidential nominee in the election of 1840. after the Whig convention which met in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on December 4, 1839, had chosen Harrison rather than Clay as the Presidential nominee, it was necessary to strengthen the ticket by the selection of a Vice Presidential nominee from a slaveholding State and especially of one whose name was identified in the public mind with the doctrine of States’ rights.(23) John Tyler, therefore, received the nomination, and after one of the most exciting of all national elections was elected Vice President on the ticket headed by old Tippecanoe. [page 108:]

It was almost inevitable that the Whig Party should begin to fall apart not long after the defeat of the policies of Jackson and Van Buren had been achieved. So widely divergent were the political views of the groups that had brought it into being that its leaders decided not to offer a specific platform to the voters. It is certain that no set of principles could have been formulated that would have been acceptable to the various discordant groups. Mow that success had come, the one interest common to all the elements — opposition to Jacksonianism and Van Burenism — was no longer a binding tie. It soon became evident that the dominant element in the Whig Party — the nationalists of the North — would not be content to allow such explosive issues as the Bank and the tariff to remain dormant as they had been allowed to do prior to the election. Hence, when the accident of Harrison's death suddenly made Tyler President, the new executive was thrust into an almost impossible situation. Confronting him was a Whig majority in Congress which looked not upon himself but upon Henry Clay as their leader.

It soon became clear that Clay had no Intention of relinquishing to the new President control over the dominant element of the Whig Party. This element, composed chiefly of men who had formerly belonged to the Rational Republican Party and whose strength lay principally in the Northern States, was strongly in favor of rechartering the [page 109:] United States Bank. Clay, as the acknowledged leader of the Whigs in the Senate, soon became the sponsor of Bank legislation which Tyler felt that he could not conscientiously support. Since feeling ran high in regard to this explosive issue and successful compromise was difficult, two courses were open to Tyler. On the one hand, he could waive his conscientious objections to the proposed legislation, on the ground that the Whig majority in Congress approved it, and allow it to become a law with or without his signature. On the other hand, he could exercise the authority granted him by the Constitution and use his veto to prevent the passage of any legislation which he regarded as unconstitutional, even though his course might lead to an open break with the party that had elected him. There was nothing in John Tyler's career to justify the hope that he would take the first of these two courses. Had he not already and primarily on constitutional grounds cast the lone vote in the Senate against the “Force Bill”? And had he not resigned his seat when he could not conscientiously obey the instructions of the legislature of his State for the very reason that he held the legislature to be within its rights in instructing those whom it had elected to the Senate of the United States? Nonetheless, Henry Clay evidently thought that he could bring Tyler under his control. Angered by Tyler's recalcitrance, he is reputed to have said: “Tyler dares not resist. I will [page 110:] drive him before me.”(24)

But Tyler was not to be so driven. He did go so far, however, in an effort to preserve harmony, as to advocate the passage of a Bank measure framed by his Secretary of the Treasury, Thomas Ewing.(25) But he went no further. Twice Clay-supported Bank bills were passed by Congress, and twice the President employed his power of the veto.(26) After the second veto Tyler's entire Cabinet resigned with the exception of the Secretary of State, Daniel Webster.

The final break had come and Tyler was “a President without a party.”(27) Although the Democrats for the most part hailed his Bank policies, it soon became evident that they were unwilling to look to him for leadership. On the other hand, the Whig Party as it had been heterogeneously composed to combat the policies of Jackson and Van Buren had disintegrated. It was henceforth the party of the dominant element in it — the old National Republicans. Its strength lay chiefly in the support of the financial and commercial circles of the North.

One has only to read cursorily The Diary, of Philip Hone to sense the bitter antagonism that Tyler's vetoes [page 111:] of the Whig-sponsored Bank bills aroused in the North.(28) A friend and adviser of many leaders in the world of finance and commerce, Hone had been greatly perturbed over the illness and death of President Harrison. But he appears honestly to have believed that Tyler was somehow committed to support a Bank program such as that advocated by Henry Clay because he had accepted a place on the Whig ticket. Hone regarded the establishment of a national bank as the most important of Whig policies notwithstanding the fact that the Whig leaders had been patently afraid to incorporate this or any other explosive policy in a platform for fear that it might cost them the election. The news of Harrison's death caused Hone to express his misgivings concerning the political situation. Although stressing Tyler's reputation for honesty, Hone feared that the new President, being a Virginian, might not be in sympathy with policies like the rechartering of a National Bank which the people of the North regarded as essential to the welfare of the country.(29)

Although Hone had desired the nomination of Henry Clay as the Whig candidate for the Presidency, he accepted Harrison without misgivings and apparently entertained no doubts that the Bank question would be settled satisfactorily. After Tyler became President, Hone recorded in his Diary [page 112:] that if the new executive pursued the Whig policies which had been avowed by Harrison and to which the Cabinet was committed, there would be nothing to fear.(30)

Yet it is debatable whether Harrison would have eventually proved to be any more amenable to pressure than Tyler was later. Apparently there were times when the old General resisted the efforts of Clay and others to be self appointed moulders of Presidential policy — as, for instance, when he is reputed to have remarked curtly: “Mr. Clay, you forget that I am the President.”(31) Furthermore, one may question whether the Bank bills which were eventually sent to Tyler for approval would have been acceptable to Harrison had he lived. The General's public pronouncements certainly do not indicate that he would have accepted them without a struggle. As early as May 1, 1836, he stated in reply to a specific inquiry by Sherrod Williams that he felt that a National Bank should not — and could not, constitutionally — be chartered unless it were evident that the lack of such a bank seriously affected the public welfare. “There is no construction which I can give the constitution,” wrote Harrison in the same letter, “which [page 113:] would authorise it, on the ground of affording facilities to commerce.”(32) Later, in a speech delivered at Dayton, Ohio, on September 10, 1840, he again expressed these sentiments even more emphatically than he had done in his letter to Sherrod Williams.(33)

As further evidence of Harrison's attitude toward a National Bank, we have the following Interesting testimony of Thomas Dunn English:

I called on him a short while after his inauguration, — I think it was two days before

The President drew himself up, and said rather stiffly and sternly: “Sir, they will scarcely put themselves in antagonism to the Executive, at the very outset of his administration.”

