Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
How would have the political situation had developed by 1860 with a two-term Clay Administration rather than the a Jackson one, or even more intriguing a Whig dominated two-term Clay Administration in the 40's? Would be interested in brief opinions on each "what if" scenario taken separately
Regards,
Spartan
Boy, that's a tough "what if." Since it's vaguely relevant, I'll begin by noting that Clay's best chance of winning the presidency probably came in 1840 -- the year he wasn't nominated. The Whigs held their convention in December 1839 and nominated Harrison. There was a brief economic recovery in 1839, and the perception at the time was that Harrison was more electable. In 1840, the economy collapsed again. If the Whigs had held their convention in mid-1840, the Whigs' concerns about electability would have been less, Clay would likely have been nominated and would likely have won.
Certainly Clay as president during 1841-45 would not have pressed for the admission of Texas as Tyler did during the latter half of his presidency, but after that it's hard to say. Would Clay have been re-elected in 1844? Presumably, the Whigs would have enacted their full economic package of legislation in 1841 and 1842 under Clay, but there is no particular reason to think it would have speeded economic recovery. Would voters have become disenchanted and thrown the scoundrels out in 1844? Or would they have given Clay and the Whigs a second term in the belief that things were moving in right direction, however slowly?
Clay got the nomination in 1844, but his stance on annexation lost him the election after the Democrats dumped Van Buren (who shared Clay's views on annexation) for Polk. Would the Dems have hit upon the same magic formula in our hypothetical world? Impossible to know. Assuming that they did not, let us posit that Clay remained for two terms, through March 1849. Then you're in such a different world that it's hard to know what would have happened. The economic recovery was well underway by 1848. Would the Whigs have gone from triumph to triumph based on their economic record? And if so, with whom? (Not Zach Taylor! Millard Fillmore?) Or would the Dems, desperate for victory, and anxious to avoid economic issues, have used Texas as their springboard to victory in 1852?
Meanwhile, none of this would have necessarily derailed the approaching crisis over Kansas. Perhaps if the Texas and Kansas issues had peaked at the same time, the war would have come sooner! Or perhaps not.
Even without the Mexican War and/or Texas Annexation, slavery in the territories is still going to be an issue; I think it comes to a head about 20 years later though.
came to a head, because the Southern states were losing their legislative power, the White House and the future Supreme Court appointments.
Clearly slavery would be dealt its slow cuts, and not one hammer blow ending slavery. But cuts that would suppress the market in slaves.
Unfortunately for southern wealth, much of it would be lost in the four years of the Civil War, with the total loss of slavery, with no compensation, a direct result of secession.
I tend to agree, that a Clay Presidency would probably, have had little effect on the root cause of the CW; the growing sectionalism of the country (and it's political processes) because of slavery.
Although, it is possible that a success of the Whig economic policies, 'might' have changed the economic landscape of the whole country, such that it sparked an interest and opportunities, for risk taking entreprenuership in the south. Which results in a growing true middle class not tied closely to the slave trade. Resulting in a more open minded acceptance of the idea that a civilization without slavery was not only possible, but also acceptable.
From what little I've read of Henry Clay, he seems to have been a master politician who would have liked to see slavery die a peaceful death. As he didn't have the clout to win the presidency, I'd surmise that the country wasn't ready for him.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I have tremendous ambivalence about Henry Clay. At a dinner party, he was magnetic. His oratory was apparently spellbinding -- what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall during one of his magnificent speeches! His instincts on the Union were admirable. In so many ways, he was such a sympathetic and wonderful figure.
But when he scented the presidency, or presidential power, he simply went out of control. For example, and although it is possible to construct different scenarios, it seems to me that Clay went out of his way to humiliate and destroy President Tyler and read him out of the Whig party -- and drive Tyler into the arms of Secretaries of State such as Abel Upshur and John Calhoun, and into the idea of rescuing his presidency via the admission of Texas -- in the process.
On balance, I think it's best that history worked out the way it did. I don't know how or why, but I suspect that Clay as president would have been a disaster.
As all presidents seemed to have been somewhat of a disaster, I suppose Clay can't be exempted.
Heck. Recommend a good book on Clay and I'll see about improving my perception.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
A Two-Term Henry Clay Presidency 
Linear Mode
