WI: No Corrupt Bargain?

What if John Quincy Adams doesn't make the politically disastrous decision to appoint Henry Clay as Secretary of State? Either changing the conditions of the deal (appointing Clay men to other positions) or tossing it out entirely (Clay had the choice of Adams or Jackson, and their was no way he was going to support Jackson).

Could this salvage Adams for a hypothetical second term? Would Clay continue being Speaker? What else would would happen from there involving the Whig Party?
 
From what I remember from my American History course last year, the reason Quincy Adams and Henry Clay made that arrangement was so the vote wouldn't go to the House.

It was thought that if the vote went to the house the VERY popular Jackson would get elected.



For there to be no corrupt bargain you'd have to remove Jackson from the equation entirely, or have Henry Clay just give his votes away, without any want of office (Which would be completely uncharacteristic of him).

You could make New Orleans a loss, completely making Jackson irrelevant.
That would cause a TON of cultural butterflies though, even though the war was "over" by then.
 
Theoretically speaking, while this does not assure a second term for Adams, it makes it more likely. Adams is remembered as one of the best Secretaries of State, and one of the worst Presidents, in U.S. history. Removing the influence of the Corrupt Bargain could potentially butterfly some of that away.

I would say the best bet for President J. Q. Adams in this case is simply to leave Mr. Clay out of the Administration entirely. If that isn't possible, send him abroad instead. Did he like blonds or brunettes?

Mr. Henry Clay, Sr., Minister to the Court of St. James's?

Then later, once Mr. Adams has won a second term, that is when he should name Mr. Clay as his Secretary of State, lining him up for his own run.
 
Last edited:
Man, I remember asking that question way back when -- only I saw Clay being the one to come out on top...

Interesting, thank you for this little gem.
---

To the other two, would Clay really have been so willing to screw over Adams into giving him a job that he'd risk Jackson getting into office?
 
Interesting, thank you for this little gem.
---

To the other two, would Clay really have been so willing to screw over Adams into giving him a job that he'd risk Jackson getting into office?

Henry Clay did not want to see Andrew Jackson elected President in even the most unusual circumstances, so I'd see him speaking for Adams even if Adams had no intentions of repaying him for it.

My thinking is that the best bet for Mr. Adams once he is in office is to name Clay the new U.S. Ambassador to some fairly prestigious foreign country, maybe the British or the French, and then name nobody else from Clay's backers to offices in his Administration.

Then, if he manages to win a second term in office, he appoints Clay as his new Secretary of State, because at this point the public is less likely to link his doing so to thoughts of some "backroom deal" of some kind, and are likely to see it more as what it is, which is President Adams calling upon a statesman of great skill to serve in his Cabinet in a senior position.

Mr. Adams has his second term in office, Mr. Clay is Secretary of State and thus in a perfect position to make his own run at the White House, and Andrew Jackson is not elected until later, if at all.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember from my American History course last year, the reason Quincy Adams and Henry Clay made that arrangement was so the vote wouldn't go to the House.

It was thought that if the vote went to the house the VERY popular Jackson would get elected.

Errr... no. It DID go to the House, which is why Clay, as Speaker, was so important.
 
Henry Clay did not want to see Andrew Jackson elected President in even the most unusual circumstances, so I'd see him speaking for Adams even if Adams had no intentions of repaying him for it.

My thinking is that the best bet for Mr. Adams once he is in office is to name Clay the new U.S. Ambassador to some fairly prestigious foreign country, maybe the British or the French, and then name nobody else from Clay's backers to offices in his Administration.

Then, if he manages to win a second term in office, he appoints Clay as his new Secretary of State, because at this point the public is less likely to link his doing so to thoughts of some "backroom deal" of some kind, and are likely to see it more as what it is, which is President Adams calling upon a statesman of great skill to serve in his Cabinet in a senior position.

Mr. Adams has his second term in office, Mr. Clay is Secretary of State and thus in a perfect position to make his own run at the White House, and Andrew Jackson is not elected until later, if at all.

I like this idea, but would appointing Clay to even a smaller, albeit still prestigious, position like Ambassador to France/Britain make the opposition more enraged than if Adams hadn't?
 
I like this idea, but would appointing Clay to even a smaller, albeit still prestigious, position like Ambassador to France/Britain make the opposition more enraged than if Adams hadn't?

Mr. Clay had spoken for Adams, and the President clearly owed him, so he could maybe get away with the Ambassadorship to London or to Paris.

Once in his second term, he can recall Clay to serve as Secretary of State, thus giving Clay a realistic shot at the White House once Adams leaves office.

That's how it worked back then. Vice-Presidents did not become Presidents in those days. Secretaries of State, however, did. This is Clay's best chance.
 
Top