But death came before Harrison had the opportunity of demonstrating whether he would have opposed the Bank program of his party. It followed, then, that when Tyler succeeded him and did elect to oppose it, he had to face the angry fire of a group who could maintain, to their own satisfaction at any rate, that their program had been thwarted by the accident of death. It soon became evident that Tyler could not look for sympathetic advice and assistance to the members of the Cabinet which Harrison had bequeathed to him. In the interest of harmony and in the hope of averting a break with his Party, he did not dismiss them while the Bank question was raging; but for helpful consultation he turned more and more to a group of friendly advisers in Congress who because of their slight numerical strength had been designated by Henry Clay as the “Corporal's Guard.” Clay had charged in a debate in the Senate on August 19, 1841, that “there was a cabal formed for the purpose of breaking down the [page 115:] present cabinet, and that cabal did not number a corporal's guard.”(35) The phrase caught hold of the imaginations of Tyler's friends and organized groups of his supporters gladly adopted the appellation.

According to Lyon G. Tyler, however, the original “Corporal's Guard” was composed of a mere half-dozen members of Congress, who made up in ability for their numerical weakness. They were Henry A. Wise, Thomas Walker Gilmer, and Frank Mallory, of Virginia; Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts; George H. Proffit, of Indiana; and William W. Irwin, of Pennsylvania.(36) Of course, when Tyler's veto of the second Bank bill resulted in the resignation of the entire Cabinet with the exception of Webster, the harassed President lost no time in appointing an able Cabinet on which he could rely for help and guidance. But he was always close to his “Corporal's Guard,” one of whom — Thomas Walker Gilmer — later became his Secretary of the Navy.(37)

Such was the general state of national politics near the beginning of 1842. The Administration had broken completely with the Whigs. Its official organ in Washington, the Madisonian, was roundly denouncing Clay and other Whig leaders, and Whig journals throughout the country were equally positive in their denunciation of the President. [page 116:] Nonetheless, Tyler was not without considerable support in some of the Northern States. Among these States was Pennsylvania, where the brilliant young Thomas Dunn English had already identified himself with a group that was enthusiastically endorsing the policies, of the National Administration.

Just what English's politics were prior to the campaign of l840 remains somewhat obscure. It has already been pointed out that his father was active as a Young Democratic Whig in 1837 and that English himself apparently supported Harrison in 1840. But in view of the enthusiastic endorsement that both men gave to the policies of John Tyler, it is evident that they could not have had much in common with the dominant element of the Whig Party in the North. When Tyler broke with this element, English and his father found their logical places in the ranks of the President's friends, who formed themselves into groups and rallied to his support.

It is difficult to determine the extent to which these various separate organizations that sprang up in the Northern cities were composed of sincere friends of the President. It is reasonable to assume, however, that he had a fairly large number of genuine adherents, for many of them continued to support him loyally until the very end of his term of office and under the most adverse political conditions. On the other hand, it was inevitable — especially in the wake of the spoils system that had [page 117:] flourished in the Administrations of Jackson and Van Buren — that these separate Tyler organizations would attract many opportunists who were less interested In political principles than in the possibility of benefitting themselves by means of the patronage controlled by the Administration. That the friends of President Tyler In Philadelphia included a large number of opportunists is evident from the political dissension which soon arose, primarily as a result of the distribution of offices in the city under the Administration's control. Although English had a hand in these controversies, he apparently retained the confidence of the officials in Washington, and on the strength of his record must be numbered among the President's loyal friends in spite of the efforts of his enemies to impugn the motives of his loyalty.

At any rate English himself, in recalling his early relationship with Tyler, denied that ulterior motives had in any way determined his decision to uphold the Administration. Rather Tyler's Bank policies had determined it. “When he vetoed the bank bill,” English wrote, “I supported him with some zeal, and continued that support, such as it was, until the close of his administration, although I disagreed with him and his advisers on a good many points. But I had no office to ask in return for my support, and I avoided any interview with him, especially as interested motives had been imputed to me in sustaining him.”(38) [page 118:]

Apparently there had been no serious disagreement among the President's Philadelphia friends until after Washington's birthday had come and gone in the year 1842. Among the papers of John Tyler is a printed invitation sent to Thomas W. Gilmer of the House of Representatives from a Committee writing in behalf of the citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, requesting the Congressman to be present on February 22, 1842, to commemorate the birth of Washington. The meeting, arranged by a group friendly to the Administration, was to convene at half-past two in the afternoon in the Assembly Rooms at the southwest corner of Tenth and Chestnut Streets in Philadelphia.(39) Although English was not one of those whose names were attached to the official invitation, he was apparently scheduled to fill an important role in the proceedings. It is clear from the lengthy account of the celebration appearing in the Philadelphia Public Ledger of February 23rd that President Tyler himself, as well as other important officials in Washington, had received invitations similar to the one sent to Gilmer. The meeting is described in part as follows:

The “Friends of the Administration” celebrated the Anniversary of the Birth of the Father of his Country yesterday, in grand style, at the Assembly Building. About five hundred individuals sat down to dinner, and their toasts, regular and volunteer, songs, speeches, &c., were given with the greatest spirit, and received with the most enthusiastic applause. The room was the very large, [page 119:] long Saloon of the Assembly Building, handsome in itself, rendered still more so by the decorations which the Committee had bestowed upon it. At the lower end, over the entrance, flags were festooned across and displayed in the centre — a semi-circle of stars, and an eagle underneath. The upper end was decorated in like manner, with flags; in the middle, an inscription on muslin, with the words, “The Memory of the Immortal George Washington — Born, February 22, 1732,” forming a small square. Below this a little, and standing out from the other embellishments, was a fine oil painting of the Father of his Country; surrounding this, on all sides, were other oil paintings — portraits of Jefferson, Lafayette, Harrison and Tyler; and again, on each side of these, were two fine lithographs of President Tyler, holding in his hand the veto document. The combinations were altogether pleasing, and their effect fine, reflecting credit on the decorating committee. There were three tables extending the whole length of the Saloon, calculated for people sitting on each side of them; at the centre table the President of the day presided; Ex-Recorder Rush at the table on his right hand, and Thomas S. Smith at the left hand table. The whole affair passed off with the utmost unanimity of feeling, and with the best kind of order. From the character of the toasts and the speeches, we should judge that the company was composed of persons who had formerly belonged to opposite sides in politics, but who had met together, on this occasion, in a proper unanimity of sentiment, to do justice to an administration whose endeavor is to promote the good of the whole country, but whose difficulty is to do so amid the various jarring interests and opinions which prevail. The proceedings of the day commenced by the officers taking their places at the table, in the following order: —

President of the Day — Benjamin W. Richards.

