Talk:David Rice Atchison/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Acting President" claim

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

It seems to me that the issue in dispute is really a question of constitutional law. I think arguments for either position (i.e., that Atchison was or was not de jure President) should be based on clear legal reasoning.

Perhaps we could introduce some links to authority supporting the various points, such as to Article II of the Constitution, the 25th Amendment and 3 U.S.C §19?

I'm not a U.S. constitutional lawyer. I won't make any alteration to the Atchison article, but here's my two cents' worth: the combined effect of clauses 2, 6 and 8 of Article II is that Zachary Taylor became President immediately James Polk's term ended. In my opinion, the Inauguration and oath of office do not operate to render a person President or to confer any of the President's powers upon him. Furthermore, clause 6 of Article II does not prescribe a transfer of the Presidencybut only deals with the exercise of the President's powers by another person "(i)n Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office." There is no suggestion that James Polk was removed/impeached, died, resigned or became disabled. I would contend that Taylor became President, having a been elected to that office, at the moment when James Polk ceased to hold it.

All that being said, I would ask that somebody more expert in this topic than I check this matter out and add some specific references to the article. Wulfilia 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The project Unusual articles has been has been linking this article as an example of "unusual articles" on Wikipedia. I have just deleted the reference and link to to this article on Wikipedia:Unusual articles, because I believe that, in its current form (in which there is no complex discussion of or consensus on the "unusual aspect"), its presence there tends to make Wikipedia seem eccentric or unreliable. I hope I have not offended anybody by doing this - do please contact me if you have a problem with it. Wulfilia 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a cute story but according to the Constitution one does not become President until taking the Oath of Office.

The President is an office, not merely a rank. Being the highest ranking official in the government is not enough to make you President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimShell (talk • contribs) December 17, 2001

Agreed. I think it would be more accurate to say that there was no sitting President during that time, but that if some emergency had required the presence of one, he could have been sworn in to the job for that purpose. --LDC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) February 25, 2002

This is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.96.168 (talk) November 18, 2004

This isn't true. If an emergency required the presence of one, then Taylor would have been sworn in, because he was the President-elect. That's why this whole urban legend is bogus. —Cleared as filed. 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a qualm with the debunking section - doesn't the word 'absurd' kind of imply an non-neutral standpoint on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.164.58 (talk) February 24, 2005

Shouldn't it be something like 'incorrect'? --ac

How could Polk's secretary of state be next in line? Polk couldn't appoint his cabinet yet because, he wasn't president yet.!!!!! Rt66lt 20:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have my president's mixed up. It still wouldn't matter, Buchanan's term would have ended as well. Rt66lt 22:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Facts behind the myth" should be changed to a different title. It sounds like it's going to say 'these are the things to support it' then later another heading of things which would debunk it. This is just one man's opinion. Gohst 11:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Presidential term begins on time. Oath or not. The oath is not required to become President of the US. It is required to "enter upon the execution of the office" There were in total six Presidents who took the oath one or two days after their term began. Monroe 1821, Tyler 1841, Taylor 1849, Fillmore 1850, Arthur 1881, Coolidge 1923. (Info from www.rulers.org)--Gerard von Hebel 12:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is wrong. The "term" and the "execution of the office" are two different concepts in constitutional law. The "term" is a fixed period of four years and is independent of the individual(s) who may hold the office of president during that time. Consider the 22d Amendment, which contains language about finishing a term to which someone else was elected. The 20th Amendment merely states that the "term" begins at noon on January 20. You cannot "enter upon the execution of the office"--that is, become president--until you take the oath. 1995hoo (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the whole legend falls apart if you consider one point: even if it were true that one must take the oath of office for one to be President, then David Rice Atchinson could not have been President for one day as he did not take the oath of office either. Mike Beidler 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And, behold, if I had read the article before I commented, I would have seen that my point has already been made. Note to self: read the article before engaging in the discussion. Oy! Mike Beidler 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tangentially related: the reason to swear the VP in first is to establish the proper order of succession if something bad happens to the President-elect. Using this month's inauguration as an example: If Obama had been sworn in first, then incapacitated before Biden was sworn in, we would have gotten Cheney as President, and it would be debatable whether Biden would be allowed to take over from Cheney as President or would serve as VP under him. With Biden sworn in first, he would have been president for only a moment if something had happened to Bush before Obama could be sworn in. And of course, if something had happened to Obama before he could be sworn in, Biden is already the VP, so the normal succession takes place. bwcbwc 0:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your scenario would not have taken place under any circumstances. Cheney's term as Vice President ended at the same moment as Bush's term as President, noon on January 20, 2009. Biden and Obama's terms began at that time. The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in "Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January...and the terms of their successors shall then begin." Biden did not become vice president before noon regardless of when he took the oath and Cheney would not have remained in office after noon on January 20th even if Biden had delayed taking the oath. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The current rules for presidential succession were not necessarily those in 1849. Remember that the US president is effectively an elected king. The British rule is that succession is automatic on the demise of the crown. A declaration by the accession privy council is not needed, much less a coronation (or in US terms, the swearing in of the president). There is a difference between a president succeeding and a president pro tempore during an interregnum. Congress may have been adjourned, but Atchison was still in office. So it would seem that he would be the president pro tempore if Taylor did not automatically and immediately succeed on the termination of his predecessors term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

