Need Help Developing: Outcomes of a Different 1824

Say after the election of 1824:

*Henry Clay decides not to throw his support behind Adams in the House, and Jackson wins.

*Jackson only serves one term after killing his VP, John C Calhoun, in a duel.

*Henry Clay succeeds him, serving 1829-36, who is in turn succeeded by his VP, JQ Adams. During this decade, the American Plan is implemented.

*Lewis Cass follows them up, 1841-48, pursuing his brand of expansionism.

Assuming all this is plausible, what else would we be seeing in TTL?

As I understand the matter, Jackson would in any case not have had the support of enough state delegations to gain election in the HoR. Had Clay withheld his support from Adams, most likely the House would have stayed deadlocked and the Vice-President elect taken office on March 4.

His name was John C Calhoun.

As intriguing as a Pres Calhoun is, I just can't see an indecinate House deadlock like that -- my thinking is, Crawford's delegates would more likely break to Jackson than Adams. My thread "WI No Corrupt Bargain" goes into it more, but I want this thread to be about the years after.

I was thinking that the West was going to have more attention, as Clay represented its interests

Would that promote expansion then? Or, by paying attention to the settled west and high prices for land farther west, is expansion slower?

One precedent that I'm not sure where it would go, would be fascinating to see, would be Cass' resolution of Oregon. He was absolutely serious about 54'40" or fight...so when the treaty is concluded, he's going to ask the Senate to declare war on the British Empire...and it's going to fail, 11-47. We've never had a President's request for war denied; does it seriously undermine the position of Commander-in-Chief, and let Congress run wars more?

While a supporter of "State's Rights", Cass also regarded slavery as immoral and said so often. How badly can he piss off the South? The election to follow him in '48 will be fun. Actually, come to think of it he's a good candidate for assassination...have you determined his VP?

No Indian Removal. It's not going to happen under President Clay, and I'm pretty sure President Cass won't be able to revisit the issue.

I suspect the Mexican War still happens (especially since James Polk will definitely be in Cass' Cabinet, preferably at War but possibly elsewhere). But will Cass take the same territories? Will the treaty even be concluded before the '48 election?

Cass is also going to try hard, and probably succeed, at getting American money and arms to Lajos Kossuth in Hungary. Let's assume his rebellion still fails...is there domestic backlash?

That's off the top of my head. Post a timeline and we'll comb it

While a supporter of "State's Rights", Cass also regarded slavery as immoral and said so often.

Click to expand...

Wasn't he a major supporter of "Popular Sovereignty"? Could we see earlier Bleeding Kansas, and more of it?

I suspect the Mexican War still happens (especially since James Polk will definitely be in Cass' Cabinet, preferably at War but possibly elsewhere). But will Cass take the same territories? Will the treaty even be concluded before the '48 election?

Click to expand...

Possibly earlier, maybe 1842?

No Indian Removal. It's not going to happen under President Clay, and I'm pretty sure President Cass won't be able to revisit the issue.

Click to expand...

But was Indian Removal that evitable? I've also heard it argued that the white settlers were so determined to move into the territories, and the tribes had virtually no popular support among the white population at large (Worchester notwithstanding, apparently), that either the tribes massacre or movement was unavoidable.

I am not certain on the question one way or another, and would like some input on this...

He was absolutely serious about 54'40" or fight...so when the treaty is concluded, he's going to ask the Senate to declare war on the British Empire...and it's going to fail, 11-47.

Click to expand...

Cass is also going to try hard, and probably succeed, at getting American money and arms to Lajos Kossuth in Hungary. Let's assume his rebellion still fails...is there domestic backlash?

Click to expand...

What would become of the Monroe Doctrine

John Fredrick Parker said:

*Jackson only serves one term after killing his VP, John C Calhoun, in a duel.

Click to expand...

