Talk:John C. Frémont

Accent

Is Fremont's name really spelled with an accent mark? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:27, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Library of Congress article here, yes. Gentgeen 10:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The linked article uses the accent mark, but if you look at the posters from Fremont's time that accompany it, they do not. I cannot find a reference atm, but I think I recall reading that Fremont dropped the accent at some point in his life. GrenacheBombyiscool (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC) 07:21, February 5, Bombyiscool (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)2006 (UTC)

The late, lamented Shelby Foote spells Fremont with the accent. He also details more reasons why Lincoln relieved Fremont of his duties: namely, rampant corruption under his command. Source: "The Civil War: A Narrative (vol. I: Fort Sumter to Perryville). --A. Lurker

The test of whether to use the accent is WP:Commonname, not official name. Therefore Bill Clinton, not William, and the Big Dig, not the Central Artery and Tunnel project. The Library of Congress reference is therefore helpful but not definite. The discussion of whether he dropped the accent also does not apply since what he calls himself may not be what others call him. The test is simple: What is more common? Clearly Freemont is more common than Frémont. Without an accent there is a high school, a health care district (government electoral district), an elementary school, a Utah government history website, a public library, the USGS website, etc. I haven't checked U.S. history textbooks but I suspect that most drop the accent. Accents are simple not used in English (English pronunciation being so odd what's the point?) and are commonly just dropped. So, the test is what about this case? Is the WP:Commonname of Fremont unique and with the accent or does his common name follow the standard practice? --222.127.72.85 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Slavery

The article currently says that he was the first Presidential candidate to run on a platform of opposition to slavery. But the free soil party and other minor parties had already run before him Furthermore he was only opposed to the expansion of slavery.--Gary123 19:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That's right. I've edited it to say that he was the first in a major party to do so. Why don't you add the distinction about expansion? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Court martial

The article Mormon Battalion mentions that Fremont was hauled back east to face a court martial at one point. This fact/allegation is not covered in any way by the John C. Fremont article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 00:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I would like more information on how the court martial took place. It seems to be glossed over in this piece. I am looking for: How did an established Governor, who took dramatic possession of wide swaths of land for the US suddenly become arrested and hauled 3k miles away to face imprisonment? I would like more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spilseth (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The article mentions a court-martial during the civil war. This is an error. Lincoln told him to withdraw his proclamation, he refused, and Lincoln relieved him of command on Nov 2, 1861, and annulled the proclamation himself. But he appointed Fremont to another command in March 1862. The actual court-martial took place in 1846-7.

"Friction between the two rival officers immediately ensued, and Fremont prepared to obey Stockton and continued as governor in spite of Kearny's orders. For this he was tried by court-martial in Washington, and, after a trial which lasted more than a year, was convicted, Jan. 31, 1847 of "mutiny," "disobedience to the lawful command of a superior officer," and "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline," and was sentenced to dismissal from the service. President Polk approved of the conviction for disobedience and mutiny, but remitted the penalty and Fremont resigned." St. Louis Civil War James Galloway (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

When searching for John C Fremont, 4 public schools named for Fremont score higher than Fremont himself for relevancy. Fremont scores only 51.1%. What?

The lower relevancy is probably because "John C Fremont" is entered without an accented E. Like the entries for the schools, it's a 'redirect'. The school redirects and their main articles have no accented E, which could be why their relevancy is considered higher. Adavidb 14:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The killings of Berreyesa and the De Haros

It appears to be unclear that Fremont had any direct involvement in the murders of Jose R. Berreyesa and his nephews, Ramon and Francisco De Haro. In Fremont’s memoirs he claims that the Delawares were responsible. In other accounts Carson took the initiative and killed the three men saying later “Oh, we don’t want any prisoners; they lie out yonder.” Still other reports state that Carson wasn’t involved at all. Therefore, it cannot be said with any certainty that Fremont ordered these killings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zafe B. Brox (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

If verifiable, reliable sources are provided for the "other accounts" and "reports", they can be used. --Adavidb 09:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This can be fixed easily. I'm doing research in this area and I've found a few accounts. I think it's pretty obvious, from multiple accounts, that Fremont ordered Carson and a few men to kill Jose' and his nephews under the excuse that he didn't have the time/logistics to deal with prisoners. That in itself doesn't make sense since he was already holding prisoners but neither does the Fremont Peak incident.--Docstrnge (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and those accounts all have the De Haro's listed as "nephews" of Berreyesa, but they aren't. (why were they there?)--Emargie (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I finally found a pro-Fremont account that comes from "The Decline Of The Californios" by Leonard Pitt, page 200. It basically points the finger at Kit Carson and produces a list of character witnesses for Fremont which includes someone only referred to as "another Berreyesa". The only thing that nobody disputes is the fact that Berreyesa's killing was technically a war crime, the dispute is over who was responsible.--Docstrnge (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The two accounts given in Zoeth Skinner Eldridge's book The Beginnings of San Francisco: From the Expedition of Anza, 1774, to the City Charter of April 15, 1850 : with Biographical and Other Notes are both unflattering in their portrayal of Frémont. One account by Berreyesa's son José de los Santos Berreyesa, the former mayor of Sonoma, has the three Californios getting shot as they approached San Rafael with the intention of renting horses (they had brought their saddles with them on the boat) and the other account by attorney and surveyor Jasper O'Farrell says that Carson came back to Frémont to ask what should be done about the men. Here are both of those accounts. José de los Santos Berreyesa calls the De Haro boys "cousins" but they were not first or second cousins. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the first pro-Fremont account I've seen. I'd like to get some names, faces and documentation for these alleged pro-Fremont character witnesses mentioned in "Decline". There should be a way to cross-reference it if it's true, assuming one has the time, resourcefulness, etc. Everything else I've read pretty much lines up with the "Fremont is jerk" theory (His failures after the Bear Flag Revolt are well noted). What's strange is that it's coming from a pro-Californio book but it's merely documenting what was said/done. Jasper O'Farrell is another interesting story in this incident. He's sometimes blamed for Fremont's post revolt failures because of his testimony over the Berreyesa killing but that's another story. I read an account (and I can't seem to find it now) that claimed O'Farrell squatted on the Berreyesa's northern property (with cattle) while they were being held in jail in Sonoma and eventually was granted a lot of it by the pro-American anti Californio&Indian courts. I still have a ton of downloaded books to read (and re-read) so I'll get the reference for you as soon as I can relocate it. Interesting stuff. I'm actually trying to concentrate on Almaden-ish research but the Aboriginal/Spanish/Mexican/American periods all require a historical perspective outside that box. I'm researching a novel. Kind of a "look how things have changed while nothing's really changed" if you follow me.--Docstrnge (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In Ferol Egan’s book “Fremont, Explorer for a Restless Nation” p356 he retells Archibald Gillespie’s account of this situation which indicates that Carson acted of his own volition, suggesting a tacit involvement by Fremont at best. On the other hand he recounts Jasper O’Farrell’s statement that Carson checked with Fremont (presumably about the taking of prisoners) and Fremont said that there would be no taking of prisoners. Information from a captured prisoner, Three- (or Four) Fingered Jack, graphically related the brutal torture and murder of captured Americans at the hands of the Californios. Although there is no excuse for the murders of the de Haros or Berreyesa, undoubtedly the judgement of the Americans was influenced by these acts. I have a fundamental problem with O’Farrell’s account. He said “I saw Carson some two years ago and spoke to him of this act and he assured me that then and since he regretted to be compelled to shoot those men, but Fremont was blood-thirsty enough to order otherwise, and he further remarked that it was not the only brutal act he was compelled to commit while under his command.” Carson was under no compulsion to do anything that he regarded as unethical or immoral. I believe that he had the power to ignore any such command with little repercussion. This smacks of political motivation. Zafe B. Brox (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this should be discussed again. It is not quite clear why Frémont would have resorted to such drastic measures especially if these men were unarmed. It also may suggest some racism was involved in the shootings. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oregon Territory