Vice Presidents — Samuel Rush, Robert Hare, John Lindsay, Thomas S. Smith, Dennis Measley, Mason Hutchins, D. B. Morgan, Mordecai Taylor, Robert S. English, Francis McBride, Samuel Cuen, John Wistar, Jr., Benjamin R. Mears, Andrew Redheffer, Michael Andress, Samuel Gorgas, James Rogers.

Secretaries — James Gregory, William Bradford, Thos. M. Vaux.(40) [page 120:]

It is interesting to note that among the Vice-Presidents of this gathering were Robert Hare, who had examined young Thomas Dunn English in chemistry less than three years before at the University of Pennsylvania and Robert S. English, Thomas Dunn's father.(41) Prominent, too, is

the name of Thomas S. Smith, whose appointment later in the year as Collector of the Port of Philadelphia in place of Jonathan Roberts was to precipitate a violent attack upon the President.

The President of the Day, Benjamin W. Richards, made a few preliminary remarks in which he defended John Tyler against the charges, contained in a letter just recently handed to him, of being an accidental President. He then passed on to the duty of introducing the toasts of the day After thirteen “Regular toasts,” there followed twenty four toasts by the Committee to the following men: His Excellency, John Tyler, William C. Rives, Caleb Cushing, George H. Proffit, William W. Irwin, Rufus Choate, T. W. Gilmer, John Banks, John C. Spencer, Abel P. Upshur, Col. Samuel Miller, C. A. Wickliffe, Hugh S. Legare, Walter Forward, Daniel Webster, Henry A. Wise, William Sprague, Francis Mallory, W. D. Merrick, J. C. Bates, Robert Tyler, Sandy Harris. Dr. Thomas Dunn English, and Dr. John McKelvey.(42) [page 121:]

It is noteworthy that the youthful Thomas Dunn English was included in a list of twenty-four distinguished men toasted by the Committee.(43) Among those so honored, aside from the President and his eldest son, Robert, were the members of the President's Cabinet and all six members of the original Corporal's Guard. Several of these toasts are of special interest because they are tributes to men whose lives are interwoven in the present biography. John Tyler was toasted as follows:

Henry A . Wise was praised as the “uncompromising foe to wrong, the zealous advocate of right”; Robert Tyler, as a “noble son of a noble sire.” The toast to young Thomas Dunn English was worded thus:

After the gathering had heard the toasts of the Committee and letters from President Tyler and others who were unable to attend the celebration because of the pressure of official duty, one of the company sang a new song — typical of the sort that had played such an important part in the victory of Harrison and Tyler in 1840. Thomas Dunn English had written the words for the occasion, to the tune of Rosin the Bow: [page 122:]

The song having been sung, the President of the meeting began a series of no less than seventy-three volunteer toasts. Many of these toasts were offered to John Tyler himself or in praise of the constitutional principles [page 123:] which he had upheld. Four were to J. Washington Tyson, who perhaps would have been the most likely appointee to the Collectorship of the Port of Philadelphia had President Harrison lived,(45) and who seems to have been possibly the leading spirit of the Tyler faction in Philadelphia to which English belonged. English's father, Robert, offered his toast to Abel P. Upshur, whom he praised as a “ripe scholar and able officer.” Upshur, a Virginian, had become President Tyler's Secretary of the Navy, it will be recalled, after the veto of the second Bank bill. Thomas Dunn English offered the final toast — one to the Veto Power: “A wise provision of our forefathers, for the protection of their descendants.” It was introduced, according to the account in the Ledger, “with a very eloquent speech, in support of the measures of President Tyler.”(46)

So lengthy was the Public Ledger's story of the great Tyler meeting that the paper had to postpone until the issue of the following day a full report of the two outstanding speeches of the occasion — those of the Hon. William W. Irwin and Thomas Dunn English. The issue of February 24th devoted a large portion of its first page to the recording of these speeches. Irwin, it will be remembered, was one of Pennsylvania's Representatives in Congress and also one of the original Corporal's Guard [page 124:] which had so loyally upheld the President. That English's speech was given the place of honor alongside Irwin's is additional proof that the young Philadelphian had advanced rapidly to a position of influence among the President's political friends.

English's speech, as the toast which it introduced would imply, was an ardent defense of the right of a President of the United States to exercise the power of the veto. He praised President Tyler's views as to how the fiscal concerns of the country should be handled and commended him for vetoing two Bank bills that were obnoxious to the people. He peremptorily denounced those who, because of their chagrin over these vetoes, would do away with a constitutional privilege which the. founding fathers had seen fit to establish as a check upon the passage of objectionable laws. Among his concluding remarks was a plea urging his hearers to support President Tyler's “manly and patriotic course”:

Thus the great Tyler celebration on Washington's birthday came to an end amid much pageantry and with at [page 125:] least an outward show of harmony. But real or apparent, the harmony exhibited was not destined to last long. Before the end of the year the removal of Jonathan Roberts from the office of Collector of Customs was to precipitate a bitter political controversy in Philadelphia, and the appointment of Thomas S. Smith as his successor, together with numerous replacements of minor customs officials, was to cause considerable dissatisfaction among the President's supporters. Especially dissatisfied, of course, were those who had hoped to profit from the changes but did not.

