Talk:1844 United States presidential election

Allusion to 2016 election

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

Mistake on map

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

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

Something to add

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

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

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

Skipping some facts

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

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

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

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

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

Frelinghuysen

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

Tyler's ambitions?

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

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

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

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

Problems with the lede

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

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

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

good point; I tried to fix it. The lede should tell the main story: Polk defeats Clay. Rjensen 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Democratic nomination balloting?

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

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

Usage of term "dark horse"

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

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

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

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

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

Really BAD mistake on map

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

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

Who did New York vote for?

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

"Fifty-four forty or fight!"

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

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

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

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

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

Electoral map

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

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

Major revision for Election of 1844

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

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States presidential election, 1844/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 01:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Let's begin. This is a pretty good article, and think it will pass shortly, however, there are issues where background isn't explained.

1. The Oregon boundary dispute is mentioned in the lead without explanation. It really needs one. "Northern expansionists, who demanded Oregon Territory" being a particularly incomprehensible bit.
2. For that matter, it'd probably be wise to quickly explain the slave state/free state background to this election in the lead
3. In the first section, "Texas annexation controversies", the "Gag Rule controversies" are mentioned, but not explained. Particularly bad as the information, while in the link, requires reading to the end of the linked article to find.
4. Tyler-Texas treaty: "This, after Tyler became convinced that Great Britain had encouraged a Texas-Mexico rapprochement that might lead to slave emancipation in the Texas republic" - that's phrased a bit strangely. The context is explained afterwards - that there was a panic about the possible end of slavery in Texas - but it's unclear at first reading.
5. "Mexico had outlawed slavery in Coahuila y Tejas in 1829..." is that a lawsuit? If it is, please say it is. The format of Spanish-language lawsuits isn't as common knowledge as the X v. Y of English-language lawsuits.

Think that'll do for the moment. More once that's dealt with? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam - I am locating sources with which to respond to your requests. I'll keep you updated. 36hourblock (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It's clear that this was written by people who really know the subject, it's just a matter of getting the background information in for us peons. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam - The "people who really know the subject" are not the editors who participate at Wikipedia. Rather, they are the historians who publish the books on the topic, from which we build the article. Let's be clear about that.

Question: Why has the Reviewer placed the editing requests on the Talk Page? Is this customary? It seems it will confuse the issue if more than one editor is responding to the reviewer at a time...

On Mexican law and slavery: the Republic of Mexico, through its national Congress, outlawed slavery. It wasn't a lawsuit.

I have responded to the first set of GA review requests; I hope these changes make the lead and sections comprehensible. Is it clearer now?

I forgot to put my signature on the foregoing comments earlier this week. Perhaps that's why you were not alerted. My apologies! 36hourblock (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Do beg pardon. will check this tomorrow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, the reviewer has no intention of completing the process for this GA nominee. Please withdraw the article so it can be resubmitted. Thank you. 36hourblock (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article doesn't need to be resubmitted. Instead, the nomination retains its seniority, and goes back into the review pool—the current review stops as incomplete. I'm taking care of that now, since Adam has not responded for three weeks after having said he'd get back to this right away on my talk page after I pinged him. (It's been a month and a half since he last posted to this page.) I did another ping over 36 hours ago, saying I was planning to close the review unless he responded right away, and despite several edits in the interim, there's been nothing. This review is now closed. I hope the nomination finds a new reviewer soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been one of the busiest months I've had in years. Probably best it's released. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BlueMoonset, for intervening in this matter. I look forward to working with serious-minded editors in improving the article. Cheers. 36hourblock (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realise this article has a lot of little problems of language, failure to clarify, and the like, and thus would need hours of work to shepherd to GA? I prefer not to fail articles, but to help them on, but the amount of work needed is large, and that's why I didn't ever get to the review - I'd need a couple hours to go through and carefully document. If you wanted me to deal with this quickly, I could have: Failed on WP:WIAGA criterion 1.

So, if you want a "serious-minded" editor to do with this article what it deserves in the current state, I can. But if you want someone to help you do the work that should have been done before nominating, I didn't have the time.

