A Death on the Princeton

On February 28, 1844, a group of dignitaries including President John Tyler, Secs. Abel Upshur and Thomas Gilmer, and Dolly Madison were hosted aboard the USS Princeton. During a highly-touted demonstration, one of the guns exploded, killing seven, including both of the above-mentioned Secretaries. President Tyler was not in attendance at this demonstration -- but what if he had been?

First, the succession of the office -- the third president in a single term, I might add -- would pass to House Speaker John Winston Jones, a man about which I know absolutely nothing, especially regarding the issue of Texan annexation, which is the real topic I'm interested in.

Does the loss of Tyler prevent Texan annexation from being introduced as an issue in the 1844 election? I am under the impression that it was largely Tyler's impetus that made it an issue by the time it became one. I'm imagining that President Jones might simply not want to press his luck, especially if he seeks to run for his own term (which would pit him against Martin Van Buren for the Democratic nomination, a race I can't especially see him winning). Either way, it may still end up being a remarkably interesting nomination battle if he *does* choose to run -- a sitting accidental president against Van Buren against Lewis Cass. I tend to think Jones would sit it out and quietly retire, and Van Buren would have no difficulty securing the nomination, which means that Polk doesn't.

So no Tyler means no forced-through Annexation in the last moments of his administration. No Polk means no viciously-expansionist president staring down a war with Mexico while simultaneously trying to resolve Oregon once and for all. A re-elected Van Buren -- I can't see Henry Clay winning in 1844 -- would be a *very* different president than Polk, under very different circumstances.

So let's think longer term here.

No Polk, no Texas, no Mexican War -- the Missouri Compromise may not break down. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that Mexico would be a poison to the United States, inflaming the slavery issue beyond its ability to be solved. So does the lack of significant territorial gains in this period prevent or delay the Civil War?

Without new territory south of the Compromise line, slavery is hemmed into its existing states. The increasingly-isolated Slave South may start to get panicky, but when does that happen? I know there had been agitation for expansion for some time, but much of that was directed at Cuba. All the while, Van Buren ain't exactly on the bandwagon for expansion, and he's certainly no Polk. So where does this go? Does this merely *delay* the Annexation and the Mexican War for another four or eight years, until such a time as a good expansionist comes into office? But without Tyler to force the issue, even if a Vice-President Polk succeeds Van Buren, that doesn't guarantee he'll do much beyond trying to resolve Oregon.

I wonder. If there's no death on the Princeton, do we have any Manifest Destiny at all? Van Buren, IIRC, was big about focusing on improving and consolidating the existing national territory. His continued influence, still based on his status as the successor to Jackson, might have a very profound influence on the national mood regarding expansion. Especially without a Mexican War, without the sudden increase in the territory, we may simply not get that expansionist impetus spreading beyond a panicky South.

Of course, as the South grows isolated, they might try to get legislation passed which would allow for slavery to expand into the territories north of the Compromise line. How does that battle proceed, and what are the consequences for success or failure?
 
Actually, had anything happened to Tyler the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 would have been utilized which would've meant that the President pro tempore Willie Person Magnum would've been made acting President. (Remember that the order of presidential succession changed over the course of American history, From 1792-1886 #3 was the President Pro Tempore of the senate, from 1886-1947 it was the Secretary of State, and only from 1947 to the present has it been the Speaker of the House of Representatives.)

Now, regarding Magnum's succession after an incident on the Princeton, as he was a pretty strong Whig and an ally of Henry Clay I think a lot of your points are quite valid. He's definitely not going to be as keen on Texan annexation. That being said, as a prominent figure within the Whig Party he may very well decide to run for a term in his own right.

Then again we need to take into account the public perception of "His Ascendancy" John Tyler. Many people (including Magnum IIRC) were less than enthused with Tyler assuming the full mantle of the Presidency and not resigning himself to being "Acting President". As Magnum will assume the office with only 7 months or so remaining until the election I believe it most likely that he'll style himself "Acting President" instead of pulling a Tyler. If that's the case he might not run in 1844 both to continue serving as a caretaker and also to pave the way for his friend and ally Henry Clay to take the Whig nomination. This could have interesting ramifications later on as Vice Presidents might be expected to act as caretakers instead of becoming presidents in their own right.

Now obviously, with Magnum in the Oval office the Texan annexation treaty is dead in the water. That being said I think there'd still be a substantial push for annexation within the Democratic party in their convention so I don't think Texan annexation somewhere down the line is completely out of the question...
 
So then what do we think happens with Texan annexation? Neither Clay nor Van Buren was big on it -- the assumption going into the race was that Van Buren would get the nomination, and thus take Texas off the table as an issue. So we have two presidential contenders, neither one of which cares one whit about annexing Texas, even on the democratic side. Van Buren nearly got the nomination on the very first ballot in Baltimore in 1844 -- had it not been for invocation of the 2/3 rule, he'd have been the nominee then and there. While Cass is still going to make a strong showing, without the pro-Texas democrats galvanized into a concrete force by Tyler pushing the issue, I don't think Cass will make much of a challenge in the end, and Van Buren still gets the nomination.

And in a Van Buren-Clay race, I think Van Buren wins. Clay was still running the 1824 campaign.
 
Van Buren though was just kicked out of office in 1836. I'm not sure a Van Buren vs. Clay 1844 election would be so clear cut, it could be a very close run thing, especially if the pro-annexation Democrats run as a third party in the hopes of forcing the issue.

That being said, I don't think you're going to completely eliminate pressure to expand westward. I think that sooner or later Texas was bound to fall into the orbit of the US and enter the Union.
 
Top