WI: Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor Inverted

What if Winfield Scott won the Whig nomination in 1848 and went on to be elected President and then four years later, Scott declined to run again and Zachary Taylor was the Whig nominee? Is this scenario plausible? How would Scott do as president instead of Taylor?What would happen next?What if?
 
I don't know I thought this was a Mexican War ATL where their respective roles were reversed. Why not try that?
 
What if Winfield Scott won the Whig nomination in 1848 and went on to be elected President and then four years later, Scott declined to run again and Zachary Taylor was the Whig nominee? Is this scenario plausible? How would Scott do as president instead of Taylor?What would happen next?What if?

Taylor disliked Scott so much that if the latter won the nomination, Taylor might run as an independent--which would help assure a Cass victory. "Taylor's personal animosity toward Scott was widely known among Whig leaders, and many dismissed as fantasy the assumption that Scott would inherit Taylor's support. No nomination, they argued accurately, was more likely to spur a vengeful Taylor into an independent candidacy than that of Scott, and if Taylor remained in the race, realistic Whigs understood, the Whigs could not win." Michael F. Holt, *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party,* p. 318. http://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA318
 
Would it be more plausible if Taylor didn't run in 1848 and the Whigs nominated scott and then, after four years of a disastrous Scott administration, war-hero Taylor is drafted.
 
Would it be more plausible if Taylor didn't run in 1848 and the Whigs nominated scott and then, after four years of a disastrous Scott administration, war-hero Taylor is drafted.

It's questionable whether Taylor's health by 1852 would allow him to be a plausible presidential candidate. http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g12.htm But in any event if one Whig general turns out to be a disaster as president, it is hardly likely that the American people will promptly turn to another. My own view is that President Scott, because he would support compromise, would more likely lose support from northern than from southern Whigs--and the dissatisfied northern Whigs are not likely to favor Taylor as an alternative...
 
Taylor disliked Scott so much that if the latter won the nomination, Taylor might run as an independent--which would help assure a Cass victory. "Taylor's personal animosity toward Scott was widely known among Whig leaders, and many dismissed as fantasy the assumption that Scott would inherit Taylor's support. No nomination, they argued accurately, was more likely to spur a vengeful Taylor into an independent candidacy than that of Scott, and if Taylor remained in the race, realistic Whigs understood, the Whigs could not win." Michael F. Holt, *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party,* p. 318. http://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA318
Would Taylor split the Whig vote? After all, he was apolitical before running for the presidency as a Whig OTL, it is possible that he would draw equally from both parties.
 
Top