What if Henry Clay Became President?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- What if Henry Clay won the 1844 election and became president instead of James K. Polk? This channel is done in collaboration with @AlternateHistoryHub and @iammrbeat
➤ Support this channel with my Patreon!: / emperortigerstar
GET A PLUSHY OF THE IMPERIAL CAT: www.gimmeswag....
IMPERIALCAT10 gets you 10% off!
AlternateHistoryHub's video: • What if Hoover Was Pre...
Mr. Beat's video: • What if Abraham Lincol...
My older video about the Whig Party: • The History of the US ...
Music used:
Springtime by Kevin MacLeod
It was so wonderful to collaborate with you again!
A few things:
5:22 Technically Clay ran for President in 1840, too, so he made FIVE unsuccessful attempts for the Presidency.
7:27 Holy crap those similarities!
14:40 Wow, that's something I definitely didn't see coming.
15:30 Polk died soon after he left office anyway, so even if he ran in 1848 it wouldn't have made a difference.
Hi Mr. Beat
Hello Mr. Beast!
mr breast give me money (funny and original)
@@kreuner11 LOOOOOOOOOL
To be fair it's possible Polk wouldn't have necessarily caught cholera in this alternate timeline.
My one big though, changing the civil war, is that there was no Mexican American war. No place for generals to really be broken in and give the confederacy the advantage it truly had
Though i feel this will just make the war more bloody. Untested generals sending men against at the time top of the line military technology.
@@oedipusrex353hey ive seen this one before
I think that is negated by the fact that good will between the North and South from these compromises might of been enough to stifle the flames of war for a lot longer. Which would lead to the inevitable fallout that results in the Civil War being fought in a modern sense. A defensive war in an era where the defenders have an unwavering advantage against any offensives could lead to a dramatically different war. Although European support for the "Confederacy" would of been dramatically lowered due to goodwill received by treaties and negotiations being abided. It might not even come to a civil war but a full on slave revolution in the South funded by Mexico to distract the US from the Yucatan. A series of compromises ending with a conclusion no one wanted. Cities in the South becoming autonomous nation states declaring themselves African Colonies.
@@jerm70 i don’t think that the war would be pushed back all that much. Personally I think the inevitability of the war still brings it before the turn of the century. All thag being said, Europe learned a lot off of the civil war, like the first trenches and use of the first Gatling guns. Europe wouldn’t have liked the confederacy as much though and I agree with you there 100%
@@oedipusrex353 The WW1 prelude is even more transparently obvious.
I would like to point out that Clay wouldn't have ran for a second term because both Clay and Polk were in agreement that they would only run for a single term. There would have never been a second term of Clay. It was also a mainstream Whig position at the time so Clay would probably wouldn't have been re-elected even if he did run for re-election.
Also Pierce may have never been elected because so much of him being nominated was his war-hero popularity that never happened in this timeline.
is there an actual source saying that since I been trying to see if Henry Clay only promising only to run for 1 term.
And besides, knowing the Whig's luck he would probably die in office. Polk barely outlasted the office
Clay not running in 1848 might actually cause either an early Civil War or an alternate Mexican-American War (maybe even both at the same time). Lewis Cass (the Democratic candidate in that year) was an expansionist like Polk and tried (unsuccessfully) to buy more land from Mexico as Buchanan's Secretary of State, and he was also a major proponent of "popular sovereignty", the idea that states should be able to vote for themselves on whether to become free or slave states. If the Mormons revolt, Southerners might support trying to annex it like Texas and make it a slave state (Brigham Young, the main Mormon leader at the time, was a proponent of slavery), which would cause issues due to their position north of the Mason-Dixon line. If Cass annexes the Mormons and leave the issue of slavery there to a vote, it could cause a Bleeding Kansas (Bleeding Utah/Deseret?) type situation much earlier. In addition, like Texas, the Mormons also claimed much more land than they actually controlled, so if they're annexed, Cass could push for taking all of their claimed land and start an alternate war with Mexico. Basically imagine if the annexation of Texas and the Kansas-Nebraska Act happened at the exact same time. Yeah, it wouldn't be a great time.
Edit: Mexico might also still claim Yucatan if it's annexed, leading to yet another land dispute with Mexico to worry about.
I've never heard of the Mayan revolt, but it sounds interesting. I'm gonna have to look into that!