That has been known to turn voters off. Killing your Vice President, sets you up as a bit bull-headed

Blackadder mk 2 said:

That has been known to turn voters off. Killing your Vice President, sets you up as a bit bull-headed

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought for this thread I'd go with a sure way to make Jackson a one termer

Well then we would be seeing many Indian cultures in the West because now that Jacksons no longer Prez he cant implement the long march, kill the sioux, crush and slaughter thousands of Native, and cause a depression by closing down the Bank of the U.S leading to a better funded America, and today wed still be seeing a gov run national Bank, meaning no rise of the Bankers changing America today

The Bank certainly makes sense -- I can easily see a better financed America, with more infrastructure, leading to more economic expansion.

Indians and Western Expansion seems trickier, especially with Cass -- a major expansionist -- following Adams...

Is it the consensus here that a one term Jackson would mean no Trail of Tears?

The Trail of Tears couldn't have happened under anybody but Jackson. The Cherokee won in the SCOTUS, after all, and Jackson ignored the ruling and relocated them by force anyway; that's, er, uncommon chutzpah.

The question is whether or not they get protection. There will be a lot of white Georgians trying to kill them and squat on their land - will Clay use national troops to do something about it? The Georgians are both defying the SCOTUS and usurping the prerogative of the national Department of War, but if Clay dithers the Cherokee lose.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Is it the consensus here that a one term Jackson would mean no Trail of Tears?

Click to expand...

Not unless you get a POTUS willing to use military force against a State in behalf of an Indian tribe. Otherwise, Georgia et al will just go ahead and expel or exterminate them anyway.

... but if Clay dithers, the Cherokee lose.

Click to expand...

This is looking like the most likely outcome; if the tribes go to war with Georgians, do they stand a chance?

If it's just Georgia vs. the Cherokee - yes, they stand a chance. The Cherokee are still faily numerous, live in relatively hilly and defensible country, and all of them have firearms. Once it sinks in that they're fighting for their way of life if not their existence, they can free and arm their slaves too (and won't that be an interesting precedent?).

There were about 20,000 Cherokee in Georgia at the time, and about 300,000 free whites. How many of those Georgians were willing to go fight is an interesting question. There might be carpetbagging types from Alabama or South Carolina, but the Cherokee might also get reinforcements from the Creek (for example).

There isn't anywhere for the State of Georgia to expel them to. South Carolina and Alabama won't take them, and the Florida Territory is one more provocation to the National government. Honestly, I think Clay WOULD use regular troops to establish order soon enough, not out of concern for the Cherokee but because he isn't going to stand for the War Department (HIS War Department) being flouted like that, nor the treaty-making powers of the national government, nor the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

Alright, I'm convinced -- the Trail of Tears is averted likely; let's say the "civilized tribes", dominated by the Cherokee, form a territory, and maybe eventually brought in as a state.

In the meantime, what does this mean for westward expansion?

John Fredrick Parker said:

Alright, I'm convinced -- the Trail of Tears is averted likely; let's say the "civilized tribes", dominated by the Cherokee, form a territory, and maybe eventually brought in as a state.

Click to expand...

How could it become a state?

The territory concerned lay within the boundaries of Georgia, so no new state could be erected there without Georgia's consent - which they'd never get.

In the meantime, what does this mean for westward expansion?

Click to expand...

Except in the very short run, nothing.

If Clay's Indian policy leads to westward expansion being obstructed in any serious way, then either he or his successor will change the policy to something more like Jackson's.

Westward expansion was an unalterable "given" of American life in those days.

The territory concerned lay within the boundaries of Georgia, so no new state could be erected there without Georgia's consent - which they'd never get.

Click to expand...

Oops -- my mistake

If Clay's Indian policy leads to westward expansion being obstructed in any serious way, then either he or his successor will change the policy to something more like Jackson's.

Click to expand...

OK, does anyone think it would? I'm guessing if the Cherokee and the other five tribes stay in Georgia borders, it won't.

BTW, it looks like not only are the five tribes left to preserve themselves, but no major action is taken TTL against the northern tribes around the Great Lakes (those who followed Black Hawk OTL).

Here's another question: would a President Cass, assuming he adds Alta California to Texas in his first term, support " popular sovereinty " in slavery, as he did OTL?