WI No Corrupt Bargain of 1824?

What if, somehow, Henry Clay ended up not throwing the election for JQ Adams, and the House decides to just go with the guy who got the most votes, Andrew Jackson?

How plausible is, for example, that Jackson would be a one term president? What's other impacts can you see?
 
Obligatory quibble - there's no particular evidence Clay had anything to do with the House vote specifically. Everyone in Congress knew John Quincy Adams and thought him competent, whether they agreed with his policies or not; not everyone in Congress knew Jackson, and of those that did, his conduct in Florida 1819 made a fair number of them regard him as completely unfit for office. Clay can die of a stroke on the campaign trail and JQA probably still wins.

But whatever series of events leads the House to vote for Jackson - why would he be a one-term President? The only thing I can find in his first term likely to sink him is a tariff bill, and given that the fiasco of 1828 was a machination to win him the office, I suspect we don't see such tariff silliness. He probably wins a second term, although I like Clay's (or someone else's - Calhoun?) odds to unseat him in 1832.
 
But whatever series of events leads the House to vote for Jackson - why would he be a one-term President?

I was thinking in terms of what he wouldn't have -- he wouldn't have spent the four years prior campaigning for President (as he had in 1828) and his supporters wouldn't have such a chip on their shoulder, translating into less political mobilization and organization, and less political capital.

If Jackson's name had not become synonymous with the new populist democracy, he could be brought down by scandals that OTL Jackson was able to overcome.
 
I was thinking in terms of what he wouldn't have -- he wouldn't have spent the four years prior campaigning for President (as he had in 1828) and his supporters wouldn't have such a chip on their shoulder, translating into less political mobilization and organization, and less political capital.

If Jackson's name had not become synonymous with the new populist democracy, he could be brought down by scandals that OTL Jackson was able to overcome.

What scandals are you talking about? Peggy Schippen? Jackson's marriage to Rachel? Which exactly? He didn't do anything that a lot of other people did. That was part of Jackson's appeal; he is so much like me and not like one of those rich guys in Washington. So yea what are you thinking exactly?

as to OP: I am with Shawn here. If Clay is out of the picture this goes decisively to Adams and if Clay is still there; there is no evidence of any sort of deal. Adams and Clay both denied it to their dieing day. If Adams sr. is any indication of his son's character; the answer to this is hell no
 
Even in 1825-28, having your man in office is a tremendous boost to organization, and visible enough that it might as well be a campaign. Incumbency is always the greatest single asset a candidate can have :) He'd be in a better position for the 1828 campaign than OTL. And as its instigator and nominal leader, he'd still be populist democracy embodied.

What scandals are you thinking of? There were a variety of things which split down party lines, but I can't recall anything that bothered half or more of the electorate. Unless he does us all a favor and shoots Calhoun.
 
Even in 1825-28, having your man in office is a tremendous boost to organization, and visible enough that it might as well be a campaign. Incumbency is always the greatest single asset a candidate can have :) He'd be in a better position for the 1828 campaign than OTL. And as its instigator and nominal leader, he'd still be populist democracy embodied.

I beg to differ -- AIUI, a huge part of Jackson's connection to the populist movement was the furor that the House vote in 1825 caused among his supporters and among those who wanted a more popular democracy.

What scandals are you talking about? Peggy Schippen? Jackson's marriage to Rachel? Which exactly? He didn't do anything that a lot of other people did.

Sorry, I guess scandals was the wrong word, though he had those too -- I mean the unpopular tariff and the rift with John C Calhoun (who still would have become VP) over nullification to isolate him in the south, and the war on banks to isolate him in the north, all set against a man whose base is alot less mobilized than OTL.

Unless he does us all a favor and shoots Calhoun.

That could work too :D

Obligatory quibble - there's no particular evidence Clay had anything to do with the House vote specifically.

as to OP: I am with Shawn here. If Clay is out of the picture this goes decisively to Adams and if Clay is still there; there is no evidence of any sort of deal. Adams and Clay both denied it to their dieing day. If Adams sr. is any indication of his son's character; the answer to this is hell no

OK, how about Clay just decides not to endorse one candidate or the other, because he (accurately) determines that doing so would make him politically toxic to a large number of voters, and would make his dream of becoming President virtually impossible.

