David Crockett re-elected in 1835--maybe later becomes POTUS?

POD: The incumbent Whig David Crockett (in his lifetime he was known as "David" not "Davy") is re-elected to Congress from Tennessee in 1835. (He lost quite narrowly in OTL to the Democrat Adam Huntsman. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=87860 Let's say there is some scandal involving Huntsman.) So he returns to Washington instead of going to Texas ("you can go to hell and I will go to Texas," he is supposed to have told his constituents after his defeat) and dying at the Alamo.

Moreover, he may stay in Congress for some time. True, he had faced a series of close elections in 1831-5 after breaking with Jackson (narrowly lost in 1831 after being the lone Tennessee member of Congress to vote against Jackson's Indian Removal bill, narrowly won in 1833), but if he won in 1835 he would probably be assured of indefinite re-election; Tennessee rebelled against the choice of the Northerner Martin Van Buren as Jackson's successor, voted for its own Hugh White for president in 1836, and from then on did not vote for a single Democrat for POTUS until after the Civil War except for Buchanan in 1856 (and even then it *almost* went for Fillmore). Crockett's own district was easily carried by the Whig candidate, his eldest son John W. Crockett, in 1837 and 1839. True, John W. Crockett may have been helped politically by his father's martyrdom, but his successes were not out of line with the generally strong showing of the Whigs in Tennessee Congressional elections; and when John W. Crockett did not run in 1841 he was replaced by fellow Whig Milton Brown, who was easily re-elected in 1843 and 1845.

In OTL, Crockett was a big hit among the Whigs of the Northeast when he toured the region in 1834, defending the Bank of the United States and blaming hard times on Jackson. Later he allowed his name to be used as the "author" of a scurrilous *Life of Martin Van Buren* portraying Jackson's anointed successor as an effete aristocrat:

"...he travels about the country and through the cities in an English coach; has English servants, dressed in uniform--I think they call it livery; they look as big as most of our members of Congress, and fully as fine as the higher officers in the army: no longer mixes with the sons of little tavern-keepers; forgets all his old companions and friends in the humbler walks of life; hardly knows, I suspect, his old patron, Rial; eats in a room by himself, and is so stiff in his gait, and prim in his dress, that he is what the English call a dandy. When he enters the senate-chamber in the morning, he struts and swaggers like a crow in a gutter. He is laced up in corsets, such as women in a town wear, and, if possible, tighter than the best of them. It would be difficult to say, from his personal appearance, whether he was man or woman, but for his large red and gray whiskers..." https://books.google.com/books?id=kAoFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80

It may be true, as some have written, that Crockett's act was starting to wear a bit thin by 1835 (which is one reason why he was defeated) but the subsequent unpopularity of Van Buren in Tennessee, especially after the Panic of 1837, could help to revive it. It is even conceivable that Crockett could have become President of the United States. At the 1839 Whig convention, the party decided to balance Harrison (who was considered a Northerner, despite being born in Virginia, and who got most of his support from the North while Henry Clay got most of his from the South) with a pro-Clay Southerner. Their choice for this role was John Tyler. This turned out to be a catastrophic decision for the Whigs. Tyler was mistakenly regarded as a typical southern Clay supporter. He did support Clay, but only because the latter was temporarily downplaying his nationalism and emphasizing his opposition to abolitionism. Tyler was a "state's-rights Whig" who agreed with the party's critique of Jackson's and Van Buren's "executive tyranny" but opposed the economic nationalism of most other Whigs. When he became President--and he established the precedent that on the President's death the Vice-President becomes *President*, not "Acting President"--he blocked almost the entire Whig economic program (the Bank, internal improvements, etc.--he did reluctantly agree to a higher tariff because the federal government was desperately short of money). He was read out of his own party, and exacerbated sectional tensions by appointing Calhoun as Secretary of State, with the latter urging annexation of Texas on specifically pro-slavery grounds. The divisive Texas issue also helped to defeat Clay in 1844.

Had Crockett instead of Tyler become Harrison's running mate, and then President--why not have *two* log-cabin frontier heroes on the ticket?--he would have approved the Whig economic program. That is also true of other potential alternatives to Tyler, like John Clayton of Delaware. This would have helped save the Whigs from the devastating setback they suffered in the 1842 midterm elections. However, as a Southwesterner, Crockett would be more sympathetic than, say, a Clayton to the annexation of Texas, though I think he would emphasize nationalist more than pro-slavery grounds. It is interesting that in OTL it was the Tennessee Whig Milton Brown, successor Congressman from the Crocketts' district, who introduced the resolution to annex Texas in 1845. In the House of Representatives "8 southern Whigs joined with 112 Democrats to pass the Brown plan over the opposition of 72 Whigs and 26 Democrats. Four of the five Whigs from Tennessee, where Clay had edged Polk by a mere 267 votes, led this pro-Texas band..." Michael F. Holt, *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party,* p.220. https://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA220

