DeWitt Clinton Defeats Madison

After 1796, DeWitt Clinton in 1812 was the closest a Federalist came to winning an election. What if Clinton succeeded and defeated Madison?How would the War of 1812 go? Would the Federalists still collapse or survive alongside the Democratic-Republicans?
 

Germaniac

Donor
The problem with that is that DeWitt Clinton was a Democratic-Republican. He ran in opposition due to a feeling that Virginians were becoming too powerful in the Executive. He can win but the results will be less than expected. However, if the Federalist party had been able to pull itself together and put up a candidate, they could have a chance.
 
Mr. Clinton himself was a Democratic-Republican, and had even been offered his uncle George Clinton's place on the Madison ticket due to his uncle's failing health. As such, many Federalists may have felt they were being required to choose between two members of the same party. At the same time Clinton's running mate, Jared Ingersoll, was a diehard Federalist, which likely alienated a lot of Democratic-Republican voters.

In short, many Federalists likely saw him as still a Democratic-Republican, and many Democratic-Republicans likely saw him as a traitor, and so in both cases would not support him.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Honestly you'd have to butterfly Jefferson's second term with a federalist ticket at minimum to have a noticeable effect on the war, which seems to be your goal. Jefferson gutted the military and this would give the Federalists 4 years to rearm and prepare for war against the British(or the French, but most likely the British). Better to butterfly the Jefferson administration completely, but that changes the whole paradigm and might lead to war with the French:eek:! If you want to butterfly the Jefferson administration you've got to save the Adams Administration, that's what ultimately gave the Federalists a slow death.
 
Could he chosen a politician from Pennsylvania as his running mate to help his chances?

For some reason I had thought the Pennsylvania Federalists were rather powerful (might have gotten them mixed up with Delaware somehow) , but a little research showed me they only elected 2 Senators, and maybe 1 Governor (their first: Thomas Mifflin is listed as having no party on the Governors page, but is identified as a Federalist in his own wikibox). The Federalists of Pennsylvania did not have a lot of highly elected officals, so unless they can rope another defector Republican (which might cause even more problems nationwide), they won't have a big pool to draw from
 
Would it be easier for Clinton to win North Carolina and Vermont? Someone predicted he would at the time and together, those 23 electoral votes would give him the election.
 
Would it be easier for Clinton to win North Carolina and Vermont? Someone predicted he would at the time and together, those 23 electoral votes would give him the election.

North Carolina is interesting because the Republican-controlled-legislature decided to take no chances--it replaced vote by districts with election by the legislature, so that Madison would be assured of all the electoral votes of the state. This decision proved very unpopular, and the legislature came within one vote of repealing it. However, the actual vote in the legislature for Madison over Clinton was a firm 130-60--not a single Republican defected. Even if voting by district had been restored, Madison would almost certainly have carried most of the districts. See the discussion in James H. Broussard, *The Southern Federalists, 1800-1816*, pp. 150-151
http://books.google.com/books?id=agYzhC6LyJEC&pg=PA150
 
Top