An Oath Is Required

To clarify a mistake in the article, Art. II Sec. 1(8) requires that the President take an oath prior to entering office. The oath is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, Sen. Atchison was not President as he took no oath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminDByrd (talk • contribs) August 15, 2006

Beginning of "term" - midnight or noon?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There's been discussion on Talk:Herbert Hoover about just when an old President gave way to the new before the 20th Amendment. It seems that this is something that wasn't explicit, or for that matter even really debated - on the morning of March 4th the outgoing and incoming Presidents were going to be saluted no matter who was in office. If the old term expired at midnight then that would in theory create a huge number of additional "Acting Presidents" - perhaps another reason why this is bogus.

(If I remember correctly the President of Ireland does have something similar to this idea - technically there's an acting Presidency made up of the organs of government between the end of a term and the oath taking, even when the incumbent is re-elected.)

This article is stating confidently that Atchison's "term" began at noon - was there any opinion at all at the time as to when these things happened? Or did they just no care whereas nowadays a big fuss is made if a President is to be sedated for a mere couple of hours? Timrollpickering 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And there's been a series of changes on this, some asserting that it's been "established" that the Presidential term began/expired at midnight. Can I ask exactly where this is? Talk:Herbert Hoover#March 4th 1933 details some of the imprecision on this, showing that neither was it clear nor that anyone seems to have argued about this.

Also if the whole basis for Atchison's claim to have been acting President is that the incoming President hadn't yet taken the oath then umpteen Presidents Pro Temporare and later House Speakers etc.. had mini Acting Presidencies for mornings (and perhaps more substantially any two term President technically had a break inbetween - how silly does this get?). Timrollpickering 11:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, it's silly. Most Presidents, don't take their oaths until Minutes (some a half-hour), after the term begins (Noon EST). For example the 2005 Inauguration, President Bush did not take his oath EXACTLY at NOON EST, does that mean for a few minutes there was no President? No it doesn't. GoodDay 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Parentheses within parentheses

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there some less awkward way of phrasing this? --

"Born in Frogtown (later named Kirklevington [which is now part of Lexington])"

AnonMoos 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Born in Frogtown (later Kirklevington, now part of Lexington)" or "Born in Frogtown (later Kirklevington, now incorporated into Lexington)" — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems if you simply want to nuke the reference to Lexington, Kentucky. I have done various google and print.google searches and the nae is basically in incosequential unless somebody can pop up with a refrence. In the for what it's worth department, my intest in the article is via northwest Missouri via (Platte Purchase) from which I'm a native. I wondered in here becuse of the Battle of Liberty article (which I intend to extensively revise) which in turn in involves with my obsession for Missouri in the American Civil War. It's now watchlisted. (along withe various associated pages) If you want to disucss his reputation feel free to discuss with my talk page. If you hit the various pages associated with him, I will probably respond in some form (and actually appreciate the attention). Americasroof 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cause of Death?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's no mention of how this man died or what from.--Heavy 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regardless of most stuff in this myth, the bottom line is Atchison could not have been President because his Senate term as President Pro Tempore ended on March 3, 1849 because it does not carry over from session to session, so on March 4th, 1849 he would NOT have been next in line. Another thing if he would have still been in line the wording at the time was that the next person in line would "act" as President not "become" President a wording that was changed in later years. Also it does clear state that one is not President until they take the Oath of office, which he never did.Rogue Gremlin 02:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of succession isn't as cut-and-dried as the various advocates make out, since (1) Atchison, unlike the outgoing Pres/VP, was re-elected; (2) an acting president doesn't need to be sworn in; and (3) according to one of the external links, he was sworn in several minutes before the new Pres/VP. I didn't know it was Wikipedia's job to decide questions that are not unambiguously resolved in authoritative secondary sources. Just state the germane facts, and get rid of all the stuff declaring he was or wasn't president. JoeFink (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was Atchison's Direct Quote About the Event Deleted?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I don't understand why swampfire deleted Atchison's own referenced description of the event. Atchison sure said it better than all the rambling and humorless edits. Here's the section that swampfire deletedAmericasroof (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Atchison discussed the claim in a September 1872 issue of the Plattsburg Lever:

“

It was in this way: Polk went out of office on the 3d of March 1849, on Saturday at 12 noon. The next day, the 4th, occurring on Sunday, Gen. Taylor was not inaugurated. He was not inaugurated till Monday, the 5th, at 12 noon. It was then canvassed among Senators whether there was an interregnum (a time during which a country lacks a government). It was plain that there was either an interregnum or I was the President of the United States being chairman of the Senate, having succeeded Judge Mangum of North Carolina. The judge waked me up at 3 o'clock in the morning and said jocularly that as I was President of the United States he wanted me to appoint him as secretary of state. I made no pretense to the office, but if I was entitled in it I had one boast to make, that not a woman or a child shed a tear on account of my removing any one from office during my incumbency of the place. A great many such questions are liable to arise under our form of government.^[1]