Quite simply, the infiormation is there, but it's not contextualized, making the article very hard for a non-expert to read. It is constantly dropping the names of 19th-century movements and concepts with the only explanation being links to other articles. A review that would end with this promoted would take days to get through. It has loads of potential, but it's a very long article that's going to need to become a lot longer to be readable by anyone not already an expert, and the only way that's going to happen is to have a non-expert willing to, point by point, read through and bring up every single one of these issues, which will take several days of work by said person. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The article, Bank War, has failed exactly nothing. As BlueMoonset points out, it remains available for review on the current list of GA nominees - by editors capable of handling mainstream secondary sources on US history.

As to the foregoing tirade by the reviewer who has been relieved of his duties: "Good-bye, Mr. Bond." 36hourblock (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not finish this because I did not have the time to complete the massive amounts of careful work with you this needs to pass. Given your attitude, I don't think anyone is likely to. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States presidential election, 1844/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, 36hourblock. Per a request on my talk page (permanent link), I have decided to review this article. I understand that you may be dejected from earlier reviews, but I hope you will work with me to see if this can be passed. I should note, however, that I am not a period expert, so I will be reading as a layman. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

On February 21, 2014, User:Adam Cuerden opined that "This is a pretty good article, and think it will pass shortly…"

A month later, still incommunicado, and having exhibited a studied indifference to his GA reviewer chores, he reports that "The article's full of poorly-introduced, poorly-explained concepts” and has “tons of problems".

As to his personal attacks against me, I'll just say that silence is the most perfect expression of contempt.

That he contacted you, Crisco, to intervene, does no credit to your reputation as an editor. Frankly, I don't have faith in your ability to handle this review objectively.

I'll be happy to work on the article with someone independent of your clique. 36hourblock (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will point out the actual comment is "This is a pretty good article, and think it will pass shortly, however, there are issues where background isn't explained." There were a lot of issues. You then took almost two weeks to get back to me saying you had looked at the first set of issues. I've seen people being reviewed act quickly, and move an article rapidly towards promotion when the material and research is there, but there's prose issues. However, the issues actually need dealt with, preferably before the reviewer leaves the period of relative calm he was in, and enters a busy period. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset also asked me to have a look. If you think Blue is part of a "clique" with Adam, you are sadly mistaken. Blue, what do you think? We're giving 36hour a second chance, but he/she doesn't seem to be willing to take it. This article (at a glance) looks reasonably comprehensive, but there appear to be extensive issues. Some GA reviewers would simply fail the article here and now, but I don't like to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand: Your services as reviewers are neither needed nor welcome on this article. Why not bow out gracefully? 36hourblock (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Adam is not reviewing this article. He is defending himself against misquotation. Now, if you are unwilling to address the issues I pointed out (despite having started this review in good faith, and having suggested that we let you skip to the head of the line), then I will be forced to fail this. And, if this is nominated for GAC again, you will more likely than not be asked why you haven't addressed my comments by the new reviewer. Do you really want to wait that long? Or do you want to see if we can work together to polish this article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• 36hourblock, after you posted to my talk page about Adam's actions, I was the one who went to Crisco's page and asked for his assistance since he is an admin and one I have worked with very collegially for the past few years. I was pleasantly surprised and pleased when he offered to take on the review because you'd gotten a raw deal—my opinion was and is that he is an independent reviewer and can be counted on to review this fairly and impartially. Frankly, he's doing you a favor in taking this review immediately after Adam failed the last iteration, as he noted above. If you aren't prepared to work with him, then your nomination will be failed again due to the issues raised thus far, and if you renominate you'll go to the back of the reviewing line and can expect the process to take a very long time. Furthermore, any future reviewer will be looking at past reviews and asking you to do the work Crisco has just requested. I realize that Adam made you wait an unconscionable period of time and that's a shame, but Crisco is not Adam and is ready to work with you. I strongly recommend you buckle down and do so if you're interested in this article being listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Buckle this. 36hourblock (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• So, in other words, you prefer I fail this and you wait in the queue for however long it takes. So be it. I strongly recommend you look into the images before nominating again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition (only two edits in the past month; no recent edit warring)
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

====6 (images)====.

• • Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, avoid sandwiching images. We have sandwiched images in #Whig Party convention and campaign, #Whig Party campaign tactics, #Van Buren's Hammet letter, and #James K. Polk: Dark horse.
  • In line with the above, I think this needs to have the number of images reduced by at least 5.
  • It is standard to have images positioned under the section break, not right before it. I don't see that in the MOS though, so I cannot consider that as part of the GA criteria. If you plan on going further, however...
  • I doubt there is any value in using galleries for a single image. It looks tacky with all that whitespace.

• Copyright and specific image concerns
  • File:JamesKnoxPolk.png - How is this CC-BY-SA? Also, when did Kelogg die? PD-70 does not apply in the US, so you need to either show publication before 1923 or that the creator has been dead for at least 100 years. Furthermore, for display purposes a JPG would be much better (JPG is a lossy format, but it is rendered correctly by Wikimedia's software; PNG, on the other hand, is not)
  • File:Clay.png - For display purposes, a JPG would be much better. It would be preferable to have Darby's lifespan marked.
  • File:ElectoralCollege1844.svg - Please ensure that all of the electoral vote numbers are correct. There appear to have been multiple issues in the lifespan of this article.
  • File:Clay vs Polk campaign.jpg - This is fine, more or less (though the lifespan of the artist would be nice to have). I am preparing a larger resolution version, from the LOC.
  • File:Clay Frelinghuysen 2.png - This is most certainly not from May 2010; the date field needs to be corrected. For display purposes, a JPG would be much better. Also, the style is quite similar to this 1864 poster; how do we know that Currier and Ives (responsible for the Polk–Dallas banner) did not do this?
  • File:Theodore Frelinghuysen - Brady-Handy.jpg - fine
  • File:Henry Clay-headshot.jpg - What proof of publication do you have for PD-1923?
  • File:08 Martin Van Buren 3x4.jpg - Brady's YOD would be nice to include (available in the Frelinghuysen image). The "Candidate" in the caption should have a small c.
  • File:"No Annexation of Texas" 1844.jpg - Where did you get this? Scanned an original document, from a book, or?
  • File:"The Little Magician Invoked" Martin Van Buren, US Presidential Election, 1844.jpg - Please link to the LOC page for this image, and consider adding the LOC template. Regarding the caption, our article is at Locofocos (no space, no capital F)
  • File:MartinVanBuren.png - Do we really need this? I mean, we've got a photograph already. Also, for display this should be jpg. Healy's year of death (1894) would also be good to have
  • File:LewisCass-portrait.png - For display this should be jpg. Huntington died in 1906; that should be noted on the description page.
  • File:RichardMentorJohnson.png - For display this should be jpg. Peale died in 1860; that should be noted on the description page.
  • File:JamesBuchanan crop.jpg - Original year of the painting should also be included, as well as Healy's year of death.
  • File:JohnCCalhoun.png - For display this should be jpg. Missing year of publication and Darcy's year of death.
  • File:Vice-president of the US George Dallas.jpg - When was this published? We can't know this is PD-1923 without having at least a rough year of publication. The source link doesn't go to the correct page, either.
  • File:President James K. Polk, circa 1840s. Copy of engraving by H. W. Smith., 1943 - 1945 - NARA - 535919.tif - For display we should use a JPG
  • File:Polk Dallas campaign banner.jpg - *shudder* That needs restoration (not part of the GA criteria, but as someone who often restores images this one frightens me).
  • File:Johntyler.jpg - What's the source of this image?
  • File:John Tyler.png - "No artist details listed" - so how do we know this was a work of a US government employee? This is originally from the Library of Congress; you should find their listing to establish this image's copyright status. Also, this should be jpg
  • File:JamesKPolkLocalVictoryParadeLancasterPA11261844.jpg - Link is dead. Any archives? No doubt about the copyright status, but to be safe...

Let's get through the image review before we continue on to the remainder of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Photographs for lead images

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

Henry Clay

James K. Polk