President Tyler's worries over the problem of whether to remove or retain officeholders began almost as soon as he succeeded to the Presidency. That he was fundamentally opposed to the spoils system, there can be no doubt. In his statement to the people of the country issued on April 9, 1841, he decried the evils of the system and announced that he would remove from office no incumbent so long as he fulfilled his duties and did not, either openly or secretly, give “his official influence to the purposes of party, thereby bringing the patronage of the Government in conflict with the freedom of elections.”(48) Although President Tyler admitted that it might become necessary to make numerous removals from office because of violations of this stipulation, a combination of circumstances [page 126:] led eventually to his removing far more officeholders than he had originally contemplated. Not long after the Whig victory in 1840, a host of office-hunters had begun to seek spoils from General Harrison.(49) Many of these had extracted promises which the bedeviled President-elect did not live long enough to keep. Soon after Harrison's death, therefore, Tyler had to determine which of these promises he would redeem. He refused to honor them all, but many he felt unable to ignore. Consequently, many Whigs replaced Democrats who might have retained office but for Harrison's pledges.(50)

But it was the conflict between President Tyler and the dominant element in the Whig Party which inevitably led to a larger number of removals than the honoring of Harrison's pledges had necessitated. As this conflict developed over the Bank issue and other matters, it became increasingly clear that the majority of the officeholders were controlled by the Clay faction of the Party and were therefore antagonistic to the President. Nor was Clay disposed to allow this source of power to slip from his grasp if he could prevent it from so doing. Therefore — as Lyon G. Tyler points out in defending his father from the charge that he employed the public patronage selfishly — inasmuch as Congress took no action to curb the activities of officeholders in elections, the [page 127:] only possible course for the President to pursue, in lieu of patiently awaiting the cutting of his throat politically, was to strike boldly and remove men who, while holding office under his Administration, were using their appointive positions to aid his enemies.(51)

The President's boldness in removing from key positions men who were opposed to his administration of affairs merely served to accentuate the bitterness of those whose dreams of a Whig-supported National Bank had been shattered. A striking instance of this bitter opposition occurred at a public dinner given in New York to Lord Ashburton, the special British minister who had been sent to America to enter into negotiations concerning the dispute between the United States and Great Britain over the northeast boundary. When “The President of the United States” was proposed as a toast, the “entire company, with the exception of the Ambassador and his suite, sat silent or sneering.”(52) So justifiably incensed were President Tyler's friends in Philadelphia by this exhibition of bad taste that they held a meeting in the State House for the purpose of passing a vote of censure on all who had participated in the insult to the President. Thomas Dunn English was one of those who addressed the meeting.(53) [page 128:]

Less than a week after this “indignation meeting,” the Whig press throughout the nation was bitterly assailing President Tyler for the dismissal of Jonathan Roberts as Collector of Customs in Philadelphia. The controversy broke out with the publication by Roberts in the United States Gazette of September 14th of a lengthy report of his relations with the President from the date of his appointment as Collector to that of his dismissal. The report included the official correspondence relating to the controversy, which Roberts, of course, interpreted in such a manner as to make out a case for himself to the disparagement of the President. Nonetheless, from the actual correspondence itself, it is possible to get a clear and unbiased conception of the events which caused Roberts to be superseded.

Jonathan Roberts, a former United States Congressman and Senator from Pennsylvania, was a great admirer of Henry Clay, having joined the Whig Party because of his opposition to Jacksonianism. It was he who had announced that [page 129:] Pennsylvania would give her vote to Tyler as the Vice Presidential nominee of the Whig Party in the campaign of 1840.(54) Holding Roberts to be of the same political school as he himself was, Tyler had written him a letter on April 14, 1841, announcing his appointment as Collector of Customs. The President realized that there had been a warm contest for this office between two Philadelphians — one of whom was J. Washington Tyson. But inasmuch as Harrison had died without having made a final selection, Tyler felt that the best way to avoid political dissension in Philadelphia was to appoint a third man to the office in order to avoid giving the victory to either of the two whom Harrison had had under consideration. Realizing too that both unsuccessful contestants, in expectation of the appointment, had doubtless promised subordinate offices to certain of their friends, President Tyler asked the newly appointed Collector to distribute these offices equally among the friends of the unsuccessful contestants.(55)

But the rupture between Tyler and Clay was not long in coming about, and this rupture necessarily affected the friendly relations between Tyler and Roberts. These [page 130:] relations began to deteriorate when it became evident that many of Roberts’ appointees had become anti-Tyler men after Clay had broken with the President. Tyler soon became convinced, no doubt largely through the representations of his friends in Philadelphia, that it would be necessary to purge the Custom House in Philadelphia of appointees who were antagonistic toward his Administration. Although Roberts declared that he had no knowledge of any such antagonism, Tyler was unconvinced, and on April 27, 1842, he addressed a letter to his Secretary of the Treasury, Walter Forward, requesting that thirty-one changes be made in the subordinate offices in the Custom House “for reasons satisfactory to myself, and connected with the administration of Governmental affairs.”(56) The [page 131:] Secretary of the Treasury immediately wrote to Roberts, enclosing the President's letter and asking him to carry out the President's wishes. Among the changes requested by the President was that Robert S. English should be [page 132:] made a measurer in place of one James Clarke.(57)

Instead of proceeding to comply with this requisition, Roberts sought an audience with the President. Having gone to Washington and finally obtained an interview, he told the. President that he could not conscientiously make the changes requested. Nor was he willing to resign as the President intimated he should do if he were unwilling to comply.(58) After returning to Philadelphia Roberts found a note signed by “R. Tyler, P. Secretary,” and mailed on May 3rd, prior to the date of the interview in Washington, stating that the President wished the requisition he had made “to be at once and to the letter complied with.”(59) For more than four months after [page 133:] receiving this note from Robert Tyler, Roberts continued In office without his resignation's being demanded for his refusal to accede to the President's request. On September 12th, however, Thomas S. Smith presented himself at the Custom House and announced that he had been appointed in the Collector's stead.(60)

Not long after the new Collector had assumed office, the political axe began to fall. Robert S. English received an appointment as Inspector of Customs on October 18, 1842.(61) At least eighteen other changes occurred on [page 134:] the same day, and more were shortly to follow.(62) But it soon became evident that there were not enough vacancies to go around, and dissension began to break out among the supporters of the President. Especially strong was the feeling between two specific groups of Tyler's followers. First, there was the controlling element, under the leadership of J. Washington Tyson and Thomas S. Smith, with which English was identified. This group had supported Harrison against Van Buren in 1840, had later sustained Tyler against the dominant element in the Whig Party, and had elected to call themselves Democrats on the ground that they were the exponents of true Jeffersonian Democracy. Second, there was a group of Democrats who had never broken with the party of Jackson and Van Buren, but who had been drawn to Tyler either because of his opposition to such measures as the Whig Bank bills or because they hoped to profit in some way by supporting the existing Administration. They referred to members of the first group as Whigs and accused them of arrogating to themselves the [page 135:] Democratic label.(63) They were especially embittered because the Collector tended to ignore them in making his appointments.(64) Thomas Dunn English, as a power in the faction largely under the control of J. Washington Tyson and Thomas S. Smith, became deeply involved in a violent controversy arising from dissension between the two groups. When the impetuous Henry A. Wise undertook to rebuke both Tyson and English for their part in the controversy, he merely stirred the flames of resentment, for English countered with a scorching rejoinder.