It's extremely fascinating how different things could've ended up if the Yucatan had been admitted into the US!
@@JB-xl2jc I doubt it would have b/c of how difficult it will be to control it with a huge native population (this is when the US isn't really good at foreign fighting)
@JB the US was too racist to let it in as a full-on state, perhaps a territory acting as a with state restrictions or special status. It wouldn't last, though it'll either go independent or get re absorbed by mexico, especially during the impending civil war
@@rogeliovaldez6594 Britain did recognize until the early 20th century since they wanted to make their relations better with Mexico which wasn’t historically good
@@rogeliovaldez6594 it also was in the middle of the Mexican-American war so this would distract from the risky central Mexico campaign
On that online game Campaign Trail the election of 1844 is available and I've won with Henry Clay but it's probably the hardest election on there even with normal difficulty
I've never played that game but I imagine 1936 as Alf Landon would be even more difficult.
I'd be interested in seeing a sequel to this. California is still Mexican by the Civil War (and I think so is New Mexico, some of Arizona and Nevada). So we have a bigger Mexico which is going to make US-Mexican dynamics for the next fifty years interesting
I agree! I want to see this scenario!
Was Nevada even a thing in the northern Mexico territories? I know from research that Nevada Territory wasn't created until James Buchanan created it less than a week before he stepped down in 1861 - along with Colorado Territory (both carved out of Utah Territory) and Dakota Territory.
@@davegreenlaw5654 no, when Mexico owned all of that land, it was only 3 states: Texas, New Mexico and California. Of course, the territories were sparsely populated, so there was no problem in administrating that much land in only 3 states
@@davegreenlaw5654 it gets it name from the sierra nevadas which is Spanish for snowy mountains or mountain range
All those 49ers are going to Mexico.
This video made me realize how subconsciously war hawky I am because every time he mentioned a compromise I’d just mutter “pansy”. I should probably figure out where that comes from
Well, pansies are a fairly delicate flower. I am not sure exactly where else the phrase could come from.
It’s understandable to a degree-any compromise (even the most well intentioned) would support the cause of slavery. And nothing’s more cringe than slavery.
@@d.unterreiner161 I meant me immediately calling him one
@@warlordofbritannia that is based, but even the Mexico compromise made me instinctively frustrated
It comes from a good place.
EmperorTigerstar doing an alternate history video instead of AlternateHistoryHub?
Wait, that's illegal.
I'll make legal.
He's done a Timeline 191 summary before(and I need REALLY convincing reasons to actually read the Settling Accounts tetralogy instead of sticking with the summary video.)
Henry Clay... Never had have thought that! Great alternate timeline.
yo, its anwoo
If “centrist” was a person, it would be Henry Clay… “I don’t approve of slavery, but why should I be the one to free my slaves?”
Damn I never considered how eventful the 1840s were, especially in the Americas.
Huge decade abroad too! Queen Victoria technically ascended to the throne in 1837 but the true Victorian Age really got into full swing in the 1840s, then by the end of the decade there was the Springtime of Nations.
I mean compared to Europe’s 1840s (48 lol) this is still on the tamer side
@@skyeblu3178 Oh yeah, you know I wonder if Europe would've intervened if they weren't dealing with social upheaval.
Fun fact, most of the world thought the US would lose versus Mexico. Mexico actually had a large standing army, larger than the US, and they had rough technological parity. They also had a lot of recent veterans from civil wars.
But the US obliterated Mexico like a knife through butter and even took the capital. That's usually attributed to bad leadership and underestimating the US, but the victory was so total that some politicians pushed for total annexation of Mexico (for the record I think this would've been disastrous, Mexico had like 40% of the population of the US and almost exclusively was catholic and Spanish speaking, would've been a TOUGH annexation).
Arguably even more eventful in Europe, with uprisings in France and Germany in 1848, among others. Communist Manifesto also published. Opium Wars in China, too. Any which way, lots going on. People had to take sides.
Andrew Jackson: "I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun.”
Now we only need to add Daniel Webster into this and Jackson will regret not killing off the entire Great Triumvirate.
I love Cody's Tigerstar avatar.
I remember in one of Cody's videos about Texas remaining independent that a possible result could be Texas joining the Confederacy, and Mexico allying with the Union, turning it into a two-front war. This could also be in play in this scenario, as the Mexicans could be offered the Yucatan back to help the Union.