Fremont's role in the exploration of the Oregon Territory needs to be expanded upon, as it is barely mentioned. Katr67 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why is this article listed in the category The History of Pederasty? - 169.237.215.179 00:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I expect it's due to the content of the last paragraph in the Civil War section. —Adavidb 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The homosexual relationship claim seems to be based on the testimony of a single individual. Is there any corroboration of Jesse Shepherd's accusation? Was the claim made before Fremont's death? Regardless, it appears to be irrelevant to the Civil War section. Red Harvest (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dream West bias

Under the "Legacy" section, it says that Dream West "may be the best book written about the explorer." Seems a little biased if you ask me, but I don't know if there are any other books about him. Just thought I'd throw that in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.61.43 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The book is now merely identified, not praised. —ADavidB 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjectBanners

Note that this talk page now belongs to more than 10 WikiProjects; the WPB and WPBS banner display templates both only allow for 10 and don't display more. I'm not aware of a solution while still nesting WP banners, though thought I'd make the issue known. —ADavidB 03:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh... No disputing your point, but, WikiProject:Plants? Really? BusterD (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really. Our scope includes all botanists. He even has a botanist abbreviation, indicating he's formally described at least one plant species. In fact, there are 74 records in the IPNI database of plant names. Also, the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} does allow for the display of more than 10 banners. I've altered it so it will autocollapse, too. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —ADavidB 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Genealogy

In Fremont's biography, it is stated that he was born in 1913 to "Anne Beverley Whiting... who, after his birth married Louis-Rene Fremont...on May 14, 1807." The dates in this information don't make sense. If Fremont was born in 1813, how could his mother marry after his birth in 1807?

206.78.91.34 (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I checked the original source on Google Books [1] and there were a couple of other errors in that sentence. Hope it's all fixed now. Offenbach (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But now what about that "illegitimate" further down the paragraph ?Emargie (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume it means that Fremont historians discount the 1807 marriage info as inaccurate. Offenbach (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I question the reliability of the French work. Alan Nevins in "Fremont: Pathfinder of the West", Tom Chaffin in "Pathfinder: John Charles Fremont and the Course of American Empire", and Sally Denton in "Passion and Principle: John and Jessie Fremont, The Couple Whose Power. Politics, and Love Shaped Nineteenth-Century America" all present a different scenario. In 1810 Whiting was still married to Colonel Pryor (referenced in the French book) when Fremon was hired by Pryor to tutor his wife in French. They initiated an affair, intending to wait until her husband died before going public. However the Colonel found out, the couple left town on July 10, 1811, and the Colonel petitioned the legislature for a divorce which was denied on December 11, 1811. Fremont's birth in 1813 therefore occurred while his mother was still legally married to the Colonel rather than Fremonts father. Footnotes show the authors relied on primary documents including letters and the published divorce petition. I will replace the French claims with the above unless someone thinks this merits further discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Impressive research, North ShoremanEmargie (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace away! Better to lead with the current consensus among historians than a sketchy genealogy from a century ago. Offenbach (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Fremont related to Confederate general W. H. C Whiting?

Dates in sidebar

Please forgive my newcomer's mistakes in protocol. The sidebar on the right lists the years in office as the 5th territorial governor of Arizona as 2010 to 2012. I do not know the correct dates, but this does seem to be a typo. LawrenceDavidSander (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I made the change. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Patron of U.S. Grant

Might be worth noting that he talent-spotted an obscure Brigadier in Tennessee called U.S. Grant. 86.181.153.97 (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The Other Smith

Several of the sources for the 1861 portion of the article (footnotes 54, 55, 61, 65-69) cite a "Smith." Unless I'm missing something, this "Smith" isn't fully cited anywhere. The article seems to make some grandiose claims on the basis of "Smith"--did Frémont really give "Ulysses S. Grant field command in charge of a combined Union offensive whose goal was to capture Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans, to keep Missouri and Illinois safe from Confederate attack"? This seems grandiose, in 1861. Who is this "Smith"? Jperrylsu (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Smith, Jean Edward. Grant (2001) see Amazon listing Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Re. File:John Charles Frémont young.jpg

Mystery man?