Say then that Crawford votes are the put into play -- maybe he dies from the stroke he had or something -- and Louisiana, North Carolina, or both flip a vote for Jackson.

Could that work?
 
Its not dead

I beg to differ -- AIUI, a huge part of Jackson's connection to the populist movement was the furor that the House vote in 1825 caused among his supporters and among those who wanted a more popular democracy.

If Jackson triumphs in 1824 than there is no need for the perpetual campaign if he loses (the election very well may go to the House with a stronger showing by Crawford) and the election goes to the house than Jackson can still use the argument he uses in OTL

Sorry, I guess scandals was the wrong word, though he had those too -- I mean the unpopular tariff and the rift with John C Calhoun (who still would have become VP) over nullification to isolate him in the south, and the war on banks to isolate him in the north, all set against a man whose base is alot less mobilized than OTL.
That could work too :D

Again anything Jackson did was not that out of character for most people. Why do you think he was so popular? Anyway, all you are going here is moving up his first term 4 years. Which, by his standards, was quite successful. The Tariff was popular in the north and west and unpopular in the South while the bank was popular in the South and West and not in the North. But the bank will not be an issue until his possible second term. It is charter until 1832 (IIRC) so he can say sucks and limit it as much as possible but the Bank still has its charter. As for Calhoun once he came out for Nullification he became a regional candidate. He knew this which is why he didn't run in '32. Nullification is only a legit doctrine in S.C. and Georgia not in the upper south and you need the upper south for that doctrine to succeed.

I am not sure what a duel between Calhoun and Jackson would do to the dynamics of the Jackson presidency. If Calhoun wins it looks like an assassination and I don't know how he isn't impeached OTOH if Jackson kills Calhoun its still assassination and still illegal so I dunno. At worst it gives the South a martyr

OK, how about Clay just decides not to endorse one candidate or the other, because he (accurately) determines that doing so would make him politically toxic to a large number of voters, and would make his dream of becoming President virtually impossible.

This would be smart and would set Clay up for a good run in 28 and gives him the ability to play the Jackson card 4 years later. Both of them are just as plain in background as the other. So Clay staying out is a good move. He could simply release his electors. I don't know if there is any rule on this kind of thing. So I don't know the plausibility.

Say then that Crawford votes are the put into play -- maybe he dies from the stroke he had or something -- and Louisiana, North Carolina, or both flip a vote for Jackson.

Could that work?

I touched on Crawford a little earlier but if Clay doesn't run a lot of his votes will go to Crawford. Crawford will be seen as the South's man in this one and so will receive more of those votes than Clay so this election goes to the House again. And I think Adams or Jackson is anyone's guess.
 
Its not dead

Whew :D

This would be smart and would set Clay up for a good run in 28 and gives him the ability to play the Jackson card 4 years later. Both of them are just as plain in background as the other. So Clay staying out is a good move. He could simply release his electors...

I touched on Crawford a little earlier but if Clay doesn't run a lot of his votes will go to Crawford. Crawford will be seen as the South's man in this one and so will receive more of those votes than Clay so this election goes to the House again. And I think Adams or Jackson is anyone's guess.

OK, so let's say Jackson becomes President in 1825 more or less as discussed, and Clay's in a strong(er) position to challenge him.

What do you think, short of something like a Calhoun duel, needs to happen to have Clay beat Jackson for re-election in 1828?
 
Whew :D
OK, so let's say Jackson becomes President in 1825 more or less as discussed, and Clay's in a strong(er) position to challenge him.

What do you think, short of something like a Calhoun duel, needs to happen to have Clay beat Jackson for re-election in 1828?

So in your scenario does Clay run in 24? I doubt it. If so does he serve in Jackson's cabinet? Most of their animosity resulted from Jackson's charges of a corrupt bargain in 24, without that he seems likely for the cabinet. I see no reason Clay couldn't be Sec.State in Jackson's first Cabinet or V.P. if so most of the problems with Peggy Schippen will be butterflied and Jackson may get something done in his first two years.

Lets say he isn't in the cabinet, I think he has to stay relevant
 
So in your scenario does Clay run in 24? I doubt it.

Why? Does having him release his electors after coming in fourth really stretch plausibility?

Lets say he isn't in the cabinet, I think he has to stay relevant

My assumption before was that he would be leading the opposition...

If so does he serve in Jackson's cabinet? Most of their animosity resulted from Jackson's charges of a corrupt bargain in 24, without that he seems likely for the cabinet. I see no reason Clay couldn't be Sec.State in Jackson's first Cabinet or V.P. if so most of the problems with Peggy Schippen will be butterflied and Jackson may get something done in his first two years.

Well, Calhoun's still gonna be VP, but aside from that -- I'll admit that hadn't occurred to me. :eek:
 
I'm still wondering what, short of something like a Calhoun duel, needs to happen to have Clay beat Jackson for re-election in 1828?

If he joins the cabinet as, say, SoS, does that preclude him from doing so? If he doesn't, and stays in Congress as leader of the opposition, can he stay relevant enough to pull it off? Or would Jackson being beat in 1828 remain too implausible?

Either way -- since, if Clay can't win in 1828, there's still 1832 -- what would be the effects of a Clay presidency in the 1830's?
 
J. Parker- Releasing the electors is plausible I don't know if it is legal before a house vote. IIRC, all candidates in our 1824 election went into the house vote. Crawford's delegates left after his stroke and Clay released his to Adams and hence the reason for this thread. So lets say it is Clay Jackson Adams I don't see why Clay would he could very well win on his own. He was the best like establishment guy between Clay and Adams. So I don't like that scenario.


I'm still wondering what, short of something like a Calhoun duel, needs to happen to have Clay beat Jackson for re-election in 1828?

Simply Jackson's political gambles of higher Tariffs and anti-bank policies back fire. Any sort of violent incident with the south over Nullification will make Jackson look bad. So I think the election could go to Clay.

If he joins the cabinet as, say, SoS, does that preclude him from doing so? If he doesn't, and stays in Congress as leader of the opposition, can he stay relevant enough to pull it off? Or would Jackson being beat in 1828 remain too implausible?

Yes, Clay as Speaker is the best option for him to remain relevant although it will be hard to beat the image of an Establishment candidate. So he could lose in '28 and setup Jackson's successor (Van Buren? Not to sure on this their relationship was odd and related to the Peggy Schippen affair)

Either way -- since, if Clay can't win in 1828, there's still 1832 -- what would be the effects of a Clay presidency in the 1830's?

No war with Mexico b/c of Texas. Their may still be a war just not one with more limited aims. Clay may have wanted territory to get us to the Pacific but he didn't want to take Texas. Thought it would create a mess as I recall. The Bank would be back and most likely the next 60 some years of Financial Panics would be mitigated. Also Clay would likely work towards a long term solution to the slavery problem but would most likely fail.

Glenn did a TL on a Clay victorious TL. You should read it, the title may even be Glenn Victorious. If not there was one created and died on the same day. Glenn posted a link in there.
 
IIRC, all candidates in our 1824 election went into the house vote. Crawford's delegates left after his stroke and Clay released his to Adams and hence the reason for this thread.

I'm pretty sure only the top three candidates went to the House vote (so, though Clay ran, he was already out having come in fourth), while Crawford still got (most of) the votes from New York, Virginia, North Carolina*, and Georgia.

*I was mistaken in a previous post which implied it went for Adams

Simply Jackson's political gambles of higher Tariffs and anti-bank policies back fire. Any sort of violent incident with the south over Nullification will make Jackson look bad. So I think the election could go to Clay...

Yes, Clay as Speaker is the best option for him to remain relevant although it will be hard to beat the image of an Establishment candidate.

So bottom line, a Jackson Presidency 1825-28, followed by Clay 1829-36 is plausible?

If so, who do you see as Clay's VP and/or potential Whig successor? From what I can tell, the most likely candidates -- non-southern ones, which I think would be important -- are John Sargeant, William Henry Harrison, and Daniel Webster. I know little about Sargeant, Harrison would probably balk at playing second fiddle to Clay, so that would seem to leave Webster.

