Henry Clay President summer 1813

Both Madison and Vice President Gerry were ill that summer. The office of President Pro Tem of he Senate was vacant and Clay, just about the legal age was Speaker.

Had the Pres and VP died Clay would Be President.

The then succession law provided for a special election in both pres and vp died. However it was the middle of the War of 1812.


Any thoughts?
 
It is an interesting,a nd amazing, though.

I suspect that they'd manage to have an election - Clay was a War Hawk IIRC, and so that would be a referendum on the war. Question is when in the summer - it's supposed to be the November after but if it's late August that doesn't give a lot of time. Still, the Battle of Lake Erie would have been won by then. And, it might, in a way, be easier than 1814 becasue at least you just had candidates running the year before - the Federalists could just put DeWitt Clinton up gain and the D-R either james Monroe, Wililam Crawford, or - possibly - Clay, though this would be a more unusual circumstance, and I don't know if he'd run.

If Clinton wins, you might get the same kind of peace that ws obtained anyway a year early; I doubt XClay would push for an end to it right away, but he was the Great Compromiser, and if he sees a chance to squeak out a status quo ante bellum, seeing that the U.S. tried but couldn't take Canada, then maybe he'd be okay with negotiating a peace deal.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
It is an interesting,a nd amazing, though.

I suspect that they'd manage to have an election - Clay was a War Hawk IIRC, and so that would be a referendum on the war. Question is when in the summer - it's supposed to be the November after but if it's late August that doesn't give a lot of time. Still, the Battle of Lake Erie would have been won by then. And, it might, in a way, be easier than 1814 becasue at least you just had candidates running the year before - the Federalists could just put DeWitt Clinton up gain and the D-R either james Monroe, Wililam Crawford, or - possibly - Clay, though this would be a more unusual circumstance, and I don't know if he'd run.

If Clinton wins, you might get the same kind of peace that ws obtained anyway a year early; I doubt XClay would push for an end to it right away, but he was the Great Compromiser, and if he sees a chance to squeak out a status quo ante bellum, seeing that the U.S. tried but couldn't take Canada, then maybe he'd be okay with negotiating a peace deal.

Agreed. This won't change the outcome of the war, except it might end it earlier. So no Battle of New Orleans, no Bombardment of Fort McHenry, and no Star-Spangled Banner. But you butterfly Andy Jackson. Good for you! You receive the "Hero of Humanity" award. It is chocolate chip cookies!
 
It is an interesting,a nd amazing, though.

I suspect that they'd manage to have an election - Clay was a War Hawk IIRC, and so that would be a referendum on the war. Question is when in the summer - it's supposed to be the November after but if it's late August that doesn't give a lot of time. Still, the Battle of Lake Erie would have been won by then. And, it might, in a way, be easier than 1814 becasue at least you just had candidates running the year before - the Federalists could just put DeWitt Clinton up gain and the D-R either james Monroe, Wililam Crawford, or - possibly - Clay, though this would be a more unusual circumstance, and I don't know if he'd run.

If Clinton wins, you might get the same kind of peace that ws obtained anyway a year early; I doubt XClay would push for an end to it right away, but he was the Great Compromiser, and if he sees a chance to squeak out a status quo ante bellum, seeing that the U.S. tried but couldn't take Canada, then maybe he'd be okay with negotiating a peace deal.

Slight quibble, as per the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the new election would be held in December (unless the assumption of power by the Acting President occurred within two months of the next August) before having regularly scheduled elections starting on the 4th November afterwards. December of 1813 is when we saw the Americans being thrown out of Canada , so there may very well be a switch back to the Federalists.
 
Slight quibble, as per the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the new election would be held in December (unless the assumption of power by the Acting President occurred within two months of the next August) before having regularly scheduled elections starting on the 4th November afterwards. December of 1813 is when we saw the Americans being thrown out of Canada , so there may very well be a switch back to the Federalists.


Iirc December was when the Electoral College voted - as indeed it still is.

Presumably the electors themselves would have been elected before that.
 
- the Federalists could just put DeWitt Clinton up gain
I seriously doubt that; the only reason why they had endorsed Clinton in the first place was because at the time there was no way they could put up a slate of electors, Democratic-Republicans having controlled the legislature of the state. When the Federalists surprisingly won control of the legislature later that year, they tried to put up a slate pledged to Rufus King, but a coalition of Federalists and Clintonian Democratic-Republicans defeated that effort.

Most likey the Federalists run with the candidate they had intended to run in 1812; Chief Justice John Marshall of Virginia.

 
Had Clay won does this effectively shorten his political career?

Or if he were to seem to be the man who won the war could he stay President for more than 2 terms.

If he retired in 1821 or 22 from being \President on the 2 term tradition does that mean he cannot be the kind of major figure he was in Congress and as sec of state in OTL.

How likely is a much earlier Cleveland phenominan wih a former President running again?
 
Top