That wouldn't help the Maya much. Though Mexican mobilization could also prevent the French trying to take it.
It probably helps you are both Furries
Just watched all them. Just Finished with VloggingThroughHistory. You all are the best at what you do. And btw I'm new to your channel so can't wait to see what you have in store
u should definitley check out what emperor tigerstar did in the past too! he is an absolute gem
Frelinghuysen's descendant was Henry Cabot Lodge who was Nixon's running mate in the 1960 Nixon presidential ticket
Dude, you HAVE to get into the consequences of California staying in Mexico! What happens during the Gold Rush? Can Mexican authorities keep American filibusters out? Does it revive the Mexican economy? Do the French try to take it over, is Los Angeles renamed Juárez rather than El Paso? This is a HUGE change and you didn’t get into it at all
OMG - yes!! My brain totally glitched at the end when he said "and there's no California", til I realized the US won CA and the southwest in the Mexican-American war. I just assumed that was always a given, esp with the Gold Rush. If we can bring freedom where there is oil, it makes sense we would bring freedom to gold mines! And silver mines, when it's discovered in Nevada as well. :)
California still gets increasingly tied to the US economically and socially, but with the Mormon Battalion being connected to the discovery of gold, there's a chance that gets delayed a little while.
@chicobri freedom would have to wait until after the Civil war, Reconstruction and for the next expansionist president
Freedom would have to wait until after the civil war, Reconstruction, and for the next expansionist president assuming Teddy Roosevelt is even still elected when he is or at all. Which i think is enough time for mexico to integrate the north and be stable/strong enough having avoided war with the US until that point assuming the US feels territorial expansion is still viable in the early 20th for American prosperity
I wanted somebody to make a video on this for years and you finally did it
I've always wondered on this one, always close but never succeeded. Same election I would choose too
The correct English syntax is "what if Henry Clay had become president?" "What if Henry Clay became president?" means the same as "What if Henry Clay in the near future should become president."
Hey there. I disagree with the notion that Clay would run for a second term. Clay supported a Constitutional Amendment that would impose a single-term limit on Presidents. He and other Whigs saw it as the only way to prevent Federal overreach.
For this reason, I don't think he runs in 1848. Frelinghuysen or whoever Clay chose as Secretary of State might try to go for the nomination but I assume someone like Daniel Webster would be the nominee since he had his own aspirations and was the second most powerful Whig at that point. You also have the rivalry between Webster and Clay which might cause some issues at the convention. Maybe a dark horse would need to be selected to break up a potential deadlock.
Thanks for the video!
Do you have a source for Clay supporting a single-term limit Amendment?
henry clay tried to become a Whig candidate for president again in 1848, but lost the nomination to Zachary Taylor.
Oooh I wish someone of you did what if Henry Wallce was president instead of Truman
That would be great.
YYYYYEEEEESSSSSS
How was having the same initials not included in similarities between Clay and Clinton @ 7:26?!
Probably because it has little to do with the actual lives of either person.
By not having California, the Transcontinental Railroad would be farther north, plus, we might have a different "Standard" gauge (4 foot, 8-1/2 inches). The Pacific Railroad Acts of 1863 specifications eventually mostly standardized the US gauge. We could have had the 5 foot gauge that a lot on the southern railroads had (the famous Locomotive Chase was on this gauge), Ohio gauge of 4 foot 10 inches, or (doubtful) Texas gauge of 5 foot 6 inches (AKA Portland Maine or in Canada "Provincial"). Although, Erie Railroad's 6 foot gauge would be my personal headcannon.
9:52 Mexicos history is probably altered heavily by having all this extra land,
does anyone have any thoughts on that?
The problem was that no (or very very few) Mexicans actually lived there. The terrain is very hostile and in those days there were no roads or railroads that crossed the deserts and mountains. All of the modern American cities like Dallas, Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, Salt Lake City, etc.,the immense population of 20th and 21st century California just weren't there. The land was empty. Outside of some settlements on the (alta) California coast and a few old Spanish cities in New Mexico there really weren't any Mexicans living there, just the native nomadic tribes who had about as much hostility to Mexican rule as they later would to the United States. Besides the Sonoran desert separates the lost Mexican territories from the Mexican heartland which is the giant reason why the Spanish never did anything with it. And given the chronic political instability of Mexico in the nineteenth century it is highly unlikely they ever would have developed the territory and it would have remained a haven for bandits and native Indian tribes. Actually if you want the truth the Native American tribes would have made out the best probably because they wouldn't have had to face either the American westward expansion or the US military. But the truth is, whatever happened in the 1844 election, it is very hard to imagine that the United States of that era would have kept its hands off of that area for very long.
One of the best breakdowns I've ever heard. My understanding is that most of the people living in that territory didn't really want to be a part of Mexico anyhow (Indians, Ranchers, etc). Not that they were USA supporters, either.
@@DugrozReports You're right. The population of the northern territories of Mexico, outside of the natives, were like you say ranchers and mountain men and rugged individualists, a lot of them gringos, who had no interest in civilization of any kind. The only exception might have been what was then Alta California. I think there was an at least somewhat significant population of Americans there trying to pursue the same path as their predecessors had done in Texas during the 1830s.
@Eric S i think the US would keep its hands off at least until after Reconstruction
@Eric S only like a 100 or so backed by the US military tried it in real life, so no, not significant enough
Clay getting elected in 1844 is always a popular What If? election scenario, but I find it interesting that no one ever goes into Clay winning in 1840. Basically the reason that Clay wasn't nominated in 1840 was because the Whig Convention was scheduled for December 4-8, 1839 and occurred after a string of Whig electoral defeats that were linked with Clay and three Southern delegations (that supported Clay) refused to attend. The Whigs wanting to win nominated William Henry Harrison who would then ride a Whig electoral wave that began early in the new year to victory in November.
What if the Whig Convention was delayed by weather until spring 1840? A wave of electoral victories for the Whigs would have been attached to Clay, who was the figurehead of the party, and over the months Clay would have persuaded the three wayward Southern delegations to attend the Convention. The result would have seen Clay nominated for President and probably Millard Fillmore for Vice President as favor to one of Harrison's biggest supporters New York boss Thurlow Weed, not because Fillmore was one of his boys but because he was a NY Whig rival and Weed would want him out of the state for four years. A Clay/Fillmore ticket (well any Whig ticket) would cruise to victory just like Harrison/Tyler.
i’m so happy someone else picked up on the HC & HRC similarities
Got to hand to emperor tigerstar this is more realistic than monsiuer Z's version
I think this is a good scenario for Mexico in particular.
Huh, I'm not sure Clay would have ran for two terms, a lot of whigs favored a one term precedent for presidents rather than two and I believe Clay was one of them.
Do you have a source for this? I see a few people saying it but I can find anything online
@procyon6370 It's talked about in "The Rise and Fall of The American Whig Party" by Michael Holt. It was a policy born out of their opposition to Jackson and the power of the presidency. Their view was of legislative primacy of executive, and they believed that a one term precedent would prevent executive overreach. Some Whigs extended this belief to lower levels of government as well. Lincoln, in particular, was on such Whig, running only once before bowing out, due to that policy of Rotationalism.
At first I thought we were talking about Henry Clay Frick here, as in the industrialist. Thatd be an equally interesting scenario I'd think
The real question is would the Yucatan allow itself to become a slave state, could it become a state due to racial and cultural differences, would mexico allow itself to become surrounded or intervene earlier since to the war with the US never happened
Without a US-Mexican War, it would be VERY unlikely that Winfield Scott would be a war-hero nominee in 1852. The same would apply to Whig VP nominee Billy Graham (you read that right). The Whigs would have had a couple of other very capable and politically agile pols to choose from: former House Speaker and freshman Senator Robert C. Winthrop (an anti-expansion man from Massachusetts and former US Rep Millard Fillmore, who was just returning to politics after a brief hiatus to build up his law career. In OTL the Whigs were on the decline due to indecisiveness over the expansion of slavery. But you're describing 7 years of very capable Whig leadership and political successes from 1845-51. This might well have driven the Southern Democrats to an earlier embrace of the most extreme views of pro-slavery politics. 1852 didn't have to be a slam dunk for Pierce. A Winthrop election in 1852 might well have led to a civil war eight years earlier--and one without the proving ground of a Mexican War to train the Union's generals in early industrial warfare tactics.