The controversy developed in the following manner. On Monday evening, October 24, 1842, the dominant group of Tyler supporters in Philadelphia, led by J. Washington Tyson and calling themselves the “Corporal's Guard,” held a large meeting at the Tyler Democratic Headquarters. At this meeting, which was addressed by Thomas Dunn English and Henry B. Hirst among others, certain resolutions were passed, one of which was as follows:

When English read this editorial comment, he wrote the following letter denying that he was in favor of any such scheme:

Meanwhile, however, there had been an anonymous call of a Tyler meeting by one who was evidently at loggerheads with the “Corporal's Guard.” This call was in the form of a written communication which summoned to a meeting to be held at Hall's Hotel, on Second Street below Arch, all Democrats who endorsed the policies of President Tyler, and yet were “opposed to the ‘Clay Whig faction’ ” — maliciously referring, of course, to the dominant Tyler group to which Tyson, Smith, and English belonged — who were “seeking to usurp the name of Democrats for the sake of office — to deceive the President and betray ‘the party of the people’” when the opportune moment arrived in 1844.(68) The date set for the meeting was the evening of November 2nd.

The plans of the anonymous summoner, however, were amusingly, if somewhat highhandedly, thwarted. Members of the Corporal's Guard, sensing insurgency against their organization on the part of certain Democratic supporters of the President who were dissatisfied with Thomas S. Smith's appointments, decided to answer the anonymous call themselves in order to crush the incipient rebellion. Accordingly, when the hour of the meeting arrived, the Corporal's Guard had gathered in such imposing numbers as [page 138:] to be able to outvote those for whom the summons was intended. The anonymous summoner, realizing that he had been outmaneuvered, kept silent and allowed the Corporal's Guard to organize the meeting. After the organization had been accomplished, the arch rebel was identified as Thomas Fitnam, a mail carrier. On being called to explain the object of the meeting, Fitnam contemptuously refused to do so. Consequently, on the motion of Thomas Dunn English, a committee was appointed to draw up a set of resolutions. These — which the packed gathering straightway approved — were worded as follows:

Resolved, That, as John Tyler's “Corporal's Guard,” we are bound to avow our principles and motives openly and above board, and that we do not feel ourselves bound to obey anonymous calls.

Resolved, That we consider the President's appointment of Thomas S. Smith, Esq. to the Collectorship of the port of Philadelphia, as evidence of his sagacity and patriotism.

The anti-Tyler newspapers, of course, reveled in the dissension that was threatening the unity of the organization. The leading article in the Philadelphia North [page 139:] American of November 8, 1842, based upon information derived from the American Sentinel, contained some caustic comments on the proceedings of the Tyler meeting. The resolutions passed by those in control of the meeting, according to the North American, “were adopted with the most astounding applause.” After commenting that the “applause was not the most astounding thing” about the resolutions, the writer of the article sarcastically continued:

“I am not about,” said Dr. English, “to pronounce an eulogism upon the firmness and honesty of John Tyler, nor to defend his character against unjust imputations. The deeds of the President are at once his panegyric and his vindication. (Long and continued cheering.) But I take this occasion to denounce those who, when from every quarter of the Union comes [sic] the shouts of triumph, and when those principles which we advocate are in the ascendent, hang back in confusion, and mar the general joy by their petty reproach. They mistake us if they believe that we can pander to the desires of those whose doubtful merit is an ability to scent from afar the odors of the public kitchen! (applause) men upon whose person lingers [sic] in stern grandeur, the marks imprinted by an indignant Democracy.” (great laughter and tumultuous cheering.)

Francis J. Grund, Esq. after much difficulty in overcoming his characteristic modesty, was prevailed upon to give his views of Democracy. He [page 140:] said: “We are a ‘Corporal's Guard,’ and in a guard there should be discipline. When a man undertakes to mutiny he should be shot, according to Gen. Jackson's second section; or, if the culprit preferred it, to be drummed out of camp.”

After which, as we learn from the intelligent reporter of the American Sentinel, in whom these great events have found a fit and faithful chronicler, the Meeting adjourned with nine cheers for one of ‘Pennsylvania's honored sons, J. Washington Tyson,’ and three cheers for Thomas S. Smith, Esq. Collector of the Port of Philadelphia.(70)

Both the resolutions and the speeches were stinging rebukes to Thomas Fitnam, who, it developed, had been disappointed in his efforts to obtain a minor office in the Custom House. Although on the original list of prospective employees whom President Tyler had unsuccessfully requested Jonathan Roberts to appoint, Fitnam had apparently met with no better success at the hands of Thomas S. Smith. A hotheaded and independent Democrat with strong Irish-American backing, Fitnam had doubtless suffered under Smith's policy of preferring Tyler men of Whig, rather than Democratic, background. Now, because of his insurgency, Fitnam was threatened with expulsion from the dominant organization of President Tyler's supporters in Philadelphia.

It is quite understandable that the powers in Washington were perturbed over this dissension at a time when they interpreted the Democratic victories throughout the nation in the November elections of 1842 as indicative [page 141:] of wide popular approval of President Tyler's policies. They certainly did not wish to alienate the large Irish American vote, which was of no small importance in urban centers like Philadelphia. Nonetheless, the situation was a delicate one and needed diplomatic handling — a very different sort of handling from the kind it was to receive.

