Henry Clay in 1844

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

I was poking around Dave Leip's Election Atlas and I never realized how close the 1844 election was. James Polk defeated Henry Clay by only 39,000 votes and only 5,000 votes in New York, the state that ultimately decided the election. So let's take as our POD that the Liberty Party (a short-lived splinter group of anti-slavery Whigs) nominates someone less popular or falls apart due to infighting earlier than OTL. In OTL, Liberty Party candidate James Birney got 67,000 votes nationwide and 15,000 in New York, most of which presumably would have gone to Clay. ITTL, Clay narrowly wins the popular vote and (by virtue of taking New York) the electoral college.

So how does Clay's Presidency differ from Polk's? Obvious effect is no annexation of Texas (yet) and thus no Mexican War. On the Oregon issue, I know Clay was generally less aggressive and militaristic than Polk and felt Polk's "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" rhetoric was unnecessarily provocative, but I don't know the precise details of his position.

On domestic policy, I assume we would see a full implementation of the American System: higher tariffs, more infrastructure investment, and a Third National Bank along the same lines as the second one. Of course, that's all predicated on his ability to work with a Democratic-controlled House. I'm really not sure who would control the Senate ITTL. IOTL it was Democrats 26-24, but if Clay does better maybe he could drag in a couple extra Whigs on his coattails?

Do you think Clay would run for re-election in 1848 (he would have been 71) and if so would he win? What would a second term look like? Keep in mind that in OTL, Clay died in June 1852. Given the stress of the Presidency, we could end up seeing a President Frelinghuysen by 1850 or so (my sympathies to this TL's grade school children). Thoughts?

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner

So how does Clay's Presidency differ from Polk's? Obvious effect is no annexation of Texas (yet) and thus no Mexican War. On the Oregon issue, I know Clay was generally less aggressive and militaristic than Polk and felt Polk's "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" rhetoric was unnecessarily provocative, but I don't know the precise details of his position.

It was politically impossible for any American leader not to insist on a reasonable division of Oregon.

Do you think Clay would run for re-election in 1848...

No. One term as President was a Whig principle, which all Whig candidates endorsed.

[ColeMercury]

Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom

One term as President was a Whig principle, which all Whig candidates endorsed.

Really? I didn't know that. (Of course, they never had the opportunity in OTL.)

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom

It was politically impossible for any American leader not to insist on a reasonable division of Oregon.

Right. I'm not saying he would have kowtowed to the Brits and given them the whole thing. I'm just wondering how the negotiations would have gone differently with a President who didn't essentially campaign on a platform of "give us everything or we'll invade." Personally, I think the OTL solution of just extending the straight line was a pretty good one. But it's hardly the only possible outcome. The British were pushing hard for a Columbia River border.

Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom

No. One term as President was a Whig principle, which all Whig candidates endorsed.

Right. Forgot that. Who do you think each party would run in 1848? The Dems could run Lewis Cass like OTL, or give Polk another shot (I assume he would be in better health than OTL without being President). I'm not sure who the Whigs would run. Not Taylor, since there's no Mexican War to make him a household name. Daniel Webster maybe?

[jycee]

Originally Posted by TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner

Right. I'm not saying he would have kowtowed to the Brits and given them the whole thing. I'm just wondering how the negotiations would have gone differently with a President who didn't essentially campaign on a platform of "give us everything or we'll invade." Personally, I think the OTL solution of just extending the straight line was a pretty good one. But it's hardly the only possible outcome. The British were pushing hard for a Columbia River border.

Clay might be less militant but in the end Clay might have pushed for the 49º anyway. As you mention it is a good solution, even in Britain pushes for the Columbia River. Though Clay might concede the San Juan Islands to Britain.

Originally Posted by TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner

Right. Forgot that. Who do you think each party would run in 1848? The Dems could run Lewis Cass like OTL, or give Polk another shot (I assume he would be in better health than OTL without being President). I'm not sure who the Whigs would run. Not Taylor, since there's no Mexican War to make him a household name. Daniel Webster maybe?

I don't think Polk would be given a second go. Plus, president or not, his health wasn't good to begin with and by 1848 he won't be in any state to run. Cass, Buchanan, or Van Buren would likely be the candidates as they were all considered in 44 and 48 in OTL.

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner

Who do you think each party would run in 1848? The Dems could run Lewis Cass like OTL, or give Polk another shot (I assume he would be in better health than OTL without being President).

Polk is out; he was a compromise candidate in 1844, not a front runner. Cass is likely.

I'm not sure who the Whigs would run. Not Taylor, since there's no Mexican War to make him a household name. Daniel Webster maybe?

It would be Webster's turn.

[jycee]

Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom

It would be Webster's turn.

Could he win? Webster was kinda stubborn with his opinions - particularly those regarding slavery and the more reactionary southern views.

Unless Clay does such a good job that the North and West all vouch in for Whigs again Webster might run into trouble in the campaign.