WI: President Clay

My question here is a pretty simple one, and just a quick idea that I had; what if Henry Clay won the Presidential election of 1844? He only narrowly lost to Polk, and the outcome could probably switch fairly easily, maybe with Tyler deciding to run with the party he considered creating which would have drawn support from more Democrats than Whigs. What would a President Clay be like? I imagine that he would oppose a war with Mexico, and might would not want to annex Texas, though that may be unavoidable by 1844.

The Whigs were opposed to second terms mainly, but its not like they ever really had much a chance in practice, and Clay clearly had Presidential aspirations. If he is seen as the best candidate, its probably not too hard to get him to run again in 1848. The problem then arises that Clay dies in 1852, an election year, but in June, five months before the election. We possibly then end up with President Frelinghuysen, at least from June to November. Would Frelinghuysen pursue a term of his own in 1852? Could he win?
 
See Gary Kornblith's "Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise"
https://web.archive.org/web/2017082...te/assets/documents/02_JAH_2003_kornblith.pdf

"The key to peace in my counterfactual scenario is a victory by Henry Clay over James K. Polk in the very close presidential election of 1844. Had Clay won 5,107 more votes in New York State (out of more than 485,000 cast there), he would have become president. As a result Texas would almost certainly have remained an independent republic in 1845, and the United States would not have gone to war with Mexico the following year. Based as it is on a highly plausible turn of events, this counterfactual scenario promises to advance our understanding of thecauses of the Civil War...

"Having established that a Clay victory in 1844 was thoroughly plausible, we can, proceeding with our thought experiment, consider the implications of such a victory for American political and social development. First, we must ponder the fate of Texas. Unable to point to the electoral outcome as an endorsement of his policies, Tyler would not have succeeded in pushing through Congress a joint resolution authorizing annexation before he left office. At the urging of the president-elect, Whigs in the Senate—southern as well as northern—would have cited Clay’s victory to justify their continued opposition to annexation. Had Henry Clay taken office as president on March 4, 1845, he would have enjoyed a good deal of flexibility in crafting his policy toward the Lone Star Republic...

"In 1843 George Gordon, Lord Aberdeen, the British foreign secretary, floated a proposal coupling Mexican recognition of Texan independence with abolition and British assistance. Sam Houston, then president of the Texas republic, briefly displayed some interest. But Aberdeen withdrew the suggestion of a quid pro quo the following year, and thereafter he temporized on the question of Texan abolition for fear of encouraging American annexation. Given competing foreign policy priorities, the British were unprepared to risk major involvement in Texas in the face of American opposition. A President Clay would have objected to any British effort to promote abolition in Texas for the same reason he opposed annexation of Texas: his overriding concern was the maintenance of sectional harmony and American political stability.

"In all likelihood, Aberdeen and Clay would have joined diplomatic forces in support of Texan sovereignty. In early 1845 the British and French undertook a new initiative to convince Mexico to recognize Texan independence, and Mexican authorities reluctantly agreed. Although the Mexican government would have felt less compelled to comply had Clay rather than Polk been elected, it could not have comfortably ignored the combined pressure of Great Britain, France, and the United States. We may postulate that sooner or later during Clay’s presidency Mexico would have recognized Texan independence and entered into international arbitration over boundary issues. Even had the Mexican government continued to refuse official recognition, it would probably have shrunk from open warfare and allowed the Lone Star Republic to consolidate authority and power further..."

As for California, Kornblith writes:

"The destiny of California under a Clay presidency is harder to project with confidence. Even without the advent of war with the United States, Mexico would have sustained its claims to sovereignty only with difficulty. In early 1844 the beleaguered governor of California, Manuel Micheltorena, recommended to his superiors in Mexico City that they consider handing the province over to British creditors rather than let it fall into the hands of American immigrants and californios (Californians of Hispanic descent). 'In August 1844,' wrote David J. Weber, 'a group of californios met secretly with British vice consul James Forbes in Monterey and told him they were ready to drive Micheltorena out of California, declare independence, and ask for British protection.' Without instructions from London, Forbes was stymied, but the rebels nonetheless succeeded in ousting Micheltorena in early 1845. They stopped short of declaring independence, however, and soon divided among themselves. Meanwhile, Americans in California prepared to take matters into their own hands, and in June 1846 they staged the Bear Flag Revolt. 'Even if [the Mexican-American War] had not occurred,' Weber asserted, 'Americans in California had become numerous enough to think they could play the 'Texas game' and win.'

