Hubbry Logo
Tyler PartyTyler PartyMain
Open search
Tyler Party
Community hub
Tyler Party
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tyler Party
Tyler Party
Tyler Party
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Tyler Party, or Tyler Democratic Party,[2] was an American political party formed by supporters of President John Tyler in 1844 to launch a presidential campaign against the Whig and Democratic parties.[3] The party merged into the Democratic Party during the 1844 presidential election, following the surprise nomination of James K. Polk.

Key Information

Founding

[edit]
Main article: Presidency of John Tyler
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler

Upon the death of President William Henry Harrison thirty days into his term, Vice President John Tyler took office, and would serve for the remaining 47 months of Harrison's four year term. Despite the fact that Harrison and Tyler were both members of the Whig Party, Tyler found much of the Whig platform unconstitutional, and he vetoed several bills favored by party leader Henry Clay. In 1841 Tyler was forced out of the Whig Party after continued contention with Whig leaders.[1] One year later, the Whig Party was routed in the 1842 House elections, where the party lost sixty-nine seats. By 1844, the Whigs would lose control of the Senate.

After being expelled from the Whig Party, Tyler attempted to return to the Democratic Party, but the still pro-Van Buren party would not allow him to enter. This led to Tyler's realization that the only way he could maintain his legacy was to show public support for a proposed annexation of Texas.[4]

On the same day as the Democratic Convention, thousands of Tyler supporters marched to Baltimore, Maryland, and held their own convention. They believed that the Democrats, deadlocked between Martin Van Buren and Lewis Cass, would choose Tyler as a compromise candidate to unite the party.[5] Democratic editor James Gordon Bennett Sr. of the New York Herald, then among the most popular newspapers in the country,[6] would tacitly lend his support to Tyler's nomination.[2] Tyler would additionally endorse a smaller newspaper, The Madisonian, as his campaign's official organ. However, the Democrats instead chose James K. Polk, a former Speaker of the House, as their candidate, much to the dismay of the Tylerites.

Party platform

[edit]

Despite the fact that Tyler was determined to win another term, his new party lacked a national party platform, although previously-held state Tyler conventions had written platforms.[1][2] Several state Tyler conventions nominated former vice president Richard Mentor Johnson for the vice presidency, and Johnson consented to being Tyler's running mate.[7] The issue that held precedence for Tyler was the annexation of Texas, which was made limp by Polk's announcement of his support in favor of annexation.[citation needed]

Merger

[edit]

By late July and early August, Tyler and the Democrats had entered negotiations. The Democrats aimed to prevent Tyler from spoiling the election and giving the victory to Henry Clay, while Tyler hoped for the Democrats to commit themselves to the annexation of Texas. Andrew Jackson sent word to Tyler saying that if the president withdrew from the race, that he would at least have the pleasure of taking Clay down with him.[1] With assurances that his followers would be welcomed into the Democratic ranks, Tyler announced the end of his candidacy on August 20 and threw his meager support to Polk. Polk would narrowly defeat Clay in the election and would follow through on Tyler's late order to annex Texas, eventually culminating in the Mexican–American War.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tyler Party

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Tyler Party was a short-lived American political faction formed in 1844 by supporters of incumbent President to promote his re-election bid in the United States that year. Established after Tyler's expulsion from the Whig Party over vetoes of and banking legislation, the group held a national convention that nominated Tyler as its presidential candidate, emphasizing states' rights and limited federal authority consistent with his strict constructionist views. The party's platform centered on the immediate of , which Tyler pursued through executive action amid rejection of a , positioning the issue as a means to expand territory and protect Southern interests in . This focus highlighted Tyler's isolation from both major parties—the Whigs opposed rapid expansion while Democrats sought broader appeals—but failed to garner significant support due to his unpopularity from prior controversies, including cabinet crises and economic policies. In August 1844, facing slim chances of victory, Tyler withdrew his candidacy and endorsed Democrat , whose campaign embraced and secured a narrow win over Whig . The Tyler Party effectively dissolved thereafter, serving as a minor third-party vehicle that underscored the era's sectional tensions over expansion and slavery without achieving electoral success or lasting organizational impact.

