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.