On November 9, 1842, there appeared in the Washington Dally Madisonian — the official organ of the Administration — a lengthy open letter covering more than two thirds of the editorial page and bearing the anonymous signature, “Hawkeye.” The letter was dated November 7th and was addressed to the editor of the Daily Madisonian, who was at that time John B. Jones. It was a cleverly worded but blistering attack upon the political tactics of the dominant Tyler group in Philadelphia, and it denounced the spirit of faction that had broken out in the meeting at Hall's Hotel. More specifically, the attack was directed against the policies of alienation pursued by J. Washington Tyson. Nor did Thomas Dunn English escape without his share of abuse. “Hawkeye” was a thinly veiled pseudonym for Henry A. Wise, whose initials may be observed in the first three letters of the signature.

Since Hawkeye's communication occupied so much space and appeared in such a prominent position in the official organ of the Administration, one might naturally conclude that it had the full sanction of President Tyler. The lack of tact and judgment displayed in the letter would [page 142:] seem to indicate otherwise, for there is ample evidence that Tyler exercised both of these qualities in dealing with delicate situations.(71) On the other hand, the President was not always fortunate in having advisers who possessed these same traits. One of the most tactless of his advisers was the brilliant but erratic Henry A . Wise, who frequently allowed his emotions to destroy his sense of intellectual balance.(72) Years afterward, President Tyler's son, John Tyler, Jr., spoke of Wise as “the very devil as an adviser.”(73) To make matters worse, Wise was not above embarrassing the President by exceeding his authority as a trusted counselor. The most famous instance of this usurpation of authority was to occur later in Tyler's Administration when Wise went so far as to offer to Calhoun the Cabinet position of Secretary of State without having previously consulted the President. So angered was the President by this act of presumption that he could hardly refrain from commanding Wise “to go away and never to come into his sight.”(74) [page 143:]

It was such a man who proceeded to muddy the political waters in Philadelphia by interfering with the local situation there. Doubtless some tactful move to uphold and protect the President's interests was desirable, but the tone of Wise's letter could not possibly have had a salutary effect. Wise opened his letter with a brief reference to his close attachment to the President and the Administration, and then proceeded to trace the course of events as they had recently been moving in Philadelphia. He called on the Corporal's Guard headed by J. Washington Tyson to explain its purpose in assuming control over the meeting called by Thomas Fitnam, intimating that the action sprang from selfish motives and not from a desire to strengthen the position of the President. After expressing the belief that faction had divided the President's [page 144:] friends into opposing cliques, Wise ventured to sum up the malodorous situation as it had been represented to the powers in Washington:

Having thus summarized the situation resulting from the political feud in Philadelphia, Wise called upon the warring factions to make peace and not to injure the President by continuing to air their grievances in public. He expressed strongly the view that there should be no iron rule in the dominant organization but that the controlling group should be reformed so as to receive on an equal footing men of all political parties who were friendly to the President. Nor was there any sound reason whatever, he felt, to make loyalty to Tyson a prerequisite to membership in an organization of President Tyler's friends. [page 146:] He denounced aa abominable the contention “that a friend of the President must servilely yield his independence of mind and action” and asserted that the old apothegm of “Love me, love my dog” had most certainly never been Interpreted to mean that in order to belong to an organization of the President's friends one must like whomever the President liked. Furthermore, Wise sarcastically pointed out that Fitnam, instead of being a wolf in sheep's clothing as represented by the Tyson faction, might actually be a good sheep who did not like his shepherd. Toward the end of the communication was the veiled warning that if the politicians of the controlling group in Philadelphia continued to deplete President Tyler's flock by branding as wolves all sheep that refused to follow Tyson as their shepherd, then those same politicians might themselves come to be regarded as wolves whose political scalps ought to be demanded.(76)

Unquestionably Wise had reason to be disturbed over conditions in Philadelphia, for in the autumn elections that had recently taken place in the city, Democracy had suffered defeat. Elsewhere, generally, in the words of Wise, it had “triumphed gloriously and gained the very camp and colors of the enemy, by the united votes of the thousands of the corporal's guard who held the balance of power in almost every State of the Union.”(77) But unfortunately [page 147:] Wise's reprimand was unnecessarily caustic and tactless, and therefore ill designed to achieve the harmony desired. Thomas Dunn English was not one to brook caustic criticism without answering in a manner equally caustic. Only a small spark sufficed to ignite English's impulsive Irish blood, and when he felt the kindling effects of a fiery official reprimand he responded with a fiery rejoinder. It was the first of a series of controversial replies that were to mark his long career and which did much to gain for him the reputation of being fond of public dispute and coarse invective. The reply, which follows in its entirety, appeared as a card in the Philadelphia Public Ledger of November 14, 1842:

Although Wise did not reply to English's card, he continued to interfere with local politics in Philadelphia by again coming to Fitnam's defense — this time in a denunciation of the Postmaster of Philadelphia, who had seen fit to dismiss Fitnam from his position as mail carrier.(79) Undoubtedly, the open quarrel between Wise and the Corporal's Guard in Philadelphia was not aiding President Tyler's cause in any way. It made the President vulnerable to the attacks of newspapers which were unfriendly toward him and which were quick to take advantage [page 151:] of any opportunity to attack his policies. For instance, the Philadelphia United States Gazette interpreted the successive blasts of Wise as indicating that the President was being driven “into small measures.”(80) A day earlier the same newspaper had disapproved of the entire controversy in the following comment on English's card:

Unfortunately, however, an open quarrel like the one that had developed between English and Wise generally leaves its unhealed wounds, and seldom do the participants escape without serious damage to their reputations. True, Wise did not elect to continue the fight against English personally, but Thomas Fitnam did; and the now doubly disappointed victim of proscription, having lost not only his promised office in the Custom House but also his position as mail carrier, proceeded to publish the following vindictive card which seems, at a later date, to have provided a much more famous enemy of English than Fitnam [page 152:] was with some damaging ammunition:(82)

But in spite of the coarseness of the controversy on each side, harmony of a sort was soon restored. Moreover, it is no insignificant fact that English apparently lost [page 153:] no standing with President Tyler or his son, Robert, as a result of his excoriation of Wise. On the contrary, he seems to have grown steadily in the confidence of the Administration until the very end of President Tyler's term.(84) This fact is the strongest kind of evidence against the contention of the Philadelphia United States Gazette that Tyler himself was implicated in the controversy and was being driven “into small measures” by Wise or others. It appears more likely that Wise had acted on his own Initiative and that Tyler — neither for the first nor the last time — had to suffer from the supererogatory services of an adviser whose ways were not his ways and whose ill-considered actions were frequently offensive to his sense of good taste.