Historical Context

John Tyler's Presidency and Whig Conflicts

John Tyler ascended to the presidency on April 6, 1841, following the death of William Henry Harrison on April 4, 1841, after only 31 days in office, marking the first instance of vice-presidential succession to the full powers of the office and establishing a key constitutional precedent. Critics derisively nicknamed him "His Accidency" to underscore the accidental nature of his rise, reflecting doubts about his legitimacy despite his assertion of full presidential authority. Tyler's strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, emphasizing limited federal powers and states' rights—rooted in his Southern Democratic background—quickly clashed with the Whig Party's agenda, particularly Henry Clay's push for a national bank and internal improvements under the American System. The conflicts intensified with Tyler's vetoes of Whig-sponsored legislation to recharter a national bank: the first on August 16, 1841, and the second on September 11, 1841, prompting the of his entire cabinet except Secretary of State in protest. These vetoes, justified by Tyler's view that such a bank exceeded constitutional authority, alienated Whig leaders who saw them as betrayals of the party's platform. In September 1841, the Whig Party formally expelled Tyler, conducting a ceremonial reading of his expulsion at the Capitol, leaving him without organized party support. Further discord arose over economic policy, as Tyler vetoed a tariff bill on June 29, 1842, opposing protective measures that favored Northern industry over Southern agrarian interests, though a subsequent compromise tariff passed later that year. These actions deepened Tyler's isolation; by 1844, the Whigs refused to renominate him, nominating Clay instead, forcing Tyler to seek independent political avenues amid his resistance to expansive federal economic interventions.

Political Landscape in 1844

In 1844, the United States political system was dominated by the two major parties, the Whigs and Democrats, which had emerged as the primary vehicles for national competition following the collapse of earlier factions like the National Republicans. The Whig Party, favoring a strong federal role in economic development including internal improvements and a national bank, nominated Henry Clay of Kentucky as its presidential candidate at its convention in May, securing his nomination on the first ballot amid internal unity after the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841. The Democratic Party, emphasizing states' rights, limited government, and agrarian interests, faced initial deadlock at its convention in May, as frontrunner Martin Van Buren opposed immediate Texas annexation, leading to multiple ballots before James K. Polk emerged as a compromise nominee committed to expansionist policies. This bipolar structure left little room for independents or splinter groups, exacerbating divisions over sectional economic priorities and forcing presidents like John Tyler, who adhered to strict constructionist views, into isolation without a formal party base. Central issues dividing the landscape included , banking reform, and the expansion of , each highlighting tensions between Northern industrial interests and Southern agrarian demands. Tyler aggressively pursued of as a slave state to counter British influence and maintain sectional balance in , submitting a in April 1844 that the rejected by a 35-16 vote in June, reflecting Whig caution under Clay—who publicly opposed hasty incorporation to avoid war with —and Democratic hesitations from Buren. Banking debates stemmed from Tyler's repeated vetoes of Whig-sponsored national bank bills in 1841 and 1842, which he viewed as unconstitutional overreaches favoring Northern financiers, clashing with the party's and prompting widespread condemnation from Whig leaders. 's territorial spread intertwined with these, as promised another slaveholding state, intensifying Southern fears of by free states amid growing abolitionist sentiment in the North, yet both major parties adopted ambiguous platforms to appease factions rather than commit decisively. Tyler's influence had eroded sharply since assuming the in April 1841 upon Harrison's death, marked by mass cabinet resignations—eight of ten members departed by September 1841 in protest over his es—and formal expulsion from the Whig Party, rendering him a president without partisan support. Earlier attempts at third-party alignment, such as overtures to Democrats, failed due to his record alienating Northern members, while appreciated his resistance to protective tariffs and federal banking that they saw as Northern-dominated schemes infringing on . This regional sympathy in the South underscored the two-party system's rigidity, as Tyler's stance and pro-Southern policies found no national outlet, compelling alliances that exposed fractures in and foreshadowed the need for alternative vehicles to advance contested agendas like immediate expansion.

