AHC: President Henry Clay, 1812

Generally, when people make threads along the lines of "What's the earliest so-and-so can be elected President?", someone will post something along the lines of "Well, they reached 35 in year 19XX, so that's the earliest possible, but realistically the earliest would probably be..." However, with some figures, it actually seems that the earliest possible age was not implausible. For example, Henry Clay.

Henry Clay turned 35 on April 12, 1812. At that point, he had already served as Senator from Kentucky for more than a year, served in the Kentucky State House for several terms, rising to Speaker, and had been elected Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in his first term, an unmatched political feat. As Speaker, he was already transforming the position into one of great authority, in part to promote the war against the United Kingdom. From his powerful position, gaining the support of the nominating caucus seems possible.

So, your challenge is to describe exactly how Henry Clay manages to win the election of 1812, either in the Electoral College, or if it ends up deadlocked, in the US House of Representatives. Something will no doubt have to be done to prevent Madison, or whoever is President, from running for reelection, and to block Monroe, the natural successor to Madison, from overpowering Clay and winning the nomination and general election. The main rule for the challenge is that Clay has to be elected to the Presidency, and not succeed just because everyone above him on the line of succession is dead.
 
Hmmm,well, WIlliam Jennings Bryan did so at a year younger because of one big issue he supported and a dearth of good leaders otherwise (except for Cleveland who I've read considered a run). So, we need the same type of scenario - figuring his American System could be as well formulated as Bryan's Free Silver ideas.

The problem is that while #2 is there for the Federalists, #1 isn't becasue he was a War Hawk and it would be best for the Federalists if they had a Dove.

So, we need an earlier war. Against the French would be helpful because if the U.S. does well it gives the Federalists strength and they can keep the Federalists going, if they do poorly Jefferson might still win but in 1812 Clay's American System might help if the D-Rs don't help the U.S. any better.

If the U.S. goes to war in 1807, instead of the Embargo, is Clay's name there in support of the war? If so it wouldn't help if the U.S. loses, but if they win or tie then there's the possibility the U.S. economy could really slump afterward and then Clay brings his American System in and says "Look, I can fix this."
 
The British launch a surprise attack on Washington in 1812, 2 years earlier than OTL, which results in the deaths of President Madison and PPT William Crawford, with Speaker Henry Clay barely managing to escape. Being next in line, Henry Clay becomes Acting President until the next election can be held, where the nation rallies around him in this time of crisis.
 
Hmmm,well, WIlliam Jennings Bryan did so at a year younger because of one big issue he supported and a dearth of good leaders otherwise (except for Cleveland who I've read considered a run). So, we need the same type of scenario - figuring his American System could be as well formulated as Bryan's Free Silver ideas.

Clay had no "American System" in 1812. It was the product of the nationalism following the end of the war.
 
Forget the Feet He is All Clay!

Having Madison and Crawford killed is going against the original description of this scenario. Having them captured in an earlier British DC raid or Madison and Crawford caught cheating on their wives together is just the same as killing them. You would just be knocking them off (Albeit alive) to get them out of the way.

So the trick is to get Clay to run and then get him to win, something he was unable to do when he was older and more experienced. Possibly young Clay has less baggage? No "corrupt bargain" to be thrown in his face?

The big issue was the war. If you had America really tank and do worse in 1812, as difficult as that may be, and the Warhawk Dem-Reps go looking for someone young to reinvigorate the party.

The Warhawks defeat the Peace platform dem-reps and then carry their momentum to victory against the Federalist candidate. Which may or may not be Clinton in this particular scenario. He may have been the Dem-Reps Peace candidate.

The question then becomes does Young Clay make things better or worse?
 
The big issue was the war. If you had America really tank and do worse in 1812, as difficult as that may be

Actually, that's not difficult at all. The Brits had some bad luck on the Great Lakes, and with slightly different leadership, and a bit of luck, could have made the Lakes a British zone, which would have made defending eg the Niagara Peninsula easier, and allowed more forces to come west from Quebec.
 
What if Jefferson runs for (and wins) a third term? That way there isn't an incumbent. Clay could make an entrance there, I suppose!
 
What if Jefferson runs for (and wins) a third term? That way there isn't an incumbent. Clay could make an entrance there, I suppose!

Or opposite, would it be possible for Jefferson to fail so badly that either he or Madison lost, and there was a Federalist incumbent for Clay to challenge?
 
Top