Neither Right Nor President? (Henry Clay Doesn't Give February 7, 1839 Speech)

What if Henry Clay doesn't give his anti-abolitionist speech of February 7, 1839? https://archive.org/stream/speechofhonhenry1839clay#page/n1/mode/2up It was probably as responsible as anything for the fact that he didn't get the support of any northern state but Rhode Island at the 1839 Whig National Convention. As Robert Remini puts it: "'I had rather be right than President', Clay had reportedly announced. So be it, responded the delegates." https://books.google.com/books?id=f9Hb6i90_mAC&pg=PA554

Without the speech, Clay would still have probably been supported by most southerners over Harrison and Scott. (After all, he was the only slaveholder of the three, despite the Virginia origins the other two shared with him.) If you add to that the additional northern support he would get, he might have been nominated and would be pretty sure to beat the unpopular Van Buren in 1840.

Carl Schurz would write decades later: "This ['I had rather be right than president'] was a fine saying. But, alas! Clay wanted very much to be president, and men who want very much to be president are often not fully conscious of their motives. What he called 'right' on this occasion he would not have called right at other periods of his life. He said it with the presidency in his mind. But it did not make him president after all." https://books.google.com/books?id=4r3TAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA169
 
I think Harrison would still have been nominated in 1840. Clay was just too
controversial even w/o this speech(he had
been a prominent banker of the U..S. Bank
for example, a stance not wildly popular
with voters), while Harrison was considered
"safe"(& had also run a strong race in 1836
IOTL against Van Buren, while Clay was al-
ready a two-time loser).
 
I think Harrison would still have been nominated in 1840. Clay was just too
controversial even w/o this speech(he had
been a prominent banker of the U..S. Bank
for example, a stance not wildly popular
with voters), while Harrison was considered
"safe"(& had also run a strong race in 1836
IOTL against Van Buren, while Clay was al-
ready a two-time loser).

But in the late 1830's Clay was muting his earlier economic nationalism: "This rush to Clay did not signify that southern Whiggery had become National Republicanism reincarnated. It meant exactly the opposite; Henry Clay was coming to the southern Whigs and coming without qualification. The Henry Clay that captured southern Whiggery between 1837 and 1839 had jettisoned political and economic nationalism, embraced states' rights, and joined John C. Calhoun on the front lines defending slavery. He told southerners that he no longer urged a new national bank; instead he would follow the lead of the people..." https://books.google.com/books?id=XtFENbexGU8C&pg=PA121 As he put it, "If a national bank be established, its stability and its utility will depend upon the general conviction which is felt of its necessity; and until such a conviction is deeply impressed upon the people, and clearly manifested by them, it would, in my judgment, be unwise even to propose a bank." https://books.google.com/books?id=4r3TAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA142 Fortunately for the Whigs, opposition to Van Buren's Sub-Treasury plan was something they could all unite on; it allowed them to portray the Democrats as the enemy of *all* banks and of credit in general (and as advocates of a "purely metallic currency"). As for the tariff, Clay favored protection but thought the rates of the 1833 compromise tariff adequate. https://books.google.com/books?id=4r3TAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA188 Indeed, it was this retreat (tactical, as it turned out...) from economic nationalism, as well as his hostility to abolitionism, which made him such a satisfactory candidate for the South--including Tyler.

As for his being a two-time loser, 1832 was the only (more or less) two-way election he had lost, and everyone knew that Van Buren was no Jackson so far as electoral appeal was concerned. And anyway, being a two-time loser didn't prevent him from being nominated in 1844. Indeed, even in 1848, after having lost *three* times, he came in a fairly close second to Taylor on the first ballot at the Whig National Convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_Whig_National_Convention

Nevertheless, the "corrupt bargain" charge and the loss in 1832 did hurt him somewhat, and I agree that he would not get the majority of northern delegates. But he didn't need that--just a somewhat larger minority than he actually got.
 
Top