Formation

Establishment and Key Figures

The Tyler Party was formally organized in May 1844 by a coalition of President John Tyler's loyalists, including disaffected Whigs and , to nominate him for a full presidential term after the Whig Party expelled him in 1841 and the Democrats declined to endorse him at their May convention in . This effort arose from Tyler's determination to sustain his administration's priorities, particularly , independent of major-party control, with initial activities centered on assembling a national ticket and mobilizing state-level support to secure electoral votes. Prominent influences included , a conservative who shaped Tyler's and cabinet dynamics until his death on February 28, 1844, in the USS Princeton explosion, which underscored the administration's push for naval modernization and territorial expansion. Following Upshur's demise, assumed the role on April 1, 1844, offering indirect backing through his advocacy for immediate , aligning with Tyler's goals despite Calhoun's Democratic roots and personal ambitions. organization relied on Tyler committees in key states such as , his home base, and New York, where local rallies highlighted his resistance to partisan dictation. The party's structure remained rudimentary, lacking a permanent national committee or extensive bureaucracy due to its abbreviated timeline, instead leveraging Tyler's reputation as an accidental president who asserted executive against congressional opposition. Early considerations for a vice-presidential nominee included figures like before pivoting to align with broader annexation interests, reflecting the faction's pragmatic but constrained operations.

Ideology and Platform

Core Principles

The Tyler Party's ideology centered on strict constitutional constructionism, advocating for federal powers confined to those explicitly enumerated in the and opposing implied expansions such as national banking or federally funded . This stance directly reflected President Tyler's repeated vetoes of Whig-backed legislation, including two bills to recharter the Second Bank of the in 1841 and measures for distributive tariffs or projects, which he deemed unconstitutional encroachments on state sovereignty. Party adherents emphasized as a bulwark against centralized authority, critiquing Whig economic nationalism and Democratic deviations from as threats to republican balance. They positioned the as an independent executor of constitutional duties, particularly in and territorial matters, to safeguard agrarian, decentralized interests—often aligned with Southern perspectives—against industrial consolidation in the North. Central to the party's ethos was a commitment to principled over partisan allegiance, rejecting the machine-driven loyalties of Whigs and Democrats that prioritized factional gains over constitutional fidelity. This approach sought to counter perceived corruption in major parties by elevating individual judgment and authority as checks on legislative overreach. The principles drew empirical validation from Tyler's tenure, where he sustained amid Whig congressional hostility—evidenced by his survival of two failed attempts in 1842 and Cabinet crises—demonstrating the feasibility of non-partisan leadership rooted in constitutional restraint.

Positions on Major Issues

The Tyler Party, through its support for John Tyler's candidacy, advocated immediate of as a means to secure American territorial claims, counter potential British influence in the region, and preserve the balance between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states in , arguing that delay risked war with and disruption of sectional equilibrium. Tyler's administration negotiated an on April 12, 1844, which, though rejected by the on June 8, 1844, underscored the party's commitment to expansion without preconditions that might limit slavery's extension, viewing such restrictions as threats to Southern interests and national unity. On , the party opposed reestablishment of a national bank, aligning with Tyler's vetoes of two such bills in August and September 1841, which he deemed unconstitutional encroachments on and risks for concentrated financial power leading to economic instability. Instead, it favored an system to handle federal funds separately from private banks, as implemented under Tyler, to avoid debt accumulation and maintain executive checks against legislative fiscal excess. Regarding tariffs, Tyler Party adherents rejected high protective duties promoted by Whigs, vetoing two tariff increase bills in that raised rates above needs, contending they burdened Southern exporters and favored Northern manufacturers at the expense of interstate commerce balance. They endorsed tariffs solely for to fund government operations without protective intent, echoing Tyler's stance against federal policies distorting market incentives. The party's approach to slavery emphasized , critiquing Northern abolitionist agitation as fomenting disunion while supporting annexation measures that implicitly protected the institution by adding slave territories like , where slavery was legal, to offset free-state growth and sustain constitutional compromises. Tyler, a slaveholder, framed federal non-interference as essential to union preservation, rejecting centralized abolition efforts as violations of that could precipitate sectional conflict.