The article currently uses this image, captioned "A young John Frémont". As has been indicated in discussions with someone knowledgeable about Frémont on my talk page (see User talk:AndyTheGrump#Wrong Photo on Fremont Page), there are good grounds to doubt that it actually is a photo of Frémont - and the only 'source' which we have indicating that it is him is the file title. Comparisons with other images (There are several good ones which can be found via a Google image search) show that this 'mystery man' is rather less slim in the face than Frémont, has a noticeably less pointed nose, and is simply less delicate in his features. Though there is some resemblance - it has been suggested that it might be a relative - I think that given the doubts, it is inappropriate to use the image, and will remove it from the article, until it can be more positively identified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Children

The Fremonts had five children, three of whom lived to adulthood. Elizabeth Benton Fremont, who never married and lived with her mother, John C. Fremont, Jr., who became a naval officer, and Francis Preston Fremont, who became an army officer. See • NYT obit for Mrs. F -- http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0D14FB345D12738DDDA00A94DA415B828CF1D3 • Heitman's Register has an entry for Francis Preston on p. 436 14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)~

Jedediah Smith the real Pathfinder

I added that Jedediah Smith was the real "Pathfinder" since Smith had made vast explorations of the American West more then a decade before Frémont. I added references. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

that's OR and is not in line with what the RS say-- see book titles: John C. Frémont: Pathfinder of the West (2003); With Fremont the Pathfinder, Or, Winning the Empire of Gold (1903); John C. Frémont: Courageous Pathfinder of the Wild West (2012); Pathfinder: John Charles Frémont and the Course of American Empire (2004); John C. Fremont: Soldier and Pathfinder (1996); The life of Col. John C. Fremont, the pathfinder of empire (1856) etc --- and of course Nevins great biography: Frémont, the West's Greatest Adventurer: Being a Biography from Certain Hitherto Unpublished Sources of General John C. Frémont, Together with His Wife, Jessie Benton Frémont, and Some Account of the Period of Expansion which Found a Brilliant Leader in the Pathfinder (1928). Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen, here is the reference: Elmo Scott Watson (December 3, 1936) Jedediah Smith the Real "Pathfinder", p. 4 Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Watson wrote the article. I did not. That is not original research. I was going by Wikipedia Policy of citing a valid source. Watson stated Smith was the real "Pathfinder". I did not make that statement nor come to that assessment on my own originally. Watson gave reasons why Smith is considered the Pathfinder. Smith rediscovered the South Pass, he was the first American to travel overland into California, he traveled up the Pacific Coast. According to research many pioneers who followed Smith used the South Pass to get to California. Smith's explorations were done from a period of 1826-1830 before Fremont went on his first expedition in 1838. Could historians be biased concerning Frémont and discovery of the West? Why was Jedediah Smith apparently ignored by the above listed historians? Smith's biographer Dale J. Morgan (1953), Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the American West, a qualified historian, stated on page 7 "Jedediah Smith is an authentic American hero...Jedediah Smith dead has had to fight for survival in the American memory...his countrymen did their best to forget him entirely." Watson maybe in the minority opinion, but that is no reason to dismiss his historical view that Smith was the real "Pathfinder". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the Wiki's policy is a reliable secondary source. This is a fringe argument by a popular journalist (Watson) in a local Iowa newspaper. Compare that to the many books cited above, especially by Allan Nevins one of the great historians of his day. Smith is a minor figure and as Morgan admits, he's pretty well ignored by most historians who know the field. California specialists do call Smith the "pathfinder of the Sierras" but not "pathfinder of the west" Fremont's exploits were on a much grander scale Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another quote from Morgan (1953), Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the American West, on page 9, "Jedediah Smith's place in history has been established by the labors of modern students who have had the patience and the energy to search out the record, disregarding a folk belief which has persisted since the presidential campaign of 1856, that nothing of importance happened in the West before Frémont's time. This latter-day reputation is in no sense a manufactured thing, for the solid accomplishment has always been there. It is not merely the slow emergence of the facts but improved perspective on the forces that have shaped our national life which had finally revealed Jedediah Smith's true stature." Morgan is not a fringe journalist but an established historian. Calling Frémont the "Pathfinder" is part of the folk belief, in my opinion and ignores all the accomplishments of Jedediah Smith who preceded Frémont by over a decade. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article needs to acknowledge Morgan's (1953) "improved perspective on the forces that have shaped our national life". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this article is about Fremont and there is no doubt -- see multiple books cited above-- about Fremont's reputation among historians (historians are not "folk belief" ). You should work on the Smith article--it's Smith who needs attention, not Fremont. The problem with Smith is that his published work discouraged American from going to what Smith thought was a barren and dangerous West--it was dangerous (he was killed by Indians at age 31). Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned with historical accuracy and integrity. Should Wikipedia or historians perpetuate the "folklore" perpetuated by the 1856 Presidential election concerning Frémont? Historian George R. Brooks chronicals how Frèmont literally follows in Smith's footsteps. This is evidence that Smith was the original Pathfinder. Brooks (1977), The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah Smith His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-1827 found on pages 45, 47, 56, 133-134, 138, 143, and 173. This is documented evidence that Smith was the Pathfinder and Frèmont was the follower. This evidence should not be ignored in the article, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

we follow the historians. a few words in a book review in a weekly Iowa newspaper doesn't trump the scholars. Professor Vorenberg said in 2001: "Fremont had earned his fame and his nickname, 'the Pathfinder,' as a western explorer in the 1840s." Michael Vorenberg (2001). Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. Cambridge University Press. p. 118. ISBN 9780521652674.

What about the evidence sourced by Brooks provided above? Frémont was a Pathfollower. No one is denying Frémont was a great explorer and traveler and his accomplishments helped settle the American West. Brooks provided evidence that Frémont followed in Smith's footsteps. There appears to be resistance to historical reform and change. I do not believe the article is entirely accurate by ignoring the accomplishments of Jedediah Smith. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the popular consensus in the 1840s-50s, and the scholarly consensus in the 20-21st centuries supports the text: "During the 1840s, that era's penny press accorded Frémont the sobriquet The Pathfinder. Historians call him The Great Pathfinder." I haven't seen the Brooks book--what does he say about Fremont? Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I can give a list of instances where Brooks states how Frémont was following the path of Smith. The term The Great Pathfinder was made around 1939 I believe. This was before Morgan's biography and Brooks rediscovered 1826-1867 manuscript account made by Jedediah Smith himself. Smith's 1826-1827 manuscript was discovered in 1968 by Brooks who showed the manuscript to Dale. Reinterest in Smith had began around the 1920's. I am not trying to remove "The Great Pathfinder" from the Frémont article. Both were great American explorers and in some sense Frémont took over where Smith left off, since Smith was killed by Commanches in 1831. I believe Smith should somehow be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Smith is most famous for reporting on South Pass (in Wyoming, not far from where I live); Smith did not discover it --Americans had used it before but had not spread the word. One of F's major assignments was to systematically look for ALL the possible passes through the Rockies, & he found several more.Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Rjensen. Frémont took over what Smith was doing. Who knows what more Smith would have done had he not be killed by Commanches. However, according to the maps Smith's and Frémont travels are very similar. I believe the article needs to mention the Frémont retraced much of the same paths pioneered by Smith. Please compare the maps of Smith's and Frémont's explorations. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Brook's accounts of Smith and Frémont