Ironically enough, in the same number of the Public Ledger in which Thomas Fitnam's attack upon English appeared — and on the same page and in an adjoining column — was a notice of a new biography of John Tyler for sale by Colon which purported to have been “compiled from authentic sources.”(85) This notice failed to mention the author of the work, but the Philadelphia Pennsylvanian of the following day provided additional information: [page 154:]

Although the latter notice does not state positively that English was the author, it is quite probable that he was. Not only was the pamphlet published in English's native city, but English himself, as a strong Tyler supporter who had already attained considerable prominence as a writer, was perhaps the most logical Philadelphian to undertake the compilation of such a work. Furthermore, the style is suggestive of English's smooth and facile, if somewhat careless, manner.

The biography, of course, is a campaign document and is consequently important for the light that it throws upon English's relations with the Tyler Administration rather than for any inherent literary merit. It is loose in organization and was apparently written hurriedly from a mass of materials hurriedly collected. But English always composed rapidly and, if the authorship of this pamphlet is correctly attributed to him, he must be given credit for flashes of vigorous and even brilliant prose. Already a speaker of acknowledged power, English tended [page 155:] to carry over Into his writings his oratorical manner. Since the biography was patently designed to be on a level with popular campaign literature, its oratorical manner doubtless helped it to serve the purpose intended.

On account of the fineness of the print, the pamphlet is lengthier than its thirty-six pages would seem to indicate. It covers the period from the date of the President's birth to that of his Protest of August 30, 1842, against the action of a committee of thirteen which, in a report read to the House of Representatives, had censured the President for his veto of the great Revenue bill on August 9, 1842.(87) The pamphlet draws liberally from written documents to prove the soundness and consistency of Tyler's stand upon the vital political issues of his time. It is a spirited defense of a man whom the author felt to have suffered considerable, as well as exceedingly unjust, abuse, and its chief aim was evidently to rally the people to the support of the President. Near the end of the pamphlet is a stirring pronouncement in which the author declares unreservedly that the destiny of the people will be safe in John Tyler's hands.

After the year 1842 English's political activities in support of President Tyler began to take a somewhat new [page 156:] direction. In addition to making public speeches, he now began to bring his journalistic talents to the President's aid. During the years 1843 and 1844 English successively edited two newspapers — a Philadelphia weekly called the Irish Citizen and a New York daily known as the Aurora. The present chapter, being confined to the Philadelphia period, will consider the nature of English's association with only the first of these newspapers.

Unfortunately, no file of the Irish Citizen is extant It is therefore only through references to the paper in contemporary journals or elsewhere that one can reconstruct something of its history. Furthermore, since even the few scattered references to it fail to establish that it served President Tyler's interests in any way, one can reasonably assume that it did only if circumstantial evidence should seem to warrant the assumption. On the basis of such evidence, however, one has every reason to surmise that the Irish Citizen was friendly to the President and that it may have actively espoused his cause.

From three notices of the Irish Citizen in the contemporary press of Philadelphia one may gather certain fairly definite information.(88) By January 5, 1843, the [page 157:] first number had appeared under the proprietorship of Benjamin Pemberton Binns, the place of publication being No. 164 S. 4th Street. It was issued every Saturday. Apparently, by June 3rd of the same year, the paper had passed into the hands of Severns and Magill, at the northeast corner of Third and Dock Streets. The chief aim of the Irish Citizen was avowedly to serve the cause of the Irish Repeal Movement.

Ever since the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1880 there had been considerable agitation to bring about a dissolution of the Union. The term Repeal, however, was more particularly associated with the Irish patriot, Daniel O’Connell, who was leader of the movement until his death in 1847. Consequently, the Repeal Movement in Ireland was being agitated in all its vigor during the years that John Tyler was President of the United States. But the agitation was not confined to Ireland. Many Americans had Irish blood in their veins and naturally sympathized with the land of their ancestors. There were many also who, because of their love of liberty or their antipathy toward Great Britain as the country against which the United States had twice fought, did not need the ties of blood to make them enthusiasts for the cause of Irish freedom. The sentiment for Repeal was especially strong in the large urban centers, where the population was composed of an [page 158:] appreciable number of recent Irish immigrants. Among these large urban centers Philadelphia was no exception.

In Philadelphia, among the most ardent advocates of Irish Repeal was Thomas Dunn English. No less enthusiastic, and even more influential politically with the large number of potential Irish voters in Philadelphia, was President Tyler's eldest son, Robert. Even before he had moved to Philadelphia toward the end of his father's term, Robert Tyler had been active in the cause of Repeal and had made stirring speeches in Philadelphia and elsewhere in favor of the movement.(89) In Philadelphia, as early as June, 1843, he had given it his unqualified support in an eloquent speech, and shortly afterwards, just prior to delivering another enthusiastic speech on the same subject also in Philadelphia, he had been elected to honorary membership in the Irish Repeal Association of that city on the motion of Thomas Fitnam.(90) After shifting his residence to Philadelphia, Robert Tyler was soon made President of the Association there.(91) Mutual sympathy with the aims of [page 159:] the Repealists undoubtedly helped to cement the friendly relations between Thomas Dunn English and Robert Tyler, for English also frequently spoke at meetings of the Repeal Association in Philadelphia during the year 1843.(92) When one weighs this fact together with English's own testimony that he edited the Irish Citizen for a while,(93) it is surely not unreasonable to surmise that this short-lived journal may have been employed in some way or other to promote President Tyler's interests.