1844 Presidential Campaign

Nomination Process

The nomination process for the Tyler Party began with informal endorsements from scattered supporters, including state-level gatherings of administration loyalists and annexation advocates, who rallied around President following his expulsion from the Whig Party and rebuff by Democrats. These efforts coalesced into a dedicated convention held in , , on May 27, 1844, coinciding with the opening of the . Attended primarily by federal office-holders and a small cadre of Tyler allies—numbering fewer than 100 delegates—the gathering reflected the party's embryonic structure, with participants drawn from fragmented pro-Tyler factions emphasizing unity against Whig opposition to . Tyler was nominated unanimously without contest, underscoring reliance on his personal incumbency and veto record rather than competitive balloting. No vice presidential candidate was selected at the convention, as the focus remained on Tyler's presidential bid amid hopes of attracting Democratic defectors or balancing Southern pro-annexation interests with Northern elements; initial overtures toward figures like , a New York Democrat, faltered due to party loyalties and Wright's subsequent Democratic nomination. The proceedings avoided extensive debate on a formal platform, instead ratifying core principles tied to Tyler's doctrines of executive prerogative, including repeated vetoes of Whig economic measures and aggressive pursuit of as a path to national expansion. This brevity stemmed from time constraints and the convention's nature, prioritizing rapid mobilization over deliberation. The process exposed the Tyler Party's organizational deficits, lacking a national committee or delegate apportionment system typical of established parties; operations depended heavily on Tyler's administration insiders for funding and logistics, with costs covered through networks rather than broad . This dependence on personal networks, while enabling the , limited and highlighted the party's role as a vehicle for Tyler's independent appeal amid a polarized landscape dominated by Whig and Democratic machinery.

Campaign Strategies and Challenges

The Tyler Party's campaign centered on President John Tyler's push for immediate annexation of , leveraging the treaty submitted to the on April 22, 1844, drafted with input from conservative Democrat , to appeal to expansionist sentiments in the South and among pro-slavery interests. Supporters formed alliances with conservative Democrats favoring Texas admission, positioning Tyler as a defender of Southern interests against Whig candidate Henry Clay's cautious stance on expansion. However, the effort lacked a robust national organization, depending mainly on a convention of federal officeholders and loyalists that nominated Tyler on May 27, 1844, rather than widespread party infrastructure. Northern opposition severely constrained the campaign, as Tyler's vetoes of two national bank bills in August and September 1842 had branded him as obstructive to economic recovery and aligned him with Southern agrarian views in the eyes of Northern Whigs and moderates. The strategy targeted Southern and border states for electoral votes sufficient to deny a to either major candidate, potentially forcing a in the where Tyler's incumbency might sway outcomes, but this faced disruptions from Democratic boycotts and fusion tickets combining Tyler and Polk slates in states like and Georgia. A pivotal challenge arose with the Democratic National Convention's nomination of James K. Polk on the ninth ballot on May 29, 1844, whose platform explicitly endorsed , eroding Tyler's distinctiveness on the issue and siphoning potential supporters. The Senate's rejection of the Texas treaty on June 8, 1844, by a 35-16 vote further dimmed prospects, exposing divisions among Whigs and Democrats. Tyler withdrew from the race on August 20, 1844, at the urging of , endorsing Polk to block Clay's victory, though scattered Tyler electors persisted in some Southern states, garnering negligible popular votes without securing any electoral votes.

Dissolution and Merger

Merger with the Democratic Party

Following the in from May 27 to 30, 1844, where emerged as the nominee after a deadlock between and , President and his supporters assessed the alignment of Polk's platform with their priorities, particularly immediate annexation of . Polk's endorsement of without conditions resolved the intra-party impasse for Tyler's faction, which had prioritized this issue amid Tyler's failed treaty efforts in Congress. On August 20, 1844, Tyler formally withdrew his independent candidacy, citing the risk of vote-splitting that could benefit Whig nominee , and directed his followers to support Polk as the most viable path to advancing and expansionist goals. The decision emphasized pragmatic convergence rather than ideological fusion; Tyler's correspondence and public statements framed the shift as a strategic endorsement to secure Democratic reciprocity on , without dissolving into a structured party merger. Tyler engaged in limited campaigning for Polk in and other Southern states, urging his network of congressional allies and local committees to align with Democratic efforts, while avoiding full organizational integration to preserve leverage. This alignment marked the Tyler Party's cessation as an independent entity by early 1844, as its infrastructure—limited to committees and Tyler loyalists—folded into Democratic operations, effectively ending formal activities without a dissolution vote or . Polk's unexpected nomination as a compromise candidate, unburdened by Van Buren's anti-annexation stance on , eliminated the need to sustain a third-party effort doomed by slim resources and Whig opposition, allowing Tyler's goals to proceed through the stronger Democratic vehicle. The move secured tacit Democratic concessions, including cabinet considerations for Tyler allies, though no explicit bargains were documented beyond shared policy commitments.