Glenn did a TL on a Clay victorious TL. You should read it, the title may even be Glenn Victorious. If not there was one created and died on the same day. Glenn posted a link in there.

Checked it out; the Clay presidency was shortly handled -- no war with Mexico, who gets to keep California, Texas stays a republic seemed to be the gist. Certainly good things to think about, though somehow I think a more pro-slavery successor (does it have to be Pierce, my God :eek:) would be more likely to annex Texas than Cuba.

The Bank would be back and most likely the next 60 some years of Financial Panics would be mitigated. Also Clay would likely work towards a long term solution to the slavery problem but would most likely fail.

Also good stuff... :D
 
Checked out this section of the new Clay bio (by the Heiders), and it seems one of Clay's friends -- a guy from Kentucky who boarded with him, I think, can't recall the name -- approached Adams first, and spent alot of time gauging his reaction before setting up what would become the infamous meeting between the two.

This guy asked Adams, at one point, what he thought of Clay, and JQ gave a... guarded response. What if he hadn't? Could the butterflies from this include Clay deciding to stay neutral between the remaining three candidates, and from that, Jackson becoming President in 1825?
 
So bottom line, a Jackson Presidency 1825-28, followed by Clay 1829-36 is plausible?

IMHO, yes, However Clay could be one term as well. But if we are writing a timeline and Clay is the focus than two terms it is:D.

If so, who do you see as Clay's VP and/or potential Whig successor? From what I can tell, the most likely candidates -- non-southern ones, which I think would be important -- are John Sargeant, William Henry Harrison, and Daniel Webster. I know little about Sargeant, Harrison would probably balk at playing second fiddle to Clay, so that would seem to leave Webster.

Yes Webster is an option how about John Q Adams? For regional Balance, Clay is Kentuckian and Adams is from Mass. While Webster is from (maine? or Mass?) I think someone from the NE is likely. I doubt Harrison because is going to be in his late 50s and so getting older. IOTL Harrison's age (68 in 1840) was a serious concern. So I think Webster is likely.


Checked it out; the Clay presidency was shortly handled -- no war with Mexico, who gets to keep California, Texas stays a republic seemed to be the gist. Certainly good things to think about, though somehow I think a more pro-slavery successor (does it have to be Pierce, my God :eek:) would be more likely to annex Texas than Cuba.
Also good stuff... :D

I didn't read all of it. Just the first few updates. Well researched but I thought Clay would be more likely to go to War. The problem with Pierce is that his prominence in NH politics is due to his time in Mexico so I didn't like that too much. but oh well.
 
Checked out this section of the new Clay bio (by the Heiders), and it seems one of Clay's friends -- a guy from Kentucky who boarded with him, I think, can't recall the name -- approached Adams first, and spent alot of time gauging his reaction before setting up what would become the infamous meeting between the two.

This guy asked Adams, at one point, what he thought of Clay, and JQ gave a... guarded response. What if he hadn't? Could the butterflies from this include Clay deciding to stay neutral between the remaining three candidates, and from that, Jackson becoming President in 1825?


That sounds like a great POD. I suggest you write it after Cortesia
 
After picking Clay's VP and successor, I thought about 1840, and it seems the most plausible candidates looking at OTL are Van Buren and Lewis Cass; since van Buren is less likely to be in an earlier Jackson cabinet, I went with Cass.

So with that, here's my rough idea of the Presidents, so far:

Andrew Jackson (1825-28)
Henry Clay (1829-36)
JQ Adams (1837-40)
Lewis Cass (1841-48)

Now, from what I see, this would mean the American system -- the National Bank, heavy push of internal improvements, and the like -- essentially reigns supreme during the 1830's*. This is then followed by a major push toward expansionism, including a likely war with Mexico, and popular sovereignty to go with it, in the 1840's.

Seem plausible? If so, how can you see this playing out?

*yes, the President has to get Congress to move said plan, but, as Jackson showed, the WH can be very effective, even at this early date, of pushing the inhabitant's agenda
 
Another thought on this I had -- could the House choosing the candidate with a clear plurality butterfly politics, making three way or four way ties less problematic, and so that we see the House take upon the role more often?
 
Top