President Henry Clay in 1845

Does anyone have any ideas on Clay's cabinet?
/QUOTE]


There were seven posts,

Secretary of State:
Secretary of War:
Secretary of Treastury:
Secretary of Interior:
Post Master General:
Secretary of Navy:
Attorney General:
so Webster for state, Vance, Scot or maybe Bell for war. Crittenden for Attorney General, a nice Clay loyalist for Post Master General, that leves a needs for a deep south man and somebodey from the west. NY probably needs a somebody as well. Bell could also maybe be considered for Treasury, Everett is a solid choice from the north for something, maybe a deep southerner for the navy, plenty of whigs in the citys.
 
Ah, sorry, I have a bad memory for posts.

John M. Clayton would possibly be chosen for State in 1845 for the same reason he was chosen in 1849: he's a well-respected moderate Senator that straddles both sections.

I doubt Clay would appoint Webster or Scott to a cabinet position, as they were both rivals for control of the party, especially Webster.
 
Does anyone have any ideas on Clay's cabinet?

Clay would obviously much rather be his own Secretary of State, so he'll probably choose a loyal nonentity - maybe William Segar Archer, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

One obvious choice for Clay's Secretary of State would be the man who would eventually get that job under Taylor--John Clayton.

Clay had in fact very much wanted Harrison to put Clayton in the Cabinet:

"As the party's most prominent congressional leader, Clay expected an offer of the State Department in Harrison's cabinet, but he declined the post even before it was tendered because he preferred to remain in the Senate. With his blessing, Webster received that important slot instead. But Clay hoped to staff the remainder of the cabinet with his friends. He succeeded to the extent that he blocked the rumored appointment of Charles Wickliffe, a Kentucky rival, and secured instead the attorney generalship for his faithful lieutenant Crittenden. John Bell of Tennessee, the secretary of war, and Thomas Ewing, the secretary of the Treasury, could also be considered Clay allies.

"Clay was especially anxious for the appointment of John M. Clayton of Delaware. Initially, Clay had suggested Clayton for the Treasury and Ewing for the postmaster general's office. But Webster had prevailed on Harrison to appoint New York's Francis Granger as postmaster general instead and to switch Ewing to the Treasury Department. Frantic to get Clayton into the cabinet, Clay then held a stormy personal interview with Harrison, demanding Clayton's appointment as navy secretary, the remaining cabinet post. Proud and vain, Harrison was determined not to appear subservient to the party's senior statesman and reportedly reminded Clay that he, rather than Clay, had been elected president. Instead, Harrison chose to let Whig congressmen from the South Atlantic states fill the last spot, and they decided on George Badger of North Carolina, who was also friendly to Clay. Thus, despite Clay's failure to win a place for Clayton, his heated argument with Harrison, and Webster's appointment to the most important post, Clay had done well. The other cabinet members were either his outright supporters or at least personally cordial to him..." Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War, pp. 124-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=hMkYklGTY1MC&pg=PA124

I have a feeling that a number of members of the Harrison Cabinet (which of course, except for Webster, resigned en masse after the Tyler-Clay split became unbridgeable) will reappear in the Clay Cabinet. (But maybe he will want Crittenden to stay in the Senate to lead the Whigs there?)
 
It seems Lewis Cass probably has the Democratic nomination in the bag for 1848. Depending on how badly voter fatigue could set in, he may be able to win.
 
It seems Lewis Cass probably has the Democratic nomination in the bag for 1848. Depending on how badly voter fatigue could set in, he may be able to win.

If there's no war under President Clay, I think Cass probably wins. But if a war does break out (which is possible, as I've argued in previous posts), then Scott or Taylor could win one last hurrah for the Whigs in 1848.
 
If there's no war under President Clay, I think Cass probably wins. But if a war does break out (which is possible, as I've argued in previous posts), then Scott or Taylor could win one last hurrah for the Whigs in 1848.
If the acquisition of Texas and other territory from Mexico can be postponed by a least a few decades, if not prevented entirely, the slavery issue could eventually fizzle out by about 1900, saving the Whigs from collapse.
 
If the acquisition of Texas and other territory from Mexico can be postponed by a least a few decades, if not prevented entirely, the slavery issue could eventually fizzle out by about 1900, saving the Whigs from collapse.

The problem with that is Kansas-Nebraska will still be an issue, as well as Democratic plans to annex Cuba. IMO the Civil War was inevitable by the mid-1800s, and once slavery becomes America's most important political issue the Whigs are going to fracture over it as in OTL. (In fact Whig divisions over slavery was what defeated Clay in 1844).
 
The problem with that is Kansas-Nebraska will still be an issue, as well as Democratic plans to annex Cuba.
Why are we assuming the Kansas-Nebraska Act would still happen without the Mexican-American War? It could have been averted simply by avoiding President Pierce as is. As to Cuba, obviously a different context is going to affect how imminently and existentially dangerous the prospect is to the republic.
 
Why are we assuming the Kansas-Nebraska Act would still happen without the Mexican-American War? It could have been averted simply by avoiding President Pierce as is. As to Cuba, obviously a different context is going to affect how imminently and existentially dangerous the prospect is to the republic.

I'm not so much referring to that specific piece of legislation as the issue of slavery in the territories (which KN came to represent). That issue is going to blow up at some point, and the abolition of slavery can't be delayed forever. The 1860's was pretty late as it was. When it does happen the Whigs are still going to fracture.

Also, the KN act was Stephen Douglas' idea, not Pierce's. Lewis Cass supported popular sovereignty before Douglas, so if he is elected then it's very likely that the issue of slavery in the territories is still going to explode much as it did under Pierce.
 
if the US lets California alone during the 1840s, you're probably going to see a rush of American settlers after gold is discovered in 1848 and by the late 1850s Californians will be clamoring to join the Union
Given most of the influx is going to be in northern California, I wonder if you can't get a "two-state solution": SoCal as a slave state, NorCal free. (You'd need a new name, possibly two.) Borders won't resemble OTL's, either, probably.
 
California had a fairly small population compared to most other states until the early 1900s. Even in the 1920s, California's 13 electoral votes were identical to that of Kentucky. It wasn't until the Great Depression and World War II that California's population really started to expand and become the gargantuan economy that we know today. So if the US lets California alone during the 1840s, you're probably going to see a rush of American settlers after gold is discovered in 1848 and by the late 1850s Californians will be clamoring to join the Union instead of remaining as an independent Republic. If the Democrats are still in power then as in OTL, then they may or may not put this off so as to avoid offending the South. California statehood will become a major point of sectional tension, right around the time of John Brown's raid and Dred Scott.
Perhaps Mexico tries selling California to Prussia at a lower price than OTL, just to keep the US from getting it?
 
Perhaps Mexico tries selling California to Prussia at a lower price than OTL, just to keep the US from getting it?
I like the idea of Britain taking it over, joining it to BC by also taking *Oregon & *Washington, & making it all part of Canada.;)

Edit:
Possible thread highjack alert.;)
you might actually keep the whigs from collapsing.
What would you call the chance of a Democrat & Whig fracturing producing a viable third party from what was left? Something like a *Repbulican, *Democrat, & *Progressive?
 
Last edited:
Top