• Page 45: Smith most likely was in the Soilder Creek area in what is now Tucker, Utah in 1826. Frémont is in Soldier Creek in 1844. Smith is exploring Utah before Frémont explored Utah. Brooks compares Frémonts route with Smith's potential route. Smith's description after leaving the Utes Indian encampment however is not specific. Smith was traveling between Utah Lake and Castle Valley. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Page 47: Smith takes the Castle Valley route in 1826 that was later to be followed by Frèmont in 1853. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Page 56: Smith names the John Quincy Adams River in 1826, the Frémont later renames the Virgin River. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Pages 133-134: Smith arrives at "Tulare Lake", named by the Spanish, in 1827, that later Frémont renames Kern Lake. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Page 138: Traveling along Poso Creek by Tulare Lake, Smith comes in contact with an are that are full of holes in the ground in 1827. Smith states that the horses were up to their knees in earth. Frémont later in the same area states the horses were up to their knees in earth. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Page 143 In 1827 Smith camps near the Wimilchi Indian tribe. In 1844 Frémont camps near the Wimilchi Indian tribe. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Page 173 In 1827 Smith discovers a lake what later Frémont would rename Walker Lake. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

yes they were often on the same paths-- but Fremont was on a lot of paths that Smith never saw--he explored a much larger area. The Smith article needs a lot of work. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Map of Jedediah Smith's travels

Western Explorations of Jedediah Smith 1822-1831

Smith took the Pacific Ocean coastal route to the Oregon Territory wheras Frémont traveled through the Western Cascades to get to the Oregon territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Map of John C. Frémonts travels

Western Explorations of John C. Frémont 1838-1854

Frémonts travels are very similar to Jedediah Smiths travels. I have to admit Frémont traveled a bit more extensively then Smith, at the same time Frémont was not killed by Commanches as Smith was. I would say the Frémont retraced Smith's original travels and in essence continued to on where Smith left off concerning Exploration of the West. Both Frémont and Smith deserve to be called the Pathfinders. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested inclusion of Smith's explorations in the article

With the above historical evidence presented, I am requesting that Jedediah Smith be included in the Frémont article, somewhat like Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnez independently inventing calculus, that both Smith and Frémont independently were the first to explore and open the American west. Of course, Lewis and Clark, deserve to be mentioned for their exploration route to the Pacific Ocean. Smith actually kept in contact with Clark on his discoveries. The obvious evidence is the overlapping of Smith's and Frémont's routes to the West. They both deserve the title of Pathfinders. Morgan mentioned "folklore" developed during the Election of 1856 that nothing significant occurred prior to Frémont's explorations of the West. Brooks discussed in detail seven geographic areas where Fremont's and Smith's explorations over lapped. According to Morgan (1953), on page 7, Smith deserves recognition for the effective discovery of the South Pass, for the first American to travel overland through the South Pass to California, the first American to travel out of California through the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the first to travel the length and width of the Great Basin, and the first to reach Oregon by the Pacific Ocean. In addition Smith was familiar with the West from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and from Mexico to Canada more then any man of his times. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Smith did not discover South Pass. If you want to be tough on Fremont you also have to be tough on Smith. The main point is that you have to follow what the great majority of the historians are saying. As for what Smith did accomplish that belongs in the Smith article. Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen. Morgan stated Smith effectively discovered the South Pass. Smith was the first American to get to California through the South Pass, unless there is documented evidence to state otherwise. The reality is Lewis and Clark, Smith, and Frémont opened up the American West. Since there is such stiff resistance to mentioning Jedediah Smith in the article and any query into this matter would be apparently futile, I consider this discussion closed. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am not against Frémont and I admire his views agaisnt slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Historiography

There is a useful online essay at http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-review&month=0307&week=b&msg=bZ4Ef7Rc7tQf7rX/vmdtDA&user=&pw= An excerpt: "Fremont is described as relentless and extremely focused on his view of empire. His work as Major General in the Department of the West before the Civil War has been largely ignored and/or underrated. Chaffin asserts that, "by forcing Americans ... to reimagine the American West, [Fremont] also compelled them to reimagine America itself--to conceive of their nation, for the first time, as a sea-to-sea empire" (p. xxiv). This is the first comprehensive biography of Fremont since Andrew Rolle's _John Charles Fremont_ (1991), a far more analytical and less sympathetic study. Chaffin is at least as sympathetic to his subject as was Allan Nevins in his lengthy work on Fremont which is subtitled _The West's Greatest Adventurer_ (1928), and certainly much more appreciative of Fremont's efforts than the treatment accorded by Rodolfo Acuna in his _Occupied America_ (1988). A more recent study by David Roberts, _A Newer World: Kit Carson, John C. Fremont and the Claiming of the American West_ (2000), attempts to compare and contrast Fremont with Kit Carson. Roberts calls Fremont "something of a hero." The present work locates Fremont squarely within the historiography of the American Frontier--as an explorer, an army officer, and a dedicated, but controversial, American.....[this book] situates John Charles Fremont in the proper historical setting; his appellation of "Pathfinder" is safely secured." Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"effectively discover" -- now you're back to popular impact. Fremont was vastly more effective than Smith in telling Americans about the passes. The South Path was discovered (going from west to east) in 1812, when Smith was a child, and reported to Jefferson. Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I will reopen this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen. Morgan (1953) stated "effectively discovered" the South pass. Have you ever asked how Frémont so handily found his way throughout the West? Jedediah Smith before he was butchered by the Commanches in 1830 had given his information on the West to George Gibbs in St. Louis, who then made a map of the West from Smith's descriptions. And you know who superimposed this map, none other then John C. Frémont. In my opinion this makes Frémont's Western Explorations directly related to Smith's Explorations. Source: Map of an Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in the Year 1842, Oregon and North California in the Years 1843-44 How can you explain away Smith's map? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Smith got scalped at a young age. Yes all the explorers used older maps. Fremont was the man who was commissioned by the army to do the exploring and he prepared by far the best maps of anyone, and his publications had by far the greatest impact on both popular and expert opinion. He changed America by making the West really important--that's why they nominated him for president. Like Smith he was often not the first American to see a trail but he made it usable, known, valuable and important. That's why Henry H. Goldman (above) says the . Chaffin biography "situates John Charles Fremont in the proper historical setting; his appellation of 'Pathfinder' is safely secured." Perhaps a reading of Chaffin would help the editing. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sure Chaffin's biography is suitable for the Frémont article. Smith may have had access to some of Clark's maps. However, there is no record of Smith having a map when he explored the South Pass and entered into California. Neither did Smith have a map when he traveled up the Pacific Coast nor enter the Great Basin. However, Frémont had a map made by Smith and Gibbs of the entire known West. How can Frémont be the great Pathfinder when the paths were already made by Smith? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Cmguy777 is arguing with the reliable sources, most of which call Fremont a pathfinder. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen, I am not argueing against reliable Frémont sources. I have been requesting that Jedediah Smith be included in the article, this done, from a historical perspective and out of respect for Smith's accomplishments. I appreciate your sympathy for his violent demise by the hands of the Commanches. If you don't want Smith in the article, that is fine. I am for editor consensus on this. I don't know if anything more can be said. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good compromise -- saying that Fremont built upon and went beyond the explorations and maps of previous explorers, especially Smith. here's an idea from one scholarly article ["EXPLORATION AND EARLY MAPPING IN EASTERN NEVADA" By: Alvin R. McLane, Nevada Historical Society Quarterly (1988) 31#4 pp 282-290. Abstract: Covers 1826 to 1860 and argues that adventurers and fur traders esp Jedediah Smith and Peter Skene Ogden developed significant geographical information about eastern Nevada 1826-30. During 1840-60, even better maps of eastern Nevada became available thanks to systematic army-sponsored explorations by John C. Fremont as well as the observations of immigrants who had crossed Nevada on their trek to California. Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. There was a building of knowledge concerning the American West. Frémont relied on Smith's map, just had Smith relied on information, possibly a map or maps, from Clark. Smith was keeping in contact with Clark. Ogden I believe was British and I am not sure he had contact with Americans, or at least his contact with Americans was minimal. I believe Ogden's base camp was Fort Vancouver. Smith's British counterpart rival was Ogden. I don't believe Ogden ever personally met Smith. I think that would be a great addition to the article and that would give credit to Smith and Ogden. In addition to Fremont, I would include Lewis and Clark, since they were the ones who started to break open the West to Americans. Smith was a huge admirer of Clark. I believe fur trappers and traders deserve credit for opening up the West. Fremont did improve upon Smith's explorations. I have not issue with calling Fremont the Pathfinder as long as there is context of other Western Explores including Smith, Ogden, Lewis and Clark. Mentioning Thomas Jefferson might be a good thing too. He was the first President to envision a Western Empire. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

yes we are agreed. there's no problem about mentioing British explorers here. :) Rjensen (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this? First mention Jefferson desiring to build an American Empire sent Lewis and Clark to find a North West passage to the Pacific Coast in 1804. Then Jedediah Smith, a private fur trapper, explored the West and was the first recorded American to enter Spanish California through the South Pass in 1826 making a map of the West in 1830. Then mention that the British explorer Ogden explored the West from Fort Vancouver in the Oregon Territory. Then Frémont and the U.S. military made a formal survey of the Western lands starting in 1838 using the map made by Smith. This is a rough outline. But does that seem appropriate. That way people will know there was a succession of explorations. In a sense, Lewis and Clark, Smith, Ogden, and Frémont were all Pathfinders. My mistake was assuming the Smith was the only Pathfinder. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose one could conclude the Frémont was the greatest Pathfinder, in terms of overall exploration or milage traveled. However, others, such as Smith, Lewis and Clark, and Ogden had preceded him. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are maps of Ogden's Snake River expeditions for the Hudson Bay Company: Hudson's Bay Company Snake Country Expeditions, 1824-1828 Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is information on Ogden's Snake River Explorations HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF ROCKS REGION Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Smith actually travelled with Ogden in the Snake River Expedition. Ogden was different in that he traveled in an Indian fashion with women and children. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit

This is a rough draft edit and has been created per discussion. I believe this would be useful for the article. This gives a succession of knowledge passed down by each generation through the decades. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Thomas Jefferson, who envisioned an empire of the West, sent out Lewis and Clark in 1804 to find a passage to the Pacific Coast. The Treaty of 1818, created by Secretary John Q. Adams, opened the U.S. to the Pacific Coast as British and Americans shared the Oregon Territory. British trapper Peter S. Ogden and American trapper Jedediah Smith explored much of the American West in the 1820's. Although Smith was killed by Commanche Indians in 1831, he left a geographic map that Frémont used to build up knowledge of the West in the 1840's." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ok. needs a cite. I suggest William H. Goetzmann; Richard Bartlett (1983). Exploring the American West, 1803-1879. Government Printing Office. pp. 21–82. ISBN 9780912627137. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen, what I have learned is that the United States was coast to coast starting with President James Monroe. The 1818 treaty was fundemental to expanding the American empire. There is one more issue that may need addressing and that is the possibility the British were planning on fighting to control or retake the Oregon territory in the 1840's. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the Goetzman book support "Thomas Jefferson, who envisioned an empire of the West"? That's the statement that needs a citation. WCCasey (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not checked Goetzman but numerous historians say it: 1) "Thomas Jefferson envisioned his "empire of liberty" in continental terms."Amy S. Greenberg (2005). Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum American Empire. p. 20. ISBN 9780521840965.; 2) "Jefferson envisioned an expanding western empire populated by gentlemen farmers." [Rick Rodriguez - 2008]; 3) " Thomas Jefferson had long envisioned America's future as a republican empire inhabited by free and equal yeoman farmers. This idyllic agricultural image required an ever-enlarging western..." [Craig Thompson Friend - 1999]; 4) the book Thomas Jefferson: Westward the Course of Empire by Lawrence S. Kaplan - 1999]. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why else would Jefferson send Lewis and Clark out West? Apparently John Adams envisioned an America to the Pacific Ocean. That was the quest of Lewis and Clark. In fact, while Jefferson was still alive the Monroe Administration and John Quincy Adams with the Treaties of 1818 (Britain) and 1819 (Spain) expanded the United States to the Pacific Ocean. By 1819, the United States was on its way to becoming an "America Global Empire". Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I found another source: Ronda (2012) Zebulon Pike, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West, page 64. Jefferson used the term "empire" in "glowing terms" and he meant to shove aside French, Spanish, and British claims to the West. Franklin also use the term "empire". I believe there are enough sources to state Jefferson envisions a Western Empire. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

yes but keep in mind this is merely the Fremont article. An article on Jefferson & the West is called for Rjensen (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree in part, however, since Jefferson, according to the sources, desired a Western Empire and westward expansion, that this would justify Jefferson's inclusion in the article. In other words, Jefferson got the ball rolling by the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expedition that reached the Pacific Ocean. Frémont was at the tail end of this westward expansion phase of U.S. History. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision edit:

• The opening of the American West began under President Thomas Jefferson, while envisioning a Western empire, sent out Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean. The Treaty of 1818, created by Secretary John Q. Adams and President James Monroe, opened the U.S. Pacific Coast to fisheries and harbors, as British and Americans shared the Oregon Territory. The Treaty of 1819 secured from Spain the American border along the 42nd parallel to the Pacific Ocean. British trapper Peter S. Ogden and American trapper Jedediah Smith explored much of the American West in the 1820's. Although Smith was killed by Commanche Indians in 1831, he left a geographic map that Frémont used to build up knowledge of the West in the 1840's. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Is the edit confirmed to go in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would keep the stuff on explorers and drop the treaties. & also drop "Although Smith was killed by Commanche Indians in 1831," Rjensen (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That makes sense. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision 02:

• The opening of the American West began under President Thomas Jefferson, while envisioning a Western empire, sent out Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean. British trapper Peter S. Ogden and American trapper Jedediah Smith explored much of the American West in the 1820's. In the 1840's Frémont transposed a geographic map left by Smith to build up knowledge of the West. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Good -- but what does "transpose" mean (he used it); say "map" instead of "geographic map" Rjensen (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Thanks Rjensen. I can remove "geographic". I would suppose "transpose" would mean he used it. Frémont's 1843-1844 and 1846 expeditions are very remarkable for there similarity to Smith's expeditions of 1826-1827 and 1827-1828 into the West. If Frémont transposed this map around 1843, or prior, then I would conclude that he used the map. What other explanation is there for the similarity in their respected expedition routes? The website states Frémont transposed the map in the 1840's. I believe finding out the actual year Frémont transposed the map would help in answering if he used the map. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a mystery. The map was transposed by Frémont in 1844 CE. However, the map apparently was available in the 1830's by Gibbs, a geologist. The question is did Frémont use the Smith-Gibbs map from the 1830s before his 1843 expedition? The 1844 map is the Frémont-Gibbs-Smith map. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

According to William L. Fox (2000) The Void, The Grid, & The Sign: Traversing The Great Basin, (pages 89-90) Smith made a map of Ogden 1826 Expedition. Also, Albert Gallatain's 1836 map suggests that he had used notes and maps of Smith in describing the Great Basin, including the Mohave River. Gallatain had used names made by Smith. Gloria Cline, Exploring the Great Basin stated that a Smith map informed the Frémont-Preuss 1845 Expedition on the Great Basin. That is direct evidence that Frémont used Smith's previous map knowledge of the Great Basin, at least in 1845. Frémont was continuing what Smith had been doing making maps. Cline and other scholars even stated that had Smith not been massacred he would have been known as the Western mapmaker as Frémont came to be known. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the edit to fit the narration of the article. Thanks Rjensen for your valued discussion on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary of American Biography source

I found a good Dictionary of American Biography (1931) source for Frémont, edited by Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone. I think this article can fill in some gaps, particularly Frémont's early childhood and the California Gold Rush. Frémont, John Charles Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I added more on Frémonts childhood and Mariposa gold farm. I was unaware how wealthy Frémont was. For the most part, he seemed to be at the right place at the right time. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Civil War section expansion

I believe the section on the Civil War needs expansion. The situation in Missouri was a bit confusing and possibly needs better explanation in the article. More information is needed on Frémont's supply train corruption charges or profiteering. The Blair family could be mentioned in the section. During the early part of the Civil War, President Lincoln tended to concetrate on the Eastern War front rather then the Western War front. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Democrat or Republican?

The page List of United States Senators from California says that John was a democrat, while this page calls him a republican. 98.127.156.152 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

He was a Democrat as a California senator from 1850 to 1851, later becoming a Republican. —ADavidB 11:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah alright, thanks. I'm not familiar with talk page etiquette, should I delete this now that it's been "resolved"? 98.127.156.152 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no need to delete past discussions on an article's talk page. Such content is generally archived when a page becomes too large. —ADavidB 03:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

---

John C. Frémont → John C. Fremont – 106 times more common Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Unaccented - 17,500,000 results Accented - 165,000 results

• Oppose firstly on basis of not having understood en.wp guidelines on WP:IRS or how to conduct WP:IRS searches in Google Books (not vanilla Google) and in this case full font Google books, but secondly on the basis of David Miller Heroes of American Empire 2007 footnote page 1, particularly the phrase "common usage among historians today". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1864 Election

If I knew enough to fix the problem, I would, but the brief mention of Fremont's 1864 candidacy just drops the ball. What happened? Did the Republican rift remain? Unschool 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I added a link for further information. —ADavidB 18:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John C. Frémont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221002/http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf to http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828060005/https://thelibrary.springfield.missouri.org/lochist/frisco/history/100years.cfm to http://thelibrary.springfield.missouri.org/lochist/frisco/history/100years.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Plants

This information has been removed to its own article: John C. Frémont botanical nomenclature eponyms. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Populus fremontii

Frémont collected a number of plants on his expeditions, including the first recorded discovery of the Single-leaf Pinyon by a European American. The genus (Fremontodendron) of the California Flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum) is named for him, as are the species names of many other plants, including the chaff bush eytelia (Amphipappus fremontii), Western rosinweed (Calycadenia fremontii), pincushion flower (Chaenactis fremontii), goosefoot (Chenopodium fremontii), silk tassel (Garrya fremontii), moss gentian (Gentiana fremontii), vernal pool goldfields (Lasthenia fremontii), tidytips (Layia fremontii), desert pepperweed (Lepidium fremontii), desert boxthorn (Lycium fremontii), barberry (Mahonia fremontii), bush mallow (Malacothamnus fremontii), monkeyflower (Mimulus fremontii), phacelia (Phacelia fremontii), desert combleaf (Polyctenium fremontii), cottonwood tree (Populus fremontii), desert apricot (Prunus fremontii), indigo bush (Psorothamnus fremontii), mountain ragwort (Senecio fremontii), yellowray gold (Syntrichopappus fremontii), and chaparral death camas (Toxicoscordion fremontii).

Berreyesa and twin brothers slayings

"In June 1846, at San Rafael mission, John Frémont sent three men, one of whom was Kit Carson, to confront three unarmed men debarking from a boat at Point San Pedro. Kit Carson asked John Frémont whether they should be taken prisoner. Frémont replied, "I have got no room for prisoners." They advanced on the three and deliberately shot and killed them. One of them was an old and respected Californian, Don José de los Reyes Berreyesa, whose son, the Alcalde of Sonoma, had been recently imprisoned by Frémont. The two others were twin brothers and sons of Don Francisco de Haro of Yerba Buena, who had served two terms as the first and third Alcalde of Yerba Buena (later renamed San Francisco). Berreyesa was coming to Sonoma, hoping to free his son José, whom Frémont held hostage. These murders were observed by Jasper O'Farrell, a famous architect and designer of San Francisco, who wrote a letter detailing it to the Los Angeles Star, published on September 27, 1856. This eyewitness account, together with others, were widely published during the presidential election of 1856. John Frémont was running as the first anti-slavery newly organized Republican Party nominee versus Democrat James Buchanan, who was the previous U.S. Secretary of State and Millard Fillmore, former 13th President and nominee of the last gasp of the Whig Party. It is widely speculated that this incident, together with other military blunders, sank Frémont's political aspirations."

I am moving this section to the talk page. I plan on using one source to cover the same incident. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln and Frémont

Although Lincoln gave Frémont a free hand to run the war, he did not authorize Frémont to free slaves. Had Frémont given Grant more aggressive orders i.e. don't attack, but make demonstrations, he might have been able to keep his job. Frémont had the only Union Victory in 1861 in the West, but by then it was already determined by Lincoln he had to go. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hall Carbine Affair

The following has been moved from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In the Hall Carbine Affair, Fremont was accused of overpaying for badly needed but arguably obsolescent rifles. Frémont replaced William S. Harney, who had negotiated the Harney-Price Truce, which permitted Missouri to remain neutral in the conflict as long as it did not send men or supplies to either side. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fremont primary sources

To anyone interested, below is a three volume set of books of Fremont's expeditions, in PDF format, available for download :

• Fremont, John Charles (1919). Jackson, Donald Dean; Spence, Mary Lee (eds.). The expeditions of John Charles Frémont. Vol. 1. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.

• Fremont, John Charles (1919). Jackson, Donald Dean; Spence, Mary Lee (eds.). The expeditions of John Charles Frémont. Vol. 2. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.

• Fremont, John Charles (1919). Jackson, Donald Dean; Spence, Mary Lee (eds.). The expeditions of John Charles Frémont. Vol. 3. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

I am requesting an administrator put John C. Frémont article on semi-protection status due to recent persistent vandalism. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John C. Frémont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711202327/http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/ung_f.html to http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/ung_f.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041105030927/http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~pathfinders/history.htm to http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~pathfinders/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

POV tagged

POV tag added to the sub-section "Court-martial and resignation", mainly for two reasons: 1) the negative description of Kearny--other sources are more neutral; and 2) the main source cited is Fremont's own memoirs. Primary sources cannot be used as references. WCCasey (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The tag does not belong. 1) the section does NOT depend on a primary source (ie Fremont's writings)--instead it depends on the introduction by scholars Mary Lee Spence & Donald Jackson. 2) if there are alternative interpretations besides Nevins, Spence & Jackson please provide them. Rjensen (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the Spence/Jackson book, but find it hard to believe that the editors' introduction to a collection of Fremont writings would attempt to evaluate any source other than that particular selection of Fremont's subjective writings. In any case, the judgment of Kearny's character is certainly subjective POV. I can understand why Fremont formed a negative opinion of Kearny, but that doesn't make it verifiably so. There are very few cases where it's ok to include a character judgment in a WP article. If the negative opinion of Kearny is to remain in the article, then it needs to be demonstrated that all reputable sources agree. Until/unless that happens, neutrality requires removal of the negative Kearny portrayal. WCCasey (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

the POV tag only applies to Wiki editors -- and explicitly does not apply to reliable sources. see WP:BIASED which states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Spence and Jackson are leading experts on Fremont, his life and times, with numerous books on Fremont. the reviews of their work are excellent. (for example The American Historical Review Vol. 61 Issue 3, p780-781 says of Spence, "Her editing of Fremont's papers "is beautifully done" and "her overall judgment is incontrovertible". The book review in ISIS (Vol. 66, No. 2 p 287) states that the comments and notes of the editors [Spence & Jackson] "are objective and lack any element of special pleading." In terms of evaluations, Wikipedia reports the evaluations made by leading experts. If there are contrary evaluations of Kearny from reliable sources, the rule is they should be added to the article. (the rule is WP:SUBJECTIVE = Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. Note that the ISIS review explicitly states there is no bias by Spence and Jackson. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If an editor includes only one writer's opinion, then there's POV. I removed the one negative sentence, adding a quote from Spence and Jackson with their more balanced conclusions about everyone involved. Note that they did not endorse Nevins' negative opinion of Kearny. WCCasey (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

---

John C. Frémont → John C. Fremont – Even his own grave doesn't use the accent, and neither do newspapers of the time or places/things named after him. Lovesaver (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "even his own grave"? an 1890 monumental mason is not a more reliable WP:RS source than the covers of his biographies. (1) Pathfinder: John Charles Frémont and the Course of American Empire by Tom Chaffin (2) Jessie Benton Frémont: Missouri's Trailblazer by Ilene Stone, Suzanna M. Grenz. (3) John C. Frémont by Hal Marcovitz, even kid's books (4) John C. Frémont: Courageous Pathfinder of the Wild West by William R. Sanford, Carl R. Green (5) etc etc In ictu oculi (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support see ngram Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the numerous biographies that label his name as John C. Frémont. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 21:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as his memoirs use the accent, that's enough to keep it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mystery sources

A number of sources cited in References lack complete listings in Notes or Sources or Further Reading or anywhere else - we need author first name, title, place, date of publication.