Immediate Aftermath

Following his formal withdrawal from the presidential race on August 20, 1844, and subsequent endorsement of Democratic nominee , directed his supporters to align with 's campaign, emphasizing immediate as a core issue that differentiated from Whig candidate . This strategic pivot dissolved the nascent Tyler Party structure, with its pro-expansionist base—primarily and disaffected Whigs—integrating into the Democratic ranks, thereby reinforcing the party's Southern wing and aiding 's razor-thin popular vote margin of 38,200 out of over 2.7 million cast. The merger effectively neutralized any independent Tyler electoral threat, as no electors cast votes for Tyler himself, though the annexation focus siphoned support from in slaveholding states like Georgia and . Polk's victory on November 1–December 4, 1844, empirically affirmed the viability of Tyler's territorial expansion priorities, prompting to pass a for on February 28, 1845, which Tyler signed into law on March 1, 1845, mere days before his term ended. This outcome bypassed the failed 1844 , which had required a two-thirds but garnered only a simple majority, underscoring Tyler's tactical shift to congressional resolution amid partisan . For Tyler's adherents, the absorption into Democrats yielded short-term policy gains, such as bolstering pro-slavery , but exposed the Tyler faction's dependence on major-party infrastructure for viability. The episode exemplified third-party fragility in the mid-19th-century U.S. winner-take-all system, where the Tyler Party's brief existence—from its informal formation in early to dissolution by late summer—highlighted structural barriers to sustained influence without absorption or marginalization. Tyler personally navigated fallout through this lame-duck success, yet encountered enduring bipartisan distrust: Whigs branded him a traitor for defying their platform, while Democrats viewed his maneuvers as opportunistic, curtailing his immediate post-presidential political leverage in and nationally.

Legacy and Assessment

Electoral and Political Impact

The Tyler Party's participation in the 1844 presidential election yielded minimal direct electoral success, securing no electoral votes and less than 0.5% of the national popular vote, primarily scattered in Southern states where Tyler electors appeared on ballots despite his withdrawal from active campaigning in August 1844. Tyler's decision to endorse Democrat after withdrawing redirected his supporters—largely pro-annexation Southern conservatives disillusioned with Whig nominee Henry Clay's opposition to immediate —toward the Democratic ticket, consolidating votes that might otherwise have bolstered Clay in key Southern contests. This dynamic contributed to 's razor-thin victories in states like Georgia and , enabling his 170–105 triumph over Clay despite 's mere 49.5% share of the popular vote nationwide. Politically, the party's platform elevated Texas annexation as a non-negotiable imperative, compelling Democrats to adopt an aggressive pro-annexation stance at their May 1844 convention after initial resistance from Martin Van Buren, thereby shifting the election's axis toward expansionist imperatives over Clay's caution. Tyler's lame-duck push culminated in Congress passing a joint resolution for Texas's admission as a slave state on March 1, 1845—three days before Polk's inauguration—averting risks of prolonged Texan independence or foreign entanglement that could have marginalized slavery's extension and disrupted sectional equilibrium between free and slave states. Polk's subsequent enforcement of the annexation, including military measures against Mexican claims, realized the Tylerites' core objective and entrenched territorial expansion as a Democratic hallmark, influencing U.S. policy toward inevitable conflict with Mexico. The Tyler Party's brief existence illustrated the catalytic potential of ephemeral factions to compel major-party adaptation on pivotal issues, as evidenced by Democrats incorporating Tyler-aligned fiscal restraint and states' rights —such as opposition to a national bank—into their broader appeal, echoing Tyler's vetoes that had alienated Whigs. Without romanticizing its electoral nullity, the party's agitation established a template for third-party leverage in antebellum , where targeted regional pressures could realign platforms and outcomes absent outright victory, paralleling contemporaneous Liberty Party effects on anti-slavery discourse but centered on pro-slavery expansion. This influence persisted in sustaining Southern Democratic cohesion on territorial matters, though it exacerbated national fissures over slavery's geographic bounds.