On the first page of the Philadelphia Public Ledger of July 12, 1843, is a lengthy account of the regular meeting of the Repeal Association for the month of July.(94) English was present at this meeting, and after being enthusiastically called upon, he delivered a long address from which the Ledger quoted copiously. Evidently English spoke in his happiest vein, for he continually drew applause and laughter from his attentive audience by mingling with his serious remarks an engaging strain of wit and humor. He expressed the opinion that England, in her treatment of Ireland, could profit from her experience with the American colonies. He denied that he was antagonistic toward the English people but argued that Americans were peculiarly obligated to support democratic movements [page 160:] wherever they occurred. Not only would such a course be in keeping with democratic ideals, but self-interest required it. In a summary of English's closing remarks, the Ledger commented: “He painted Ireland as advancing to the height of happiness after the attainment of her legislative independence, and he concluded with the exclamation of ‘Palsied be the hand, and crushed the form, that dares attempt to impede her onward progress.’”(95)

By the autumn of 1843 both English and Robert Tyler had done much for the cause of Repeal on this side of the Atlantic. In appreciation of Robert Tyler's efforts, no less than three hundred “friends of Ireland” assembled at Congress Hall in Philadelphia on October 5th to attend a complimentary dinner given especially in his honor. The Public Ledger, in commenting editorially on the eloquent speech delivered by young Tyler in response to a toast, has left an interesting impression of the President's eldest son both as a man and as a speaker. “With the exception of some singularity of manner,” the editor observed, “Mr. Tyler is an excellent public speaker. His fervor and excitability of temperament, and exuberance of fancy, is apt to lead him into expressions which colder natures would consider somewhat fanciful and extravagant, but there is a power of thought and felicity of expression in his remarks, which show a strong mind and a well-cultivated intellect.”(96) [page 161:]

Needless to say, the enemies of the President sought to make political capital out of his son's activities in behalf of Irish Repeal. In an entry in his Diary on June 22, 1843, Philip Hone wrote scathingly of a Repeal meeting in Boston at which Robert Tyler had been an honored guest. Hone said that the President's son had “made a violent and inflammatory speech” and implied that he had spoken under sanction of the President.(97) Again, in an entry dated September 2'st of the same year, Hone commented caustically on a similar meeting that had been held the day before at the Tabernacle in New York. The purpose of the meeting, according to Hone, was to “encourage a portion of the subjects of a foreign country with whom we have relations of amity and good-fellowship to rebel against their government. The whole number of delegates was something over two hundred. Robert Tyler came on from Philadelphia at the head of forty delegates, and was appointed president of the convention.”(98) Again Hone blamed the President for encouraging his son to participate in such affairs.

Hone's antipathy to President Tyler evidently prevented him from appraising in an unprejudiced manner the President's attitude toward the political activities of his son. It would have indeed been censurable in the President if he had used his high office as a means of [page 162:] carrying on any sort of propaganda, no matter how worthy, against a nation with which his country was at peace. Nonetheless, even though the President was undoubtedly sympathetic toward the aspirations of the Irish, and although he would have been hardly human if he had not hoped to gain political support from a group with whose alms he was personally in accord, the evidence unquestionably indicates that he was keenly aware of the limits beyond which he could not go in giving encouragement to a national movement of this sort. His sound judgment, as well as his nice sense of the strictures imposed by his office, is clearly discernible in a fragmentary letter dated March 15, 1844, in answer to a request that he attend a celebration of the anniversary day of the patron saint of Ireland. After expressing keen interest in everything pertaining to Ireland, the President added this well-chosen comment: “. . . and while from the situation I hold I am forbidden to give expression to my feelings in relation to the struggle which is now going on throughout its borders, yet I shall be permitted to congratulate you in the fact that that contest is one of intellect employed in the demonstration of human right, and not a contest of sword against sword.”(99)

During the first six months of 1844 there was apparently no diminution in the continuous active support that [page 163:] English gave to President Tyler and to the major policies, at least, of his Administration. On April 13, 1844, English was a prominent figure at a large Democratic mass meeting held by the Democrats of the City and County of Philadelphia. No less than two thousand persons had gathered to celebrate the 10'st anniversary of Thomas Jefferson's birth. Concerning the proceedings of this meeting a contemporary account relates: “A series of resolutions, appropriate to the occasion, and highly complimentary to President Tyler, approving of his Bank vetoes and measures of his administration generally, and recommending his nomination as Democratic candidate for the Presidency, were presented by Thomas Dunn English, Esq., from a committee of delegates from the several wards in the city and county, and unanimously adopted.”(100) Following the adoption of these resolutions, English and several other leaders spoke concerning President Tyler's political career and lauded him as the disciple of Thomas Jefferson.

About the middle of 1844 English's political activities in Philadelphia drew to a close.(101) Henceforth he was to carry on the fight in the city of New York, employing his [page 164:] talents in journalism and oratory to promote President Tyler's candidacy as long as the latter remained in the field and to advocate what Tyler hoped would prove to be the crowning achievement of his Administration — the annexation of Texas. Even before leaving Philadelphia, English had wholeheartedly identified himself with the cause of annexation. On April 22, 1844, in a speech referred to in a contemporary account as “one of his usually brilliant efforts,” English had pointed out to a huge crowd of President Tyler's friends assembled in the saloon of the Chinese Museum the national advantages — especially, agricultural and commercial — to be gained by annexation. Hundreds had come to the meeting “in bodies with music, banners and lanterns, with inscriptions characteristic of the occasion.”(102)

By the middle of 1844, then, English had proved himself to be a talented politician, speaker, and journalist, as well as a loyal — though not subservient — supporter of the Administration of President Tyler. Rapidly changing political events required that a man of such qualifications be sent to New York in the interests of the Administration and its friends to accomplish a peculiar and difficult mission. English was the man chosen to fulfill this need.

[[Footnotes]]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 97:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 98:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 99:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 100:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 101:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 102:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 103:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 104:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 105:]

[The following footnotes appear on page 106:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 107:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 110:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 111:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 112:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 113:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 114:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 115:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 117:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 118:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 119:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 120:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 121:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 122:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 123:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 124:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 125:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 126:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 127:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 127, running to the bottom of page 128:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 129:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 130, running to the bottom of page 131:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 132:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 132, running to the bottom of page 133:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 133:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 133, running to the bottom of page 134:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 136:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 136:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 137:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 138:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 140:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 142:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 142, running to the bottom of page 143:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 145:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 146:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 150:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 151:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 152:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 153:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 154:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 155:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 156, running to the bottom of page 157:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 158:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 159:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 160:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 161:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 162:]

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 163:]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 164:]