”

It's a good quote, and Atchison's tongue appears lodged so firmly in his cheek that a crowbar would be necessary to move it :-). Swampfire's edit notes say: this quote was not backed up by the reference also it stated the article was about him, not by him, there was no active link to this quote. Which is odd, because it's taken verbatim from [1]. I'd be inclined to put it back in. Johnmc (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for it to be removed. Since no one has given any reason in the last 9 month, I've restored it. TJRC (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was actually circling around to post it again today! I never ceased to be amazed at the shrill humorless edits to this article on this subject. Atchison never made any pretense to the position. This is more of an amusing interlude than a serious constitutional crisis. Americasroof (Americasroof)21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

References

^ Clinton Co. MO Historical Society

Original Research?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't the usual wikipedia approach to *not* decide for ourselves issues like this, but instead cite verifiable sources indicating what happened, and what the various issues and arguments are? Why are we even debating whether he *actually* was president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.158.27 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopaedia, and I guess an encyclopaedia reports the facts. And the fact apparently is that a group of people consider(ed) that Atchison was president, and a group consider that he wasn't. And in any case, isn't "discussion" what this page is for? It's only OR if it appears on the article page. Johnmc (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Was President

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On March 4, 1849, Zachary Taylor was President. He was elected, along with Millard Fillmore, in 1848, on the Whig ticket. Polk's term ended on 4 March, 1849, at noon, whereupon Taylor became Chief Executive, as he had been elected to do so. He refused to be sworn in on a Sunday, as he did not believe in working on Sunday, but that fact did not keep him from being President, and he continued to be President on that and every Sunday until his untimely death on 9 July 1850. Being the elected President does not, and did not, hinge upon taking the Oath of Office--the reverse is true. There is one President who never took the Oath of Office--Franklin Pierce. He simply pledged his allegiance to the republic. He was so grief-stricken by the recent death of his son Benny, and depressed also over having lost the emotional support of his wife, that he could not lay his hand on the bible. This did not keep him from being President.

So, Zachary Taylor--and no one else--was President. Even if Atchison was legally President(which he clearly was NOT), the Democrats would have taken full advantage of his temporary position, which they did not. He slept all of that evening.99.59.250.62 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)astroswift

OR tag removed

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the Original Research banner from the article. I have no objection to the banner, per se, however there was no discussion started here on the talk page comensurate with the placing of the banner. Since the person who placed it had no actionable objections, that is they did not indicate which parts they thought were original research, then there is no meaningful way to fix the article in accordance with the banner. If someone can come up with a list of probelms in the article that amount to original research that we could fix, then the banner should be returned until such objections have been fixed. However, a banner with no explanation of how to fix it is of no help at all to editors. --Jayron32 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On Wikipedia, article are SUPPOSED to maintain a neutral point of view. Therefore, this article is in terrible shape, as it is completely one-sided and completely against the possibility of Atchison being president. Could we PLEASE come up with a more neutral article, as there is CLEARLY evidence for both sides of the argument? Thank you 184.95.118.234 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, all I see here are a bunch of people bickering like two year olds about something they neither witnessed nor can prove either way. It definitely should be noted that there is evidence for both sides, and this article IS very POV. While we Wikipedians are indeed supposed to present the truth, there is a lot of controversy on this subject as to what is actually the truth. Therefore, as neither side can be proven correct and both are widely accepted, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we should include both viewpoints in this article.Hawkrawkr (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus among historians of the presidency is that he was never president, and Atchison himself clearly felt the claim of being president for one day is somewhat of a joke. Per WP:FRINGE, we should not put undue weight to try to afford an unmeritorious claim that he was indeed president. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Line of Presidential Succession

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I looked up the line of Presidential Succesion, and it seems that after VP and President, it is the Speaker of the House, therefore whoever the Speaker of the House was at the time was the "real" one day president. There are two ways thgis is untrue, but I am not sure of either: 1. The current Speaker of th eHouse was already gone, and 2. The was no Speaker at the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.101.112 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The presidential succession, beyond the Vice President (first in line), is not specified in the Constitution. Therefore it is a matter of federal statute, and those statutes have changed several times. At various times in U.S. history, the second position in the succession has been the Speaker of the House of Representatives (as is the case today), the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (as was the case in David Atchison's time), and the Secretary of State. So Atchison actually was next in line, without regard to the status of the office of Speaker of the House. Paul (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Acting President

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If Atchison is considered to have served as Acting President from noon 3/4/1849 to noon of 3/5/1849, it would seem that Daniel Webster (as Secretary of State during the congressional recess) would be considered to have served as Acting President the two days between the death of William Henry Harrison on 4/4/1841 and Tyler's inauguration on 4/6/1841. Chronicler3 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

[1] Clinton Co. MO Historical Society

[1]