Henry Clay wins the US Presidency in 1844

[WolfBear]

In real life, the 1844 election was very closely fought, with James K. Polk only very narrowly beating Henry Clay (a small popular vote swing would have secured New York and the election to Clay):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1844_United_States_presidential_election

What if Clay wins New York and thus the 1844 election? What would his policy towards Texas, California, slavery, et cetera have been? Any thoughts on this, @History Learner @Circle of Willis @Zyobot @Ricardolindo?

 

[raharris1973]

We know that his priority will be internal development and improvement over territorial expansion.

This time, Federal patronage of internal improvements would include patronage of railroads, not just harbors, canals, and turnpikes.

He would support a higher tariff and more federal patronage of education and science.

On the issue of territorial frontiers, in a vacuum, he would leave the country's boundaries alone. But external developments might not give him a choice. For example, he might be content to keep the status quo of Anglo-American co-Dominion over the Oregon Country going, but if things were coming to a head to force an ultimate definition of separate British and American spheres, he would seek to ensure there is an American sphere or at least an American-aligned non-British sphere.

More important than President-elect Clay's decisions will be the decisions of outgoing President Tyler. Will he, and the outgoing Congress, respect the wishes of President-elect Clay to *not* annex Texas? Or will they vote it through during their remaining months in power, leaving Clay with a fait accompli.

If Tyler and the Congress do the latter, and annex and admit Texas, Clay will be stuck with Texas in the Union of which he is President. But his Administration is still not stuck entirely on Polk's path. He does not need to endorse or fully support the maximal interpretation of the Texas boundary or place federal troops in those forward positions. So unless the Mexican government elects to declare war on the USA, or attack parts of Texas that Clay and the Whigs accept as indisputably part of Texas and the United States, the Mexican-American War can be avoided.

Now American Mormon settlement around Great Salt Lake probably cannot be avoided. And whether a successful California independence revolt, whether led by Anglophones or by Spanish-speaking Californios can be avoided, is another question.

 

[WolfBear]

We know that his priority will be internal development and improvement over territorial expansion.

This time, Federal patronage of internal improvements would include patronage of railroads, not just harbors, canals, and turnpikes.

He would support a higher tariff and more federal patronage of education and science.

On the issue of territorial frontiers, in a vacuum, he would leave the country's boundaries alone. But external developments might not give him a choice. For example, he might be content to keep the status quo of Anglo-American co-Dominion over the Oregon Country going, but if things were coming to a head to force an ultimate definition of separate British and American spheres, he would seek to ensure there is an American sphere or at least an American-aligned non-British sphere.

More important than President-elect Clay's decisions will be the decisions of outgoing President Tyler. Will he, and the outgoing Congress, respect the wishes of President-elect Clay to *not* annex Texas? Or will they vote it through during their remaining months in power, leaving Clay with a fait accompli.

If Tyler and the Congress do the latter, and annex and admit Texas, Clay will be stuck with Texas in the Union of which he is President. But his Administration is still not stuck entirely on Polk's path. He does not need to endorse or fully support the maximal interpretation of the Texas boundary or place federal troops in those forward positions. So unless the Mexican government elects to declare war on the USA, or attack parts of Texas that Clay and the Whigs accept as indisputably part of Texas and the United States, the Mexican-American War can be avoided.

Now American Mormon settlement around Great Salt Lake probably cannot be avoided. And whether a successful California independence revolt, whether led by Anglophones or by Spanish-speaking Californios can be avoided, is another question.

I suspect that Clay will aim for a Nueces River western border for Texas, thus leaving Mexico the space between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.

As for the Mormons, they could theoretically become Mexicans, no? Similar to the Romney family later on? (George Romney was born in Mexico.) Or was Mexican rule intolerable for the Mormons back then?

As for an independence revolt in California, they would likely have to win this on their own if Clay's America is not going to help them. Though there is the possibility of them waiting until someone friendlier will win the White House later on.

 

[WolfBear]

The whole light green territory Clay will likely agree to give to Mexico in exchange for Mexico recognizing the US's claim to the rest of Texas.

 

[raharris1973]

As for the Mormons, they could theoretically become Mexicans, no? Similar to the Romney family later on? (George Romney was born in Mexico.) Or was Mexican rule intolerable for the Mormons back then?

Being Mexican shouldn't be intolerable.

As for an independence revolt in California, they would likely have to win this on their own if Clay's America is not going to help them.

Yes, on their own.

The whole light green territory Clay will likely agree to give to Mexico in exchange for Mexico recognizing the US's claim to the rest of Texas.

He would be up for that. Mexico City authorities, might not be ready to say 'deal' right away out of hurt pride over the loss of Texas, but they probably wouldn't be so dumb as to be hostile.

 

[WolfBear]

He would be up for that. Mexico City authorities, might not be ready to say 'deal' right away out of hurt pride over the loss of Texas, but they probably wouldn't be so dumb as to be hostile.

Well, I mean, they're not going to be able to reconquer Texas by force. They simply don't have the strength for this and, in any case, the US might not allow this. So, even if they refuse to deal immediately, it's only a matter of time until they change their minds. Clay can even tell them something along the lines of "Resolve this dispute in your favor right now while you still can, or else a future, more aggressive US administration could use this dispute as an excuse to go to war against you and take even more of your territory!" But if the Mexicans think that they can actually win a future war against the US, well, ...

 

[stevep]

Would a California revolution occur without the US conquest? It might depend on if/when gold is discovered as that meant a flood of people from all over the world which would make it difficult for the strongman in Mexico city to maintain control. However if the settlement is predominantly Anglo as OTL and it succeeded would it seek to join the US or to become a separate nation?

 

[WolfBear]

Would a California revolution occur without the US conquest? It might depend on if/when gold is discovered as that meant a flood of people from all over the world which would make it difficult for the strongman in Mexico city to maintain control. However if the settlement is predominantly Anglo as OTL and it succeeded would it seek to join the US or to become a separate nation?

I suspect that it would seek to join the US, though there is the possibility of them wanting to create their own country due to them not wanting to share their gold with the US. Still, eventually their gold is going to run out, so ...

But the timing for a US intervention needs to be right if one is actually needed. Californians could rebel against Mexico, but there's no guarantee that they will be as successful as Texas--at least in the long(er)-run--without direct US military intervention.

 

[stevep]

I suspect that it would seek to join the US, though there is the possibility of them wanting to create their own country due to them not wanting to share their gold with the US. Still, eventually their gold is going to run out, so ...

But the timing for a US intervention needs to be right if one is actually needed. Californians could rebel against Mexico, but there's no guarantee that they will be as successful as Texas--at least in the long(er)-run--without direct US military intervention.

Possibly but they are further away from Mexico City, both geographically and in terms of travel time/terrain so harder for the Mexican regime to pressurize. Also they might find another protector in terms of the UK possibly.

The gold will run out eventually but it does have a lot of use while its there and with some development there are a lot of resources there.

Since most of the migrants who support revolution against Mexican rule were from the US a link with that is most likely but then it took Texas some years before it decided to throw its lot in with the US and if a USCW develops that could leave opinion in an independent California divided.

 

[WolfBear]

Possibly but they are further away from Mexico City, both geographically and in terms of travel time/terrain so harder for the Mexican regime to pressurize. Also they might find another protector in terms of the UK possibly.

The gold will run out eventually but it does have a lot of use while its there and with some development there are a lot of resources there.

Since most of the migrants who support revolution against Mexican rule were from the US a link with that is most likely but then it took Texas some years before it decided to throw its lot in with the US and if a USCW develops that could leave opinion in an independent California divided.

The USCW might not develop at all, or at least not develop on schedule, without the US conquering/acquiring California beforehand since a huge part of the dispute that led to the USCW was whether or not slavery should expand into the new western territories of the US.

 

[stevep]

The USCW might not develop at all, or at least not develop on schedule, without the US conquering/acquiring California beforehand since a huge part of the dispute that led to the USCW was whether or not slavery should expand into the new western territories of the US.