One problem with having Crockett on the ticket: Tennessee did not participate in the 1839 Whig convention. In 1835-6 Tennessee Whigs had campaigned for Hugh White, arguing that Van Buren's nomination by a convention had deprived the people of their choice of leaders. So when in 1838 the Whigs announced their national convention for next year, Tennessee Whigs agreed they could not attend. This fact deprived Clay of 15 sure votes at the convention, and contributed to the victory of the Harrison-Tyler ticket which would ultimately lead to the downfall of the Whigs. Talk about a foolish consistency! But perhaps a surviving Crockett--precisely because he dreams of himself as a "favorite son" choice for the vice-presidency--gets them to change their minds and go to the convention..
 
Last edited:
Its funny; a while back I was playing around with just this notion. Unfortunately, I don't have too much to add (at least until my copy of the Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party arrives in the mail in the next week or so!), but:

Do you think that Crocket would keep Harrison's cabinet intact? I suspect there will be less of an exodus than in OTL, and I wonder how he relations with Webster would be.

Also, I wonder how successful Crocket would be in building up the Whig's party infrastructure through patronage and the like. It always struck me as one of the fatal flaws of the party that no Whig President was ever able to build up a party structure to really rival the Dems (save for their network of newspapers, which was superior).

If Crocket ends up being popular enough to secure a second term (at least he won't be read out of his own party) will this be enough to paper over some of the differences between the party's northern and southern wings with a coherent platform that is more than just Anti-Jacksonianism?
 
With Crockett in national politics, would Texas be annexed sooner than 1845 or would he annex it the same as Tyler did. If he annexes in 1842 there is a good chance that the border skirmishes with Mexico occur during his presidency.

His re-election chances are good in 1844 if the USA is at war with Mexico. Would he want more or less of the Mexican Cession than the Democrats. He would probably rally other western and southern Whigs to join Democrats for Texas to the Rio Grande, New Mexico, and California at the minimum. Throw in Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California at the maximum.

With Mexico taken care of, the
Oregon Treaty with Britain would probably go down the same as the 49th parallel makes good common sense to extend it to the Pacific including the portion of Vancouver island south of the 49th as well.

1848 election goes to Whig war hero Zach Taylor. ........ rest may be pretty much the same.

In the Civil War, the added Mexican territory will not matter much, will be wild frontier, a place for outlaws as Mexico is majorly distracted by the French presence.
 
Arizona seaport?!

With Crockett in national politics, would Texas be annexed sooner than 1845 or would he annex it the same as Tyler did. If he annexes in 1842 there is a good chance that the border skirmishes with Mexico occur during his presidency.

His re-election chances are good in 1844 if the USA is at war with Mexico. Would he want more or less of the Mexican Cession than the Democrats. He would probably rally other western and southern Whigs to join Democrats for Texas to the Rio Grande, New Mexico, and California at the minimum. Throw in Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California at the maximum.

With Mexico taken care of, the
Oregon Treaty with Britain would probably go down the same as the 49th parallel makes good common sense to extend it to the Pacific including the portion of Vancouver island south of the 49th as well.

1848 election goes to Whig war hero Zach Taylor. ........ rest may be pretty much the same.

In the Civil War, the added Mexican territory will not matter much, will be wild frontier, a place for outlaws as Mexico is majorly distracted by the French presence.

At least, with the bigger land grab, Arizona would get a seaport. :cool:

Please don't butterfly away the French in Mexico --- How could the Legion survive without Camerone Day? :(
 
Crockett was famous for his championing of 'squatters' rights'... basically, that the people who settled onto Federal land without permission/buying it should get to keep it. As President, this would likely become the rule. Not sure how that would affect the nation later on...
 
At least, with the bigger land grab, Arizona would get a seaport. :cool:

Please don't butterfly away the French in Mexico --- How could the Legion survive without Camerone Day? :(

What I meant is that if the USA also grabs Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja Cali that it will be a no man's land during the Civil War as the French and Mexicans are going at it at the same time as the North and South.

Would see clashes with Apache sooner as USA exerts control before and after Civil War.

Arizona may not necessarily get a seaport. The state border may be the same as OTL. But remember, the Mexican province of Sonora once included the land south of the Gila River where OTL Phoenix and Tucson are located.

Who is to say what state boundaries will look like. Could be OTL. Could also have a larger New Mexico and a Sonora with no Arizona at all.
 
Top