If Daniel Webster succeeds Harrison in 1841, how much does this put the Civil War?

With Webster President in '41, what election would spark secession?

  • 1844 - Webster could have *really* messed thigns up

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1848 or '52 - secession crisis about 1850 as OTL with too much anomisty to compromise

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • 1856 or '60 - Webster as President would have little impact overall

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Some event other than an election would spark secession between 1841-1860

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11
I was thinking about this recently - I've seen a couple other threads that talk a little about Daniel Webster as Harrison's VP (he declined OTL) and i wondered, just how much would he push the Southern states?

Looking at what went on during the (mostly) Tyler Administration, the main thing I can see is just not annexing Texas. He might talk a lot about the need to discuss slavery in Congress, too (there was a ban on its discussion till, IIRC, 1845 t5hat John Quincy Adams kept fighting against). Perhaps he would refuse to sign the bill encouraging settlement of Florida?

The biggest thing I can think of is that - with VAn Buren also against annexing Texas and a major opponent of annexation int he White Hosue - Lewis Cass might get the nod without need for a dark horse.

I'm thinking it might be more like the 1850 that many people talk about if the Compromise of 1850 hadn't passed; although with Northern expansion becasue of the National System perhaps the North would stand a decent chance of winning, anyway.

Thoughts?
 
My knowledge of these historical events is only decent.

The South really wanted war with Mexico to gain more land for slave-expansion, and Manifest Destiny was strong in many parts of the country. Webster would be pressured to take Texas and go to war with Mexico, but being the of the Great Triumvirate, he would try to either settle for less, or equal out Slave and free states somehow. His impact would be nil, since he didn't want to piss off anyone.

He would likely delay the war and if doesn't get a second term, who ever surpasses him ( someone like Polk) would start the war on time. It is a toss-up whether Webster would return to the Senate and forge the Compromise of 1850 (or something like it).
 
Once again folks, it wasn't just Lincoln getting elected in 1860 that set things off. The Republicans had gained a majority in the House in '58, and by '60 that had turned into a super-majority. Same as in the Senate - in '56 the Republicans were just an upstart alliance filling in the void left by the Whigs, by '60 they had become the majority party. As well it was also a pretty well known guesstimate, simply looking at age, that at least three of of the Supreme Court Justices were either close to death or retirement (Daniel actually died a few months before the election, McLean just a few days after the southern states seceded, and Campbell retired a few weeks after).

So the issue wasn't just Lincoln getting elected, it was the fact that his party, which represented everything that the southern elites stood against, was going to be holding total control over the reigns of the federal government.

So you're going to need to replicate that in order to get an earlier civil war. Or something else, something much larger.
 
Difference might be that Webster was a Whig, Tyler was a Democrat that ran on a Whig ticket. (Echoed decades later with former Democrat Andrew Johnson stuck allegedly leading a Republican party that never believed he would be President.)

If it was Webster, he would've been leader of his party and maybe something would've happened. I'm not too informed about Whig politics in the 1840s other than they're fond of domestic agenda items like public works. He wouldn't be kicked from the Whig caucus like Tyler was, a President with no Party.

Would Webster be the Whig nominee in '44? Clay in OTL was the party nominee. That would be a fascinating collision of Whig personalities. Would Webster even make a handshake deal with Van Buren (as Clay did) to try to avoid slavery as an election topic?

Umm...
 
Top