Possibly although that only really added one new free state once the south lost the debate in California - which was ironic since it was the south that pushed most heavily for war with Mexico because of its hopes of expanding slavery in those territories. However the big issues were elsewhere, especially in the territories of the Louisiana purchase where despite being in theory being open to slavery were increasingly closed to it because of the opposition of the settlers there. It was Kansas that was 'bleeding' after all and tension in Missouri. As such I can see growing tension over the future of slavery and its spread or restriction.

However with different circumstances it could be delayed some time or possibly avoided if there was a peaceful secession - although that in turn would likely distract the US. Plus such is only likely if the President/government is felt to be clearly opposed to the future of slavery as that's the reason the south is likely to secede so it also means its more likely to oppose suce a secession movement by force.

 

[WolfBear]

Possibly although that only really added one new free state once the south lost the debate in California - which was ironic since it was the south that pushed most heavily for war with Mexico because of its hopes of expanding slavery in those territories. However the big issues were elsewhere, especially in the territories of the Louisiana purchase where despite being in theory being open to slavery were increasingly closed to it because of the opposition of the settlers there. It was Kansas that was 'bleeding' after all and tension in Missouri. As such I can see growing tension over the future of slavery and its spread or restriction.

However with different circumstances it could be delayed some time or possibly avoided if there was a peaceful secession - although that in turn would likely distract the US. Plus such is only likely if the President/government is felt to be clearly opposed to the future of slavery as that's the reason the south is likely to secede so it also means its more likely to oppose suce a secession movement by force.

I don't know if the Kansas-Nebraska Act would still happen if the US didn't acquire California beforehand. I'll let someone more knowledgeable, such as @History Learner, comment on that. And Yes, the US would obviously oppose any secession attempts by anyone regardless of who was in the White House. Andrew Jackson came down hard on South Carolina in 1832-1833 during the tariff/nullification crisis, after all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis

Honestly, with slavery, the most sensible move (ignoring basic morality) would have been to extend the Missouri Compromise line all of the way to the Pacific coast.

 

[stevep]

I don't know if the Kansas-Nebraska Act would still happen if the US didn't acquire California beforehand. I'll let someone more knowledgeable, such as @History Learner, comment on that. And Yes, the US would obviously oppose any secession attempts by anyone regardless of who was in the White House. Andrew Jackson came down hard on South Carolina in 1832-1833 during the tariff/nullification crisis, after all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis

Honestly, with slavery, the most sensible move (ignoring basic morality) would have been to extend the Missouri Compromise line all of the way to the Pacific coast.

Agree its difficult to see a secession without war - unless the President is a support of slavery in which case why would the south secede? Know about the nullification crisis. Possibly this could have been more successful if S Carolina had managed to build a coalition in support of tariff reform. Remembering that IIRC Calhoun wasn't talking of secession but of states rights to nullify a central government law they found discriminated heavily against them. Done different and possibly with Jackson not moderating the earlier 1828 tariff say you could have had most/all of the south and also a number of the western states supporting such a stance. Which could have caused an entirely different crisis which might have either split the union or made it markedly less centralised. [Or more centralised if Jackson won the resulting war?]

The Kansas-Nebraska act may not occur if California isn't obtained but that leaves the Missouri Compromise in place and this coupled with the opposition of most settlers in the north to slavery are already in place so the south is going to feel increasingly isolated as more and more territories in the Louisiana region become free states. Without the Missouri Compromise Kansas doesn't bleed simply because slavery is already banned from the region so the USCW could come even earlier. Which depending on the circumstances and with somewhat less railway and other industrial development could favour the south although whether or not that would be enough to avoid a defeat would be a different matter depending on so many variables.

If by extending the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, which would only have really had an impact after the conquest of California and other lands from Mexico I think you would then have had the issue that while people could bring slaves into say California its probably that the vast majority of the voting [i.e. largely Anglo] population would be bitterly opposed to their presence. Basically as a threat to 'free' labour. So you would have such states seeking to limit if not ban slavery as much as they could. Which would again cause tensions with the existing slave states. Furthermore the bulk of the southern states west of Texas [and much of Texas itself] isn't suitable for plantation slavery or any agricultural purpose so unless they were used say for mining there would be relatively little employment for them.