Achievements and Criticisms

The Tyler Party's primary achievement lay in its advocacy for the annexation of , which pressured the Democratic Party to incorporate the issue into its 1844 platform after a contentious convention deadlock, ultimately facilitating Texas's via on March 1, 1845, under President-elect . This outcome realized Tyler's long-standing push for expansion, viewed by supporters as a strategic assertion of American continental interests against foreign influence, though the party's direct electoral role was minimal as Tyler withdrew his candidacy to endorse Polk. Another key success was the party's embodiment of strict constitutional constructionism, exemplified by Tyler's repeated vetoes of Whig-backed national bank legislation in 1841, which prevented the re-establishment of a centralized and aligned with advocates' emphasis on limiting federal overreach into state monetary affairs. Proponents, including Tyler loyalists, credited this stance with safeguarding against debt-driven expansion of executive power, drawing on precedents like Jefferson's opposition to . Critics, particularly Whigs, lambasted the party for economic obstructionism, arguing that Tyler's vetoes of and banking bills sabotaged national infrastructure and recovery efforts post-, culminating in the first congressional override of a on a tariff measure in 1842 and near-impeachment proceedings. Abolitionists and Northern Whigs further condemned the party's Texas focus as exacerbating sectional divides by prioritizing Southern slaveholding expansion over compromise, with perceived as inflaming tensions that foreshadowed civil conflict rather than fostering unity. Internally, the party suffered from structural frailties, including over-reliance on Tyler's personal stature without robust organization, resulting in zero electoral votes despite a Southern base and Tyler's merger endorsement yielding no independent gains. Detractors portrayed it as a transient factional vehicle that rewarded sectional interests at the expense of broader coalition-building, empirically failing to sustain viability beyond 1844.

References

  1. https://millercenter.org/president/tyler/campaigns-and-elections
  2. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/bios/john-tyler
  3. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/john-tyler-and-presidential-succession
  4. https://millercenter.org/president/william-harrison/key-events
  5. https://constitutingamerica.org/1841-the-presidency-of-john-tyler-guest-essayist-john-s-baker/
  6. https://millercenter.org/president/john-tyler/key-events
  7. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/john-tyler-event-timeline
  8. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/1842_08_30_John-Tyler_vetoes/
  9. https://virginiahistory.org/learn/president-without-party
  10. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/presidents/johntyler
  11. https://millercenter.org/president/tyler/life-in-brief
  12. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Tyler
  13. https://www.loc.gov/collections/john-tyler-papers/articles-and-essays/timeline/
  14. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/tyler-john-1790-1862/
  15. https://millercenter.org/president/tyler/domestic-affairs
  16. https://academic.oup.com/book/26252/chapter/194458124
  17. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/texas-annexation
  18. https://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/William-Henry-Harrison-and-John-Tyler-Election-of-1844.html
  19. https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/45647879.pdf
  20. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA350738.pdf
  21. https://werehistory.org/third-party-voting/
  22. https://millercenter.org/president/polk/campaigns-and-elections
  23. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/a-dark-horse-in-sunlight-and-shadow
  24. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1844
  25. https://constitutingamerica.org/1844-james-k-polk-defeats-henry-clay-james-birney-texas-annexation-as-it-related-to-the-issue-of-slavery-guest-essayist-daniel-a-cotter/
  26. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/annexation
  27. https://www.libertarianism.org/everything-wrong-presidents/everything-wrong-tyler-administration
  28. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-first-congressional-override-of-a-presidential-veto/
  29. https://millercenter.org/president/tyler/impact-and-legacy
  30. https://academic.oup.com/book/49404/chapter/418509400
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.