I think the union would still come out on top, but also, i think mexico may want to intervene to take back the Yucatan from Southern Grip and appeal to the Union for possible expansion or occupation of texas
Wouldn't California try to revolt at some point?
Would Mexico try to take back the Yucatan during the American Civil war?
I wonder that as well. Mexico could intervene to take back the Yucatán, maybe even Texas. If they did, would the U.S. fight Mexico or would it not care?
The Bear Flag revolt was tiny and mostly inflamed with US intervention. I doubt they’d have been able to pull a Texas even if they tried revolting.
@EmperorTigerstar Yes, but this wasn't the first time the province had tried to secede from Mexico. Juan Bautista Alvarado, for example, briefly led an independence movement before negotiating with Mexico to be recognized as California's governor. Mexico, even today, has always had trouble with controlling its northern provinces, and I can still see American settlers pouring into the region once gold is discovered.
@TheDarkAssassin 01 I think Santa Anna could come back to power and try to exploit the civil war by joining the Southern states side. Yucatan would probably stay with the US like the border slave states did because it depends on American naval power.
Santa Anna would try to take the Yucatan while his centralist policies would alienate California and most likely cause a revolt in the north. The US would still probably win this war and grab most of the California territory. Mexico could still possibly hold on to New Mexico and Southern California.
@@stevemcgroob4446 tre but i think without polk manifest destiny would run out of steam and the more pressing matter of slavery would take hove in the US perhaps encouraging many to submit to Mexico hoping to avoid the upcoming civil war. And i would think mexico would have learned from its mistakes from texas. Plus gold being discovered would a boon that could atract european immigrants not loyal to the US
"His second term would focus on his usual love for infrastructure"
YO! YOYOYO!!! Way to bury the real story, Mr. TIgerstar!
I love the plushy. It would be awesome (extra beneficial to you) if you offered an optional add-on or purchasable item of some miniature "fruit salad" to pin on him. Maybe even a little medal to hang around his neck, too. Haha, just a thought.
Frelinghuysen sounds like something Professor Frink would say
Not just him but also the gangster and his brother, Cassius Clay
the Yucatan joining the US... now that's a plot twist.
1:22 what a monster face!
I do wonder if a Pierce presidency was truly inevitable. He gained a lot of notoriety as a general in the Mexican War which obviously doesn't happen in this timeline; also, Cass isn't the 1848 nominee in this scenario and it is possible more Democrats would have supported him in 1852 as a result.
Without the Mexican War, Pierce has no national status. He relied heavily on his war record in '52. Without the Mexican Cession, you don't have the territorial slavery debate tearing apart careers. I think Douglas, Buchanan, Cass, Benton (who wouldn't get toppled as Missouri Senator in '51 in this scenario), and Sam Houston are all MUCH more likely candidates.
For the Whigs, Scott still has an impressive military record, but he doesn't have the amazing Mexico City Campaign that secured him the Whig nomination in 1852. Seward's a rising star among northeastern Whigs, Crittenden is Clay's heir apparent in the upper south, the Georgia Whigs who jumped to the Democrats over slavery in the 50s are still Whigs here so Robert Toombs is a possibility if he can lay off the bottle, and Abraham Lincoln is a rising star in the party, being a Clay protege -- not likely to have anywhere near the status for a presidential run in '52, but a potential short-lister for the VP slot.
I think filibustering in California is also quite likely, as is Clay trying to buy California (or at least the northern part of it so the US can secure the harbor at San Fransisco. It's unlikely the Mexicans would sell, but maybe the US backing off on the Rio Grande boundary dispute would make it feasible for a Mexican government deep in debt to unload some of its northern edges. Especially if that makes the Mormons the USA's problem. I'd bet against the sale, but it's not impossible.
The Maya having their own country for a while is probably the coolest little knick-knack of this timeline.
0:14 Hoobert Hoover
Such a powerhouse collab.
I've been interested by this election, thanks.
6:17 So he basically did the "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" excuse/meme before capitalism was a thing in the southern US.
Basically yes. Hypocritical politicians who can't make definitive moral stances when it doesn't suit them is a classic going back to Cierco even.
@@jerm70 Most hypocites do not even make exuses. They either hope their followers do not even know or care or use mental gymnastics to contend that their behavior is not contradictory in the first place.
Please please please do a Henry Wallace potential presidency. I think the cold war may not have been what it was with him.
