AHC: Make An Alternate Election of 1844

Stolengood

Stolengood

Banned
I know David T is the go-to guy for these sort of things, but I'm just putting it out, here: How could you make an election of 1844 where Martin Van Buren was the Democratic candidate, Henry Clay wasn't a contender for the Whig nomination, and Texas annexation wasn't an issue at all? Moreover, who would most likely win, and what would the further-down ramifications of that win be, on America and on the world?

No pressure. :D (Sorry.)
 

Nofix

Stolengood said:
So... aaanybody?
Click to expand...

WAIT MORE THEN AN HOUR BEFORE BUMPING YOU THRICE DAMNED PILLOCK

Anyways, Van Ruin needed 2/3rds of the vote (178 out of 266 compared to the 146 he got in his first ballot). So he'd need Johnson, Calhoun, and Buchanan or Woodbury to give him their delegates. Clay on the other hand was opposed, so have him be hit by a carriage or make an earlier fuck up on the Texas question.
 

fox~ringo

I believe the 2/3's rule was reinstated at the same convention that nominated Polk.

Perhaps if John Tyler decided not to run for a term of his own and didn't pursue Texas annexation. That would boost Van Buren's chances. Henry Clay was a shoe-in in 1844, it was truly over his dead body.
 

David T

It's really hard to see Clay as not being at least a contender for the Whig nomination in 1844 unless he dies. For the other things, either have Harrison live a few years longer, or have the Whigs nominate someone other than Tyler for vice-president at their 1839 convention. I suggested John Clayton at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/vsbBWYIrIcI/rZ6lHzwez0cJ

I suppose that it's just barely possible that (a) Clayton would either repudiate Harrison's "one term" pledge or argue that after all, 1844 would be his first *elective* term, and (b) Clay would accept this and not seek the Whig nomination in 1844.
 

Darth_Kiryan

David T said:
It's really hard to see Clay as not being at least a contender for the Whig nomination in 1844 unless he dies. For the other things, either have Harrison live a few years longer, or have the Whigs nominate someone other than Tyler for vice-president at their 1839 convention. I suggested John Clayton at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/vsbBWYIrIcI/rZ6lHzwez0cJ

I suppose that it's just barely possible that (a) Clayton would either repudiate Harrison's "one term" pledge or argue that after all, 1844 would be his first *elective* term, and (b) Clay would accept this and not seek the Whig nomination in 1844.
Click to expand...

I had heard somewhere that Willie P Mangum was under consideration, but he chose not too as well. But then again he was Tyler's Secretary of State, and he is a southern Whig.

THen again, that could just be because of this TL
 

Rich Rostrom

Stolengood said:
I know David T is the go-to guy for these sort of things, but I'm just putting it out, here: How could you make an election of 1844 where Martin Van Buren was the Democratic candidate, Henry Clay wasn't a contender for the Whig nomination, and Texas annexation wasn't an issue at all? Moreover, who would most likely win, and what would the further-down ramifications of that win be, on America and on the world?

No pressure. :D (Sorry.)
Click to expand...

Let's say that the 2/3 rule gets repealed at the 1840 convention; Van Buren's nomination being held up by controversy over VP Richard M. Johnson, so they get rid of it.

Then Van Buren can win the nomination in 1844 with no trouble, despite his anti-Texas position.

As to blocking Clay - Harrison doesn't die. Clay tries to run the administration for him, Harrison doesn't let him, it gets ugly and Clay gets booted. The bad blood from this leaves Clay untouchable in 1844; the nomination goes to Webster. Meanwhile, Clay returns to Congress and pushes through the American System, looking to reinstate himself. This doesn't work by 1844, but Clay decides to be a Good Soldier and throws himself into Whig party development.

So in 1844, neither candidate is for Texas annexation, and it is a non-issue.
 

Emperor Julian

Stolengood said:
Tyler dying on the Princeton with Abel Upshur wouldn't butterfly away the Texas treaty, would it?
Click to expand...

Stolengood said:
Well... would it, or wouldn't it? :confused:
Click to expand...
It would. With Tyler dead and Magnum as president, John C. Calhoun would not become Secretary of State. Calhoun devised the way to subvert the 2/3rds rule in the Senate to get the annexation passed, and Calhoun, along with Tyler, helped rally the slaveholders behind the pro-annexation cause, and the threat of a third-party Tyler candidacy scared many Democrats into backing pro-annexation Tyler. Without the Southern Democrats rallying toward annexation, and without any hope of getting it passed, and with no fear of their vote being divided by a strong third party candidate, Martin Van Buren will be in a stronger position come the convention and probably be able to win.

As for stopping Clay - I really don't know. Mangum probably wouldn't be strong enough to beat him after only a few months, and definitely wouldn't be strong enough to scare Clay away totally and prevent him from being a contender. Clay ran against Harrison in 1840 and Taylor in 1848. The only way for Clay not to be a contender is if he is either dead or suffers from some serious health scare that makes him decide not to run.
 

Darth_Kiryan

fox~ringo said:
Sorry, but Willie Mangum was not President Tyler's Secretary of State. You might be thinking of John Calhoun who succeeded Abel Upshur.
Click to expand...
huh! that's weird. I think i combined webster and mangum into one person. Anyway, Mangum was Secretay pro-Tempore of the Senate, and Webster did start out as Tyler's Sec of State before he was replaced by Calhoun.

And it does not change the fact that Webster and Mangum could be used instead of Clay on the 1844 ticket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top