President Clinton...in 1812.

DeWitt Clinton was the nephew of George Clinton, who was Vice-President during President James Madison's first term. In the 1812 elections, some proposed bringing him on as Madison's new Vice-President to replace his uncle, whose health was failing rapidly. While not necessarily opposed to the concept, he eventually chose to accept the candidacy of the Federalist Party and oppose President Madison in the election. He lost the election, but he came within such a close margin that one or two States going his way could have put him in office. Pennsylvania, with twenty-five Electoral College votes, could have done it alone.

Now, suppose that happens. Let's suppose that somehow, Pennsylvania swings in his favor, and DeWitt Clinton's overal count goes from 89 to 114, five more than he needs to win, and certainly more than President Madison's recalculated total of 103.

How does American react to having a second* Federalist in office as President? Keeping in mind that Clinton was, in effect, a dissident of Madison's own party. How does President Clinton guide America's domestic and foreign business? The most glaring question of all, given that he will come into office in the midst of a war, is how does he handle dealings with the British Empire?

______________________________

* Officially. President George Washington was billed as an independent, but he was a Federalist in terms of policy decisions.
 
I can see the Battle of Lake Erie being seen as TTL's New Orleans; discounting of course the fact that the Battle of New Orleans occurred after the war was over, but few people remember that.:D (Heh, I've got a great uncle who talks about being hit by a mine "after the darned war was over!', I'll have to remind him there was a whole battle like that next time:D.)

Clinton would probably try to bring things to a close after Lake Erie, seeing that Canada couldn't be taken, and with the British still fighting in Europe, they might be amenable to it. I can see John Quincy Adams (ironically, a former Federalist who left over the Embargo Act) being named Secretary of State as a gesture of good will and sign of solidarity between the parties in time of war.

The British would probably understand the change in government leading to a chagne in direction and negotiate starting in mid-1813, and the peace might be similar to Ghent, I would think; perhaps even without the Battle of Lake Erie (maybe it would be fought after the treaty), though certainly after the battle there would still be time for the British to say, "Okay, we need to wrap up this misunderstanding so we can deal with the real menace."

Domestically, there would probably be a middle road charted between the two parties; John Quincy Adams might just succeed Clinton anyway. Madison would be seen as Jefferson was at the time, a great thinker who wasn't as good at actually running the country, though later historians would see him in a better light, just as they started to see Jefferson.
 
And that was with Clinton's running mate being a native Pennsylvanian as well!
That actually might have cost Clinton the election instead of helping him:
Clintonite Democratic-Republicans in many states refused to work with their Federalist counterparts (notably in Pennsylvania)
Ingersoll was a Federalist outright, unlike Clinton, so it makes sense that the campaign breakdown was particularly vicious in Pennsylvania.
 
Ingersoll was a Federalist outright, unlike Clinton, so it makes sense that the campaign breakdown was particularly vicious in Pennsylvania.

Two questions, then. First, who should (or could) he have chosen that would have done better? Second, assuming he won, what are your thoughts on the OP?
 
Top