"Whether the discovery of gold in 1848 would have prompted President Clay to show more enthusiasm for annexing California than he did for annexing Texas is hard to know. Fellow Whig (but political rival) Daniel Webster had long hoped to acquire San Francisco and the surrounding area for the United States. Yet Clay was more sensitive than Webster to sectional tensions and to the explosive consequences of adding new territory to the federal domain. As with Texas, Clay might well have preferred strong commercial ties with California to the national and international controversies sparked by annexation. For this reason, he would probably have encouraged California to remain independent so long as it avoided an open alliance with Great Britain or another foreign power. Certainly, the possibility that California could have flourished as a separate nation deserves serious consideration. The historical geographer D.W. Meinig has written, 'Was there ever a region better designed by Nature for separate geopolitical existence than Alta California--a land so distinctive and attractive, set apart by the great unbroken wall of the Sierra Nevada backed by desert wastelands, fronting on the world's greatest ocean, focused on one of the world's most magnificent harbors?'

"Alternatively, under pressure from Democratic expansionists in Congress, a President Clay might have proposed pairing the annexation of Texas and California--a reprise of the Missouri Compromise with its coupling of Missouri and Maine. But that scenario seems less probable than the establishment of an independent California because it presupposes Mexico's peaceful acquiescence, a most unlikely development. In keeping with past policy, Britain would have supported Mexican objections to American annexation (as distinct from Texan or Californian independence) and Clay would have backed away from a war for territorial expansion. His commitment to diplomacy, rather than force of arms, would almost surely have curtailed the country's westward growth for the duration of his presidency..."

Kornblith argues that with Clay as president and no Mexican War, US political parties would continue to divide on economic issues (banks, tariffs, etc.) with the slavery issue muted. The whole Wilmot Proviso controversy of OTL would not take place, and it was this controversy which gave birth to the Compromise of 1850 with the application of "popular sovereignty" to the newly acquired southwestern territories. It was this same doctrine of "popular sovereignty" that was applied to Kansas-Nebraska in 1854, with fatal results to the second party system, and the emergence of a new party, the Republicans, whose victory would lead to southern secession.

(There are all sorts of problems with this scenario, as Kornblith recognizes. For one thing, the expansionist Democrats, having lost in 1844, might win in 1848...)
 
I had a similar train of thought though mine led to th direction of Manifest Destiny being suffocated without Texas nationalism taking the wind out of the sails. Why expand if the people there will not respect the government and probably secede?

Potentially, if a Civil War happens, Texas joins the CSA and then Mexico gets involved...
 
I don't think those speculations are inevitable, but they are plausible.

So the U.S. and Britain cooperate to convert much of the OTL Mexican Cession to independent American settler republics. At least Texas and California. But why stop there? If that is the approach, its probably in both powers interest that these republics be smaller and more numerous (i.e., more easily controlled from the outside). So you probably get an independent Deseret. Maybe later an independent amalgam of Colorado and New Mexico and Arizona (or maybe only Colorado and northern NM, with southern NM and southern AZ becoming a separate entity, or being gobbled up by Texas). Nevada probably gets split between Deseret and California, with California getting the valuable silver parts.

Once the precedent is established, it may even extend to the northern tier of Mexican states.

Maybe southern adventurism will go a little easier in TTL if the idea is to set up independent republics. The North may not mind as much.

Lots of different ways this could go, but one possibility is an informal Anglo-American grouping in world affairs.

Edit: I can also see an attempt to make a separate North California and South California.
 