7:25 what did clay do in libya? lol. IK us sailors fought against berbers or something so its probably that if its not a joke
Before 1 hour gang.
I was playing Bad Piggies. Im 20 minutes in now
slay
Barely made it
@@jeaniusedits6094 Yo it’s Samuel
I am here
there is a Town of Clay, New York which contains a road called "Henry Clay Blvd.". both named after him. There must have been some admirer's of his when the Town was formed....
Wouldn't it be that the Oregon Territory would be divided differently? If memory serves, what ultimately happened OTL was something that ultimately favoured the US. Would a more compromising President not, perhaps, set the border along the columbia river, rather than cut through it? I think Brittain proposed that solution aswell
Britain did propose a Columbia River border, however it was made when they believed the US was in no position to bargain because of the Mexican-American War, which doesn't happen in the timeline. Polk's bluff "54 40 or fight" dissuaded the British, since they didn't want war.
Clay would still make the border on the 49th parallel, as that was what he offered the British all the way back in 1826 when he was Secretary of State. He wouldn't accept less as President.
This is a very interesting scenario, and I really think it needs a sequel. There’s still lots of gold and other resources in California. California is still going to boom. Does it happen as a part of Mexico? As its own country (likely taking all of what is today the Southwest US with it)? Does it eventually become a part of the United States anyway, either peacefully or a in a later Mexican-American War?
Henry Clay would make A great king.
I would consider him more of a Cicero
henry clay actually didnt try to elect himself in 1824 because he didn't qualify as he finished fourth in the electoral college
When looking at how the Constitution was debated and drafted, the Vice Presidency was originally envisioned as a robust center of power in Congress, a sort of Senator-At-Large for the nation. But John Adams was a jerk and the senators created a more powerful office of "Majority Leader". The Speaker of the House was conversely thought to be a minor, procedural job, with some ceremonial functions (not even required to be a member of Congress). It was Henry Clay who discovered how to turn the office into the most powerful post in Congress, able to reward loyalists with committee assignments, literally scheduling who would be able to speak in debates, and shut the opposition out completely. Henry Clay as President, no matter what else transpires nationally, would be a force to reckon with.
Another Cody recommendation. Appreciate the jazzy background you've got here.
Interesting. But I thought you would do: The 1884 presidential election.
~7:26 One more for the list: "First name starting with H and last name starting with Cl"
7:27 I think you forgot to mention the most noticable similarity. The fact that both their names start with H and their last names with C.😅
one thing tigerstar didn't talk about is that filibustering (If it still happens) could become more sucessful, since the yucatan would provide a direct base into central america. Also the creation of an independent mayan state would cause a lot of changes that I can't even predict
Clay not only finsihed 4th in 1824 he finished behind a guy in 3rd incapacitated by a stroke 😂
Interesting implication of annexing the Yucatán means that the US would be more likely to be friendly to incorporating other, primarily Hispanic territories later on. Maybe an earlier Spanish American War or one that ends with Cuba or Puerto Rico statehood?
The south would lose much quicker in this one, we could also possibly see a Mexican Invasion of the Yucatan in this universe during the civil war, if its with the Union or not in this one, I dont know, but it would still be interesting to see this scenario get a sequel
Clay was one of probably many who owned slaves, but expected it would end in the foreseeable future. I've visited Ashland (his home estate) a few times. I'd say he expected it to end, but was in no personal hurry to speed abolition along. My guess is, he hoped it would end, but after he was dead and no longer hus concern. The 1824 election is an interesting pivot point for alt history, and for actual history. He wanted the presidency, of course, but knew he wouldn't get it that year. Whether it's true or not, widespread belief was that he cut a clandestine deal with Adams for a cabinet position. His own state preferred Jackson over Adam's, so many Kentuckians saw his vote as a betrayal.
You left out something very significant. The gold in California is Mexican. 750,000 lbs. were mined. All that hard money would have flowed into Mexico, not the USA. Things could have been very different.
I am a big fan of Clay, really wish me was president. Not to many people know about him, glad to see this video made!
Another interesting question that I've thought about- what if Sam Houston had been defeated and killed by Mexican forces ubder Santa Ana at San Jacinto?
