WI William Henry Harrison recovers from his illness

Hmm... from my school days I remember Harrison was a Virginian, favored slavery, protege of Washington, made his political career in the NW territory, and had a mixed record as governor of Indiana Territory/State. His vision for the Indiana territory seems to have been a reproduction of tidewater Virginia. Large farm estates, small towns with some tradesmen, & a attempt to write 'lifetime indentured servitude' into law for providing a docile farm labor force. Slavery was excluded by the North West Territory Ordnance. Harrisons vision was overrun by a mass of illiterate barefooted mass of migrant settlers who had a passion for landownership, dreams of becoming sucessfull merchants, and a instinct for politics. Harrison never did seem to have grasped who these people were or how to harness & lead their energy and passions.

As president he would have been a second generation of the Southern landed gentry Washington, Jefferson, ect... represented, but perhaps without the good sense of the former & educated idealism of the later.
 
Tyler vetoed most of the Whig economic program. Harrison would not have done so. (In his inauguration address he expressed a very limited view of the veto power: it should be used only to block unconstitutional legislation or hasty legislation which had not been thought through or legislation which violated the rights of minorities. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/harrison.asp) Nor would he have favored the acquisition of Texas. (Southern Democrats might agitate for the latter anyway, but without the "bully pulpits" of Tyler in the White House and Calhoun as Secretary of State, they would not get very far.) The result might be that at least for a while, the US would be divided by economic issues rather than slavery. Such a conflict would be much less divisive sectionally, since the Whig economic program had supporters (and opponents) in both North and South, East and West. Not only did many Southerners favor internal improvements, but even the once-hated tariff was staunchly defended by Southern Whig Senators like Georgia's John M. Berrien, North Carolina's Willie P. Mangum, and Virginia's William C. Rives. When the Whigs won the 1843 Tennessee state elections, the *Nashville Banner* boasted that the results showed that Tennessee was "A WHIG STATE--A NATIONAL BANK STATE--A TARIFF STATE--A CLAY STATE."

Clay would not however get the 1844 Whig nomination by default. Harrison did show some resentment (in his brief term as president) of Clay's attempts to dominate the Whig Party, and it is possible that Harrison would use his influence to try to get Webster nominated in 1844. (Harrison had pledged himself to serve only a single term, and indeed supported a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to one term.) Still, I think that Clay's popularity with the Whigs was such was that he would be the most likely Whig candidate in 1844; with the Texas issue less prominent, Van Buren has a better chance than in OTL to be the Democratic nominee.
 
Eventually Texas and then slavery issues would come up though, even if it did later than OTL. Assuming that Harrison's survival butterflies a Civil War/secession scenario to occur several years or even a decade later, what would that mean? Is it possible that additional states of the Upper South, like Tennessee, stay loyal to the Union?
 
Top