What do you think?
Rate this book
A Whig embattled;: The Presidency under John Tyler
Reviews the controversy over presidential power that nearly drove Tyler from office in the early 1840's
199 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1974
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 1, 2021
It was a happy accident that I happened to read this much older book on John Tyler’s presidency immediately after reading the more recent The Republican Vision of John Tyler by Dan Monroe, because they are actually good companion pieces. Monroe attempts (largely unsuccessfully, in my view) to explain and defend Tyler’s actions as president in terms of his devotion to republicanism, while Morgan (more successfully) focuses on Tyler’s devotion to constitutional principles as a way of explaining his actions as president - and why, as a result, his presidency is largely judged as a failure.
Morgan was not a biographer or historian but a political scientist, so in each thematic, roughly chronological chapter on Tyler’s presidency (focusing on topics like relations with Congress, the role of the Cabinet, foreign policy, etc.), he first describes the Founders’ conception of the presidency as it pertains to that chapter’s topic, then describes how Tyler acted accordingly during his own presidency.
Unfortunately, during Tyler’s time, constitutional principles were not a partisan issue, in that there wasn’t a neat divide between the two parties according to their constitutional views. Tyler “longed to see a division of the parties on the general issue of broad versus strict construction of the powers of Congress," Morgan explains. But that was not the case, so Tyler didn’t really fit into either party and was disowned by both as a result.
And as we now know in hindsight, trying to govern as a “man without a party” just didn’t work. Morgan judges Tyler’s presidency as an "experiment in 'constitutional administration’,” which he hoped would be judged “solely on the merits of his policies.” But because Tyler “failed utterly to build effective, organized partisan support” for his presidency, he could not succeed. He awkwardly straddled party lines, siding with the Democrats on some issues, with the Whigs on others, pleasing neither of them in the process.
Morgan’s work explains but doesn’t excuse Tyler’s actions as president. While Tyler refused to be subservient to Congress, he also tried not to dictate to Congress and overstep what he perceived to be his bounds. But in doing so, Morgan writes, "he almost never told Congress precisely what detailed legislation he thought should be enacted," relying on vague statements and the veto instead of providing “positive legislative leadership” when doing so “would quite probably have saved him grave political embarrassment."
The book drags just a bit in the middle during the chapter on foreign policy, only because Tyler was fairly successful in this area and there wasn’t much of a constitutional clash between him and Congress to explore.
But the concluding chapter is very thoughtful and perceptive, in explaining why Tyler acted honorably as president but was unsuccessful anyway and his reputation has suffered as a result. In "the Whig version of history," Morgan writes that Tyler is “maligned as a vacillating, treacherous, obdurate and vain man who was one of the worst of our Presidents.” But consider the alternative - if he was unprincipled and spineless in acquiescing to being subservient to Congress and Henry Clay as the Whigs wanted him to be, would his reputation really be any better?
Morgan ends the book with a provocative mic drop of a sentence: “Tyler proved to be a Jacksonian Whig.” It’s an oxymoron to be sure, but it illustrates Tyler’s contradictions and his failure to fit neatly into either party as they existed at the time. He tried governing by principle rather than according to the beliefs of a particular party, which may have been laudable but proved untenable.
For a nearly 70-year-old book, this holds up well and is very readable and thought-provoking. Tyler’s position on slavery, his motives in wanting to annex Texas and his controversial post-presidency are beyond the scope of this book. But if you’ve read about John Tyler and still can’t quite put your finger on precisely why such a supposedly principled politician could be such an unsuccessful president, this book does a better job than any I’ve read in answering that very question.
Morgan was not a biographer or historian but a political scientist, so in each thematic, roughly chronological chapter on Tyler’s presidency (focusing on topics like relations with Congress, the role of the Cabinet, foreign policy, etc.), he first describes the Founders’ conception of the presidency as it pertains to that chapter’s topic, then describes how Tyler acted accordingly during his own presidency.
Unfortunately, during Tyler’s time, constitutional principles were not a partisan issue, in that there wasn’t a neat divide between the two parties according to their constitutional views. Tyler “longed to see a division of the parties on the general issue of broad versus strict construction of the powers of Congress," Morgan explains. But that was not the case, so Tyler didn’t really fit into either party and was disowned by both as a result.
And as we now know in hindsight, trying to govern as a “man without a party” just didn’t work. Morgan judges Tyler’s presidency as an "experiment in 'constitutional administration’,” which he hoped would be judged “solely on the merits of his policies.” But because Tyler “failed utterly to build effective, organized partisan support” for his presidency, he could not succeed. He awkwardly straddled party lines, siding with the Democrats on some issues, with the Whigs on others, pleasing neither of them in the process.
Morgan’s work explains but doesn’t excuse Tyler’s actions as president. While Tyler refused to be subservient to Congress, he also tried not to dictate to Congress and overstep what he perceived to be his bounds. But in doing so, Morgan writes, "he almost never told Congress precisely what detailed legislation he thought should be enacted," relying on vague statements and the veto instead of providing “positive legislative leadership” when doing so “would quite probably have saved him grave political embarrassment."
The book drags just a bit in the middle during the chapter on foreign policy, only because Tyler was fairly successful in this area and there wasn’t much of a constitutional clash between him and Congress to explore.
But the concluding chapter is very thoughtful and perceptive, in explaining why Tyler acted honorably as president but was unsuccessful anyway and his reputation has suffered as a result. In "the Whig version of history," Morgan writes that Tyler is “maligned as a vacillating, treacherous, obdurate and vain man who was one of the worst of our Presidents.” But consider the alternative - if he was unprincipled and spineless in acquiescing to being subservient to Congress and Henry Clay as the Whigs wanted him to be, would his reputation really be any better?
Morgan ends the book with a provocative mic drop of a sentence: “Tyler proved to be a Jacksonian Whig.” It’s an oxymoron to be sure, but it illustrates Tyler’s contradictions and his failure to fit neatly into either party as they existed at the time. He tried governing by principle rather than according to the beliefs of a particular party, which may have been laudable but proved untenable.
For a nearly 70-year-old book, this holds up well and is very readable and thought-provoking. Tyler’s position on slavery, his motives in wanting to annex Texas and his controversial post-presidency are beyond the scope of this book. But if you’ve read about John Tyler and still can’t quite put your finger on precisely why such a supposedly principled politician could be such an unsuccessful president, this book does a better job than any I’ve read in answering that very question.
May 17, 2023
An excellent examination of how John Tyler exercised the power of the presidency. Morgan takes an political science approach rather than a historic one, each chapter examines a different aspect such as the establishment of what is now known as the "Tyler precedent" that the vice president becomes president and not acting president, the use of the veto, the use of the presidential prerogative and his conduct of foreign affairs. In conclusion Morgan labels Tyler "a Jacksonian Whig" in that Tyler exercised the office in the same way Andrew Jackson while being elected as a Whig. I recommend this for anyone interested in the American Presidency or John Tyler.
April 29, 2016
Wow! This book is spectacular! Morgan writes exclusively about Tyler's presidency, comparing Tyler's actions in office with what the Constitution says the executive office is "supposed" to do. I am so happy I read this, and not just as a piece of my presidential challenge, but because it helped me understand the role of President when connected to the whole constitution.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews