No Henry Clay

So I'm working my way through the new Henry Clay biography,"Henry Clay: The Essential American," by David and Jeanne Heidler, and I found myself wondering what the United States would look like without The Western Star.

No great fan of his am I, but he no doubt left a mark on the American landscape. He was the representative of the West in the Great Triumvirate, he worked on the Compromises of 1820 and 1850, was a representative and senator from Kentucky, Secretary of State to J.Q. Adams and allegedly delivered the presidency to him, formed the Whig Party to oppose Jackson, and the list goes on and on. So the question begs where are we as a country without Clay and his American system?

Does the South secede earlier, in spite of Calhoun's early advice not to do so? Who can legitimately stand up to Andrew Jackson in the House if not Clay? Is there any form of internal improvement to the country? Does slavery actually get dealt with before there is a major national conflict?

I know Clay didn't singlehandedly hold the United States together, but I think without his presence the country turns out quite differently. I have some ideas of my own, but I want to hear some others first.
 
Without Clay, no appearance of a "corrupt bargain" when JQA wins in the House; without that ammunition, I seriously doubt Jackson's ability to unseat JQA in 1828. 1832 is open - Jackson is a contender, but so is Calhoun, and probably Daniel Webster and possibly Thomas H. Benton (possibly others too). Jackson's not a sure thing - having lost two elections in a row, and lost his wife in 1828, I'm not certain he'd be as interested in fighting for it again.

How the 7th POTUS handles SC's nullification attempts depends on who it is.

I expect earlier violence over slavery, because without Henry Clay the premiere antiDemocrat is going to be Daniel Webster - who's about as outspoken and vitriolic an abolitionist as they come in theis period. Slavery is going to be a partisan issue early, and without Clay to smooth things over in Congress, I can easily imagine an ACW in, say, 1850.

The settlement of the Oregon territory is nearly inevitably as per OTL. Texas and Mexico, depends on who's President at the time.
 
Without Clay, no appearance of a "corrupt bargain" when JQA wins in the House; without that ammunition, I seriously doubt Jackson's ability to unseat JQA in 1828. 1832 is open - Jackson is a contender, but so is Calhoun, and probably Daniel Webster and possibly Thomas H. Benton (possibly others too). Jackson's not a sure thing - having lost two elections in a row, and lost his wife in 1828, I'm not certain he'd be as interested in fighting for it again.

How the 7th POTUS handles SC's nullification attempts depends on who it is.

I expect earlier violence over slavery, because without Henry Clay the premiere antiDemocrat is going to be Daniel Webster - who's about as outspoken and vitriolic an abolitionist as they come in theis period. Slavery is going to be a partisan issue early, and without Clay to smooth things over in Congress, I can easily imagine an ACW in, say, 1850.

The settlement of the Oregon territory is nearly inevitably as per OTL. Texas and Mexico, depends on who's President at the time.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Could not another ambitious Senator fill the role of the great compromiser?
 
Nature abhors a vacuum. Could not another ambitious Senator fill the role of the great compromiser?

Southern slaveholders who refuse to champion slavery personally, and generally want economic policies favorable to industrial capital, are not thick on the ground. You might be able to do something with John Bell eventually, but I doubt it will be in time. Clay's combination of an obsessive need to be liked by everyone, and the brains to actually offer them sound enough reasons to like him, is rare. With no Clay I suppose you might see Benton try and position himself more toward the center, but I don't think he can do the same things.
 
Without Clay, no appearance of a "corrupt bargain" when JQA wins in the House; without that ammunition, I seriously doubt Jackson's ability to unseat JQA in 1828.

But wouldn't the removal of Clay from the picture in 1824 give Jackson the advantage? He had a widespread national appeal at the time, as opposed to the other candidates whose appeal was local/regional. Without Clay it's not a stretch to say that Jackson might have been able to win Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri which would have given him the outright majority over Adams and Crawford. At that point I doubt there's anyone available to unseat Jackson in '28. Then in 1832 his VP, Calhoun, would certainly be running, although I think it would be doubtful that he would win the general election. Perhaps we'd even see John Quincy Adams' return in that election. Daniel Webster might have even run earlier without Henry Clay drawing the attention of anti-Jacksonians. If any of these men won, the Nullification "Crisis" would have taken a much different turn, to be sure.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Could not another ambitious Senator fill the role of the great compromiser?
I doubt that any one politician of the era could do the job Henry Clay did. The only way I see compromises being reached would be a sort of early to mid 19th century version of the Gang of 14. Perhaps some less firebrand politicians from the three regions of the country would band together to get compromises passed through congress. That might fill that vacuum. And to be sure, many who became stalwarts did so because of Clay, so there might be some motivation without his presence for moderation on the parts of other members. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine anyone else at that time having the characteristics that made Clay so effective a compromiser. In a caucus situation, in particular, it is hard to think of a way in which a single personality could emerge from the group to effectively navigate the treacherous waters of slavery, abolitionism, tariffs, industry, etc.

I think 1850 is positively the LATEST date at which you get an American Civil War without Clay. I imagine Calhoun and Webster's rhetoric would do nothing to calm passions on either side of the slavery issue, and without Clay present to help create compromises, it is extremely doubtful that either man ever moderates his views. Thus, if neither man wins in 1832, and one does win in either '36 or '40 I think you could have one section or the other seceding a good deal earlier than 1860. Who would win would depend on who was seceding and at what point, I assume.
 
A thought just occurred to me. Would it be possible that without Henry Clay the American Civil War wouldn't have happened sooner, but been avoided altogether? This seems strange, but I beg you bear with me while I flesh the theory out.

The sectional differences between North and South may have always existed, but before the 1850's I would say they were less pronounced. By the time 1850 rolls around what were simply sectional differences have been inflamed, exaggerated, misconstrued, and abused by politicians until what you essentially have is nationalism on either side. There is hardly a common cause anymore as fire-eaters in the South are not moderated by Calhoun's warnings against secession and their hardcore abolitionist counterparts in the North are gaining more sympathy (see John Brown). Thus, the surprising thing about the election of 1860 isn't that it happens on almost strict sectional lines, but that the sectional presidency didn't occur in 1852 or 1856. When this happens the southern politicians have effectively talked themselves into the corner of secession and there is no one, save Senator Crittenden of Kentucky, talking about keeping the nation united because there is hardly a semblance of United States nationalism left.

Ok. How do we get around that problem? Suppose there were no compromises on the slavery issue. Northern politicans led by Webster and Southern politicians led by Calhoun begin raising the stakes earlier, say the late 1820's and early 1830's. Hell, say it starts in 1820 without the Missouri Compromise and NEITHER of these men is the leader of his side. Either way, passions are inflamed. As the sectionalism of regional minorities becomes stronger, people begin to fear a civil war between the states. Understandably very few want to see the United States tear itself apart so soon after it has established itself as a free and independent nation separate from England, and the loud mouthed minorities on either side are marginalized.

In this situation wouldn't it be possible that someone could come forward and offer a solution to the problem? Maybe it would be government funded manumission to all slaveholders. That way this unknown person (he might be a real person from OTL or someone who is butterflied into power with the absence of Clay) would untangle the Gordian Knot of American slavery. A problem solver, not a compromiser. True some in the South would still harbor resentment for a long time to come, but that would only be a bitter sting that would fade away over a few decades and the only true cassus belli any rebellion would have against the United States would be the economic modernization the north would be trying to shove down their throats. In that case, then, there are no politicians blowing up the slavery issue so that it is it the linchpin of the Union and without their terrible leadership the whole war might have been avoided.

Thoughts? Feedback? Snide remarks?
 
But wouldn't the removal of Clay from the picture in 1824 give Jackson the advantage? He had a widespread national appeal at the time, as opposed to the other candidates whose appeal was local/regional. Without Clay it's not a stretch to say that Jackson might have been able to win Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri which would have given him the outright majority over Adams and Crawford. At that point I doubt there's anyone available to unseat Jackson in '28. Then in 1832 his VP, Calhoun, would certainly be running, although I think it would be doubtful that he would win the general election. Perhaps we'd even see John Quincy Adams' return in that election. Daniel Webster might have even run earlier without Henry Clay drawing the attention of anti-Jacksonians. If any of these men won, the Nullification "Crisis" would have taken a much different turn, to be sure.

I disagree; 1824 was the end of the "Era of Good Feeling", sectional tensions were at possibly their lowest point. There are real policy differences between Crawford (status quo, no reform needed), Jackson (reform that favors tenant farmers, laborers and frontiersmen) and Adams/Clay (reform that favors merchants, industrialists and bankers), but there is no meaningful difference between the policies of Clay and Adams in 1824. If Clay is absent, I think Adams gets nearly all of Clay's voters.

On your later point - it's a fair idea, but I don't have an immediate candidate for you. What are the odds of a Constitutional amendment that enshrines "popular soverignty" in the highest law of the land but makes interstate transport or sale of slaves illegal? There'll be a slaveholding rump for a long time, but slavery can be picked off state by state va private action...it's also a way to make Northerners less disgusted with fugitive slave laws perhaps.

Also, there are still plenty of politicians ready to make defense of slavery into a shooting issue; but they're mostly in South Carolina. The Nullification Crisis put them on notice - the rest of the South did NOT rise up in clear support of them. They would get exactly one more shot at this, and they would need to make sure the rest of the South was in line first. People like MacDuffie and Toombs started working out how to make the Civil War happen in 1834.
 
Last edited:
In this situation wouldn't it be possible that someone could come forward and offer a solution to the problem? Maybe it would be government funded manumission to all slaveholders. That way this unknown person (he might be a real person from OTL or someone who is butterflied into power with the absence of Clay) would untangle the Gordian Knot of American slavery. A problem solver, not a compromiser. True some in the South would still harbor resentment for a long time to come, but that would only be a bitter sting that would fade away over a few decades and the only true cassus belli any rebellion would have against the United States would be the economic modernization the north would be trying to shove down their throats. In that case, then, there are no politicians blowing up the slavery issue so that it is it the linchpin of the Union and without their terrible leadership the whole war might have been avoided.

Thoughts? Feedback? Snide remarks?

makes sense - though a game, in 1829/1830 right now there is such a president (an uptimer) proposing just that, government-funded manumission. complete with a "tear downt his wall" speech a short time after his inauguaration. (He's an uptimer) It's at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SHWI-ISOT/ - it might be moving to a more 2010-friendly and busier area soon, so stay tuned.

Who knows, maybe even ther "shared worlds" section here.:D

We'd love to have new members who can actually contribute - and who will. In fact, we reall yneed them!:D
 
A thought just occurred to me. Would it be possible that without Henry Clay the American Civil War wouldn't have happened sooner, but been avoided altogether? This seems strange, but I beg you bear with me while I flesh the theory out.

The sectional differences between North and South may have always existed, but before the 1850's I would say they were less pronounced. By the time 1850 rolls around what were simply sectional differences have been inflamed, exaggerated, misconstrued, and abused by politicians until what you essentially have is nationalism on either side. There is hardly a common cause anymore as fire-eaters in the South are not moderated by Calhoun's warnings against secession and their hardcore abolitionist counterparts in the North are gaining more sympathy (see John Brown). Thus, the surprising thing about the election of 1860 isn't that it happens on almost strict sectional lines, but that the sectional presidency didn't occur in 1852 or 1856. When this happens the southern politicians have effectively talked themselves into the corner of secession and there is no one, save Senator Crittenden of Kentucky, talking about keeping the nation united because there is hardly a semblance of United States nationalism left.

Ok. How do we get around that problem? Suppose there were no compromises on the slavery issue. Northern politicans led by Webster and Southern politicians led by Calhoun begin raising the stakes earlier, say the late 1820's and early 1830's. Hell, say it starts in 1820 without the Missouri Compromise and NEITHER of these men is the leader of his side. Either way, passions are inflamed. As the sectionalism of regional minorities becomes stronger, people begin to fear a civil war between the states. Understandably very few want to see the United States tear itself apart so soon after it has established itself as a free and independent nation separate from England, and the loud mouthed minorities on either side are marginalized.

In this situation wouldn't it be possible that someone could come forward and offer a solution to the problem? Maybe it would be government funded manumission to all slaveholders. That way this unknown person (he might be a real person from OTL or someone who is butterflied into power with the absence of Clay) would untangle the Gordian Knot of American slavery. A problem solver, not a compromiser. True some in the South would still harbor resentment for a long time to come, but that would only be a bitter sting that would fade away over a few decades and the only true cassus belli any rebellion would have against the United States would be the economic modernization the north would be trying to shove down their throats. In that case, then, there are no politicians blowing up the slavery issue so that it is it the linchpin of the Union and without their terrible leadership the whole war might have been avoided.

Thoughts? Feedback? Snide remarks?


I like it. I do have one quibble, if you want a paid manumission scheme, you have to do it in the first generation after the ARW after the say 1820s slavery is crystalized in the minds of the southern gentry and is entirely too profitable. Additionally sectional differences are becoming pronounced and anti and pro factions are become hardened in congress. With or without Henry Clay I think what you want to do is not possible simply because of culture at this point. If we could have compromised to the 1880s then maybe we are looking at a bloodless end but I don't think so.

As for the thought that this some how a modern idea, it isn't. Clay himself was a member of a repatriation society and many Federalists (including Hamilton) had discussed the ideas behind a compensated manumission plan but nothing was ever put on paper. There has been some scholarly work suggesting Hamilton was up to just that before his death.

In terms of one person filling Clay's role I don't think that is possible, but several Senators and Congressmen from all sides coming together (Gang of 14) is definitly possible. Several names for this :Thomas H Benton, John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel Macon (although he is getting older and I believe dead by 1840), Lewis Cass, Stephen Douglas, Calhoun, Buchanon, among others.
 
I like it. I do have one quibble, if you want a paid manumission scheme, you have to do it in the first generation after the ARW after the say 1820s slavery is crystalized in the minds of the southern gentry and is entirely too profitable. Additionally sectional differences are becoming pronounced and anti and pro factions are become hardened in congress. With or without Henry Clay I think what you want to do is not possible simply because of culture at this point. If we could have compromised to the 1880s then maybe we are looking at a bloodless end but I don't think so.
Thanks for the feed back. I'm glad you like it, and certainly your quibble is not a small one. It is however, entirely the one I'm trying to get around; that is whether or not there is a way to get around the need to compromise on slavery. I think you're right, that sectional differences almost prohibit dealing with the problem head on, but would, at this point and certainly unlike 1861, the threat of the nation tearing itself apart be a catalyst for a peaceful solution? I guess I just restated the problem, and you have answered it. I'm just trying to find a way to make it work I guess.

As for the thought that this some how a modern idea, it isn't. Clay himself was a member of a repatriation society and many Federalists (including Hamilton) had discussed the ideas behind a compensated manumission plan but nothing was ever put on paper. There has been some scholarly work suggesting Hamilton was up to just that before his death.
I certainly know that this is not a modern idea. That's why I included it in the first place. The ideas of compensated (thanks for the word, I couldn't think of it the other night) manumission were prevalent back then, and it seems a fair trade. Unfortunately by the time it was brought up as a legitimate solution, the people who could have made it happen were all painted into corners and many had become unwilling to accept anything other than their own opinions.

In terms of one person filling Clay's role I don't think that is possible, but several Senators and Congressmen from all sides coming together (Gang of 14) is definitly possible. Several names for this :Thomas H Benton, John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel Macon (although he is getting older and I believe dead by 1840), Lewis Cass, Stephen Douglas, Calhoun, Buchanon, among others.
I'll need to look up a couple of those names. The others I'll have to get over my original negative impressions of them first. That, I think, is one of the more difficult things for me in regards to not just alternate history but history in general (bad for someone who graduated with a major in the subject); I'm pretty judgmental and it's hard to shake those judgments once I have them. Restoring some good of Adams' good name, though, would be perfectly fine by me!

I disagree; 1824 was the end of the "Era of Good Feeling", sectional tensions were at possibly their lowest point. There are real policy differences between Crawford (status quo, no reform needed), Jackson (reform that favors tenant farmers, laborers and frontiersmen) and Adams/Clay (reform that favors merchants, industrialists and bankers), but there is no meaningful difference between the policies of Clay and Adams in 1824. If Clay is absent, I think Adams gets nearly all of Clay's voters.
So if Adams goes in, free of the corrupt bargain charge, I'd imagine he holds off the Jackson presidency, which I think is probably inevitable, for four additional years? I need to do some research into the voting patterns of westerners. It seems to me like they'd favor Jackson from your description of things, but, again, I'll want to look into it. Maybe I'll dig out Willentz' Rise of Democracy in America. As I recall it was a good book, and it might have something in there.

What are the odds of a Constitutional amendment that enshrines "popular soverignty" in the highest law of the land but makes interstate transport or sale of slaves illegal?
Well there's another solution, I guess. But again, I don't know enough to say one way or the other. But popular sovereignty can't really happen until the post-Jackson presidents, in my opinion. Seems like it only works if a good majority of the people are enfranchised. Otherwise, landowners are making the calls, and I doubt there are a lot of them that want to get rid of the institution. Definitely something I'll investigate, though.

Also, there are still plenty of politicians ready to make defense of slavery into a shooting issue; but they're mostly in South Carolina. The Nullification Crisis put them on notice - the rest of the South did NOT rise up in clear support of them. They would get exactly one more shot at this, and they would need to make sure the rest of the South was in line first. People like MacDuffie and Toombs started working out how to make the Civil War happen in 1834.
True, but at this point if South Carolina tries anything I think the response should be just the same as Jackson's to the Nullification Crisis, so long as they're alone. Threaten to step on their necks with your boot and stop the shooting before it even gets started.

I'm going to try to come up with more ideas soon as I can.
 
Top