Something to note is that by appointing Henry Clay to be his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams was essentially teeing him up to be the next president, as at that point in American history, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Quincy Adams himself (in other words, every single president except Washington and Adams) had all been Secretary of State before running for president. So the "Corrupt Bargain" seemed even more quid pro quo.
Not only point, U.S. settler Filibustering, is essentially indistinguishable from what Russia is doing in Ukraine, but without the solid international order to oppose it. Texas was a good example, plus the extreme overstep of then taking over half of Mexico
There's also another similarity between Henry Clay and Hillary Clinton you didn't mention, they're both have the initials HC😂
One major difference with Clay as Pres is that California remains Mexican...along with the gold.
Idea for an alternate history just popped into my head. What if the hawks over the Oregon territory had more influence and caused the alliance of Mexico and The United Kingdom during the Mexican American War?
...but the Mexicans DID end up accepting Mormons. Thousands of Mormons (and Mennonites) were welcomed to the states of Chihuahua and Sonora during the Porfirio Diaz years--polygamy and all.
Yeah that's poferio diaz years mexico didn't have freedom of religion for a bit. And wouldn't until the late 19th century so the mormons would just have to wait
Yeah that's poferio diaz years mexico didn't have freedom of religion for a bit. And wouldn't until the late 19th century so the mormons would just have to wait
The fact the US is able to annex the yucatan means it would either satisfy southern demands for expansion in central America, or it could of resulted in filibuster attempts being successfull since they now have a base closeby
Omg! I was close when I made my joke comment in your livestream about 1852 lol :P
I can’t believe he didn’t mention Henry Clay’s American System.
EXACTLY! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)
3:13 I thought Clay got 4th place in 1924 and so was not eligible to be elected president? You can see on the Wikipedia window you have popped up, Clay gets 3rd in popular vote and 4th in electoral votes. I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of the system but I strongly assume it goes by electoral votes.
I just looked at Wikipedia, yeah its by electoral votes.
Not the similarities between Henry Clay and Hilary Clinton 😅😩😩😭😭😭💀🔥
I've been curious about this for a while (ie. Henry Clay, his presidential runs, and in this case, what if he happened to win one of them). While his overall stance as a politician doesn't really convince me (as in, I don't feel like he thought through some of them 🤔) I'd still be curious with how he'd potentially do as a president, especially since he could work with people in the government *that well* (ie. his compromise skills and all...). Turns out, you just released this video!
I like what you brought up in this video, it all seems pretty plausible to me 🤔. Interesting that his stance on militaristic intervention (which he was strongly against, especially after the War of 1812 😂🤣💀) wouldn't necessarily completely stop US expansion (heck, it even nabbed Yucatan as a new state...not just a Southern state but a state south of the West Gulf(!!)). Felt like it could be way more consequential than mentioned here (since it would still change the US-Mexican dynamics), but there are just too many variables to be considered related to it 🤔🤨🤔. (It would really make West Gulf blockading during American Civil War way more of a pickle though! That I am sure of 😅🙈)
I do wonder if his focus on national infrastructure would change the US mindset (especially those who are involved with the government) on infrastructure significantly (I honestly inclined to think yes, and it would be the single, most significant and undisputedly positive impact a Clay presidency left for the US).
Can't say the same for his other policies that influenced the slavery issue though 🙃 (whether directly or indirectly). Especially with how flim-flam he is about it on the national level. The trigger sequence might be slightly different but I too think that American Civil War would still end up happening anyway in the Clay presidency TL.
I guess what I figured out while watching this was that I think compromises on long term solutions is a decent think to strive on, good even, but compromises as short term solutions? (especially when you don't really think of the possible long term solutions...) That doesn't seem so good to me, and it seems like Henry Clay did the latter more often.
What if London never created the Southern Confederacy (Confederates) and Northern Confederacy (Canada)? Sole purpose being to retake their lost possession.
Or if Russia never sent their Navy to California and New York for the purpose of stopping England and France from entering the war on the side of the Confederates.
If the Yucatan was annexed as a state, how would the Southerners ensure "white" only voting? I suppose the Mayans would count as full citizens and their voting block would be much larger than any group of Southern adventurers who move down there?
If my memory is not bad, when Yucatan leaved Mexico they created their own constitution, and yes, everyone had the right to vote.
It's weird how fragile history is. One change and everything downhill looks different.
Ted Frelinghuysen was also staunchly anti-slavery, though (like almost