Last edited:
More: at the beginning of this POD, the Oregon issue is still unresolved. If Clay cooperates with John Bull to create a Texas and California Republic, the easiest diplomatic solution to the dispute may be to agree to make an independent country with navigation rights and trade rights for Britain and the USA. It would consist of OTL western BC and western Washington.
 
More: at the beginning of this POD, the Oregon issue is still unresolved. If Clay cooperates with John Bull to create a Texas and California Republic, the easiest diplomatic solution to the dispute may be to agree to make an independent country with navigation rights and trade rights for Britain and the USA. It would consist of OTL western BC and western Washington.

And there was already a Provisional Government of Oregon that was acting in a semi-independent manner. Although I suspect that Clay would be loath to give up territory which many Americans viewed to be rightfully there's and which was the nation's only access to the Pacific. It wasn't filling with people too quickly; meaning Oregon wasn't going to tip the sectional balance in the country and, after going against Texas annexation, I think Clay would be very sensitive to claims that he was weak and simply giving away American land (which is definitely going to be the charge the Democrats will lob at him). I suspect that a similar compromise to OTL is in the cards; especially if Webster is brought into the administration in a diplomatic role.
 
Good points, but let me point out that what is now the OTL state of Oregon is not in dispute and would remain in US hands in any case. So there is access to the Pacific. Where I agree with you is on the possible political optics of the situation and on Oregon, though being on the Pacific, not having any world-class natural ports.

But what makes it tempting would be if the Brits were willing to give up B.C. in return for part of what is now Washington State being given up.

On the politics of it, too, consider that if Clay takes too hard a line the Democrats will say that he was afraid of war with a weak power when he thought it would benefit the South, but is willing to risk war with a superpower to benefit the north. Southern Whigs may not be fond of this at all.

One move Clay could make with respect to both this hypothetical Free State of Columbia and the Republic of Northern California would be to have an explicit statement in whatever treaty or agreement saying that the Brits agree that the states can choose to join the U.S. after a certain amount of years and on the payment of an indemnity etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
A serious difference regarding the usual Amerocentricism: if California were to declare independence it would almost certainly be a Californio-dominated British protectorate, not a Texas-style pro-American Republic. There simply weren't enough Anglo Californians to actually sustain allegiance to an American state. The California Republic of OTL was only declared as a poor copycat of the Texian rebellion and only because Mexico was getting destroyed in the war. Without a Mexican-American war, the British (who would still want to check U.S. expansion, would welcome a California protectorate due to further leverage in the Oregon issue, and who had waaaay more influence over Mexico than any foreign nation but France) would want to fortify their position rather than just go to the US and say "yeah, okay, here, have one of the best territories in the world no strings attached, our treat".

When gold is struck in California, the Californian government would probably accept a lot more migrants from Southern Europe and Latin America (and the Brits might even funnel South and East Asian Labour as they did in their colonies), but probably follow suit as the Canadian government and be wary of American migrants.

People here paint the Texas issue as some inevitable manner of Americans being ordained by God to swarm across North America, but the fact that no Texan-style endeavours happened in Canada, Alaska or really even the Caribbean (Walker's folly not included because that was just simply a real lucky idiot) point to American expansion over Mexico being caused more by Mexico's poor choices regarding immigration and management of migrants, and not due to some mystical inevitability.
 
No, I think California is pretty likely to get Zerg rushed.

If the Canadian prairies and Ontario didn't get 'Zerg rushed' I don't see any reason why California, isolated from the rest of the US by the largest mountain range in North America and huge deserts, would, other than circumstances like OTL where the US actively encouraged migration there.
 
The Californians will do what the Canadians did: tell the Americans to leave when they showed up at the border. They were only showing up by a few routes so they wouldn't be hard to police. And once the first batch gets turned around, the rest will get the idea.
 
Prominent Californios wanted the investment and productivity the American settlers were bringing. There were already a number of prominent American-Californians before the Mexican-American war with more on their way. And that's before the gold rush.
 
Top