For instance, RichardSON, 2007 (notes 11,12,13,39) - is this a typo and meant to refer to the Leonard Richards 2007 book (notes 9 & 10)?

Rhonda 2012 (note 16)

Beck 1989 (note 17)

Barbour 2012 (note 18)

Morgan 1953 (note 19)

Harlow (note 56)

Patricia Richmond, Trail to Disaster (note 73): no publication place or year.

Also in note 73, the publication details for Roberts' Newer World differ from those given under "Further Reading" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.14.174 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The intro says, "During the 1840s, he led five expeditions into the Western United States". Then it says, "Frémont led a private fourth expedition ... in the winter of 1849." Then it says, "Frémont's fifth and final privately funded expedition, between 1853 and 1854". I need not point out the inconsistency.

In other ways the introduction is rather muddled about chronology. It needs better writing. An example: "In June 1846, Frémont's and his army expedition's return to California spurred the formation of the California Battalion, and his military advice led to the capture of Sonoma and the formation of the Bear Flag Republic." This is out of chronology and it seems to contradict the earlier statement that he took over Sonoma from the California Republic (same as "Bear Flag Republic"; this should also be fixed) Zaslav (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

California Genocide

I just googled ' "John C. Fremont" "California Genocide" ', and the first article to appear was Wikipedia. The second source to appear was a blurb from <https://academicinfluence.com/people/john-c-fremont>, which cites the Wikipedia article. The third source is a speculative article from Damon Akins on Brendan C. Lindsay's book, "Murder State: California's Native American Genocide. 1846-1873", but it does not accuse Fremont of participating in or advocating the California Genocide. <https://networks.h-net.org/node/3180/discussions/95727/akins-lindsay-murder-state-californias-native-american-genocide>. The fourth link is from <https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2021/03/05/beni-johnson-when-it-comes-to-the-facts-regarding-john-c-fremont-leave-that-to-the-historians-who-know-history/> which directly cites the Wikipedia article. The fifth source is from TruthDig, which isn't that credible to begin with, and it also doesn't directly implicate Fremont in the genocidal activities that took place. Furthermore, Benjamin Madley appears to cite Wikipedia in the work being discussed in the TruthDig page. Overall, this sentence either needs to be better sourced or I'm taking it out. It's possible a separate section of the article should be about these matters, but it needs to be well-sourced. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

CessnaMan1989, I'm not sure why you are looking on Google rather than at the sources already in the article. The sentence in the lead summarizes the section "Attacks against Native Americans in California and Oregon Country (1845–1846)". It's well-cited to reliable sources - do you have concerns about any of them in particular? Lead sentences don't generally require citations, since the material will be covered again later in the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811 Those sections are about two very specific instances that are not clearly demonstrated to be part of the California Genocide, although they could fit the definition and criteria to be included in the California Genocide. The support from the sections you cite are grossly insufficient for the leading sentence though. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough - here's a source that "clearly demonstrates" that those instances are considered to be part of the California Genocide (Madley, Benjamin (2016). An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846–1873. Yale University Press.). I just double-checked and Madley explicitly discusses Fremont's role in the genocide, around page 40-50 depending on your edition. So if you'd like, go ahead and add the Madley source to the lead and remove the cn tag. There are a number of other academic sources that also include those two incidents as part of the broader California genocide. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, once I get a hold of the Madley source, which I can't directly access right now, I'll cite it.CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sudden change in last name spelling

We shift from Frémon (the father's name) to Frémont with no explanation where the T comes from in John's name . I think someone needs to research this and address it in the text. Deliusfan (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly that is not worth bothering about. The 't' is not pronounced in French, and spelling of both English and French surnames at the time was very fluid. It would not have been strange in the slightest for father and son to spell their surnames differently. I would be surprised if there were any reason for the different spelling which has actually been recorded anywhere. --Saforrest (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the evolution in spelling is well documented in sources both primary and secondary. Chaffin suggests Nicollet unilaterally changed the spelling to the more correct French form with a "t" and John adopted this style with the accent mark upon his return from his expedition with Nicollet. Inskeep notes that he sheds his earlier habit of signing his name as "J. Charles" and adopts "John C." at this time as well. It ultimately isn't super important. 2601:249:9100:2470:9CB6:9975:CF13:DCCD (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Seward objected to Frémont's radicalism?

That seems a bizarre statement, considering Seward was was considered "too radical" during the election of 1860, and because the thought that Seward's nomination would spur a secessionist movement in the South, Lincoln ending up getting the nomination as the "more moderate" choice to stave this off, ironically. In fact, the article on Radical Republicans has Seward's name right there. I think this should be researched further into what, specifically, Seward had against Frémont being appointed ambassador to France. Deliusfan (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Benjamin Kern and 'Old Bill' Williams were killed..."

Under the heading "Fourth expedition" the final sentence of the third paragraph states "Benjamin Kern and 'Old Bill' Williams were killed while retracing the expedition trail to look for gear and survivors.(emphasis added)" The passive "were killed", absent any description of how is simply confusing. In reading the article on "Old Bill Williams" it states that "he was ambushed and killed by Ute warriors". (No article exists on Benjamin Kern.) I will change the existing sentence to reflect this. Bricology (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Leonard L. Richards

Not sure why Richards has been tagged. His name is Richards, not Richardson. The book is called The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War (2007). What is the issue? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The name was apparently misspelled as "Richardson" per a past concern under a "Mystery sources" section. I also see no issue now with the name.—ADavidB 14:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No place name in Missouri.

I assume that there is no place named for him in Missouri because he is ultimately held in low regard there, despite his significance in that state's history. The article is clear that there were several organized slander campaigns waged against him. Also, Missouri's pro-slavery sentiments would appear to pose a natural impediment to embracing any person having Fremont's decided abolitionist legacy. 2601:243:2680:CD78:207C:A1B9:3E32:63E (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support the stated assumption and apparent impediment? —ADavidB 00:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Expedition maps needed

Perhaps something like [2]. -- Beland (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

He lost the election to Democrat James Buchanan when the vote was split by Know Nothings.

The candidate won the popular vote, but wouldn't have won the Electoral College ‼️‼️‼️ 70.189.101.30 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)