Strange question, I know. Reading Henry Clay and the Art of American Politics, pg. 142, mentions John Tyler was chosen as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Whigs for the reason of appeasing Clay, a friend of Tyler, and of balancing the ticket (unstated but obvious enough). Would it be plausible for the Whigs to try and united the two wings more directly, via a Harrison/Clay ticket?
Here is my reasoning. "When he [Clay] assumed the office in 1811 the Speaker was little more then a presiding officer." As was the Senate President at the time. "But Clay made the position one of party leadership and by his precedents his leadership strengthened the office. Six times he was elected Speaker and never once was his election seriously contested"
Regardless of your thoughts on Gallant Henry, and of his various moral and rhetorical failings, he was a smart and shrewd man. He must have recognized that his powers lied outside of patronage and were directly linked to him. Whether President or Senator or retired farm man, he had a following of men no matter what office he held or where from he spoke his famous speeches. Clay could just the same try and hold the position of Whig "Dictator" in the office of Senate President and as he could as "merely" a Senator. And if the office was too weak for his tastes, the inability to vote or speak, then by God could he not exert his will and his interpretation of the rules in his own matter?
There is also the issue of whether the Harrison men would trust the Star of the West on a ticket for the above reasons, as well as the issue of putting two western candidate together (Harrison had been an Ohio man for man years at this point, and Tyler was unquestionably a friend of the South. As Virginia's Senator, he was the only man to vote against the Force Bill in Jackson's time). Could this ticket, of personality driven man on top and an intellectually anti-demagogue on the bottom work out? Could the forces that prevented Clay's nomination (The abolitionists, the Anti-Masons's, and the anti-bank men) go far enough in Van Buren's camp to give the unpopular Democrat a second term?
Thoughts?
Here is my reasoning. "When he [Clay] assumed the office in 1811 the Speaker was little more then a presiding officer." As was the Senate President at the time. "But Clay made the position one of party leadership and by his precedents his leadership strengthened the office. Six times he was elected Speaker and never once was his election seriously contested"
Regardless of your thoughts on Gallant Henry, and of his various moral and rhetorical failings, he was a smart and shrewd man. He must have recognized that his powers lied outside of patronage and were directly linked to him. Whether President or Senator or retired farm man, he had a following of men no matter what office he held or where from he spoke his famous speeches. Clay could just the same try and hold the position of Whig "Dictator" in the office of Senate President and as he could as "merely" a Senator. And if the office was too weak for his tastes, the inability to vote or speak, then by God could he not exert his will and his interpretation of the rules in his own matter?
There is also the issue of whether the Harrison men would trust the Star of the West on a ticket for the above reasons, as well as the issue of putting two western candidate together (Harrison had been an Ohio man for man years at this point, and Tyler was unquestionably a friend of the South. As Virginia's Senator, he was the only man to vote against the Force Bill in Jackson's time). Could this ticket, of personality driven man on top and an intellectually anti-demagogue on the bottom work out? Could the forces that prevented Clay's nomination (The abolitionists, the Anti-Masons's, and the anti-bank men) go far enough in Van Buren's camp to give the unpopular Democrat a second term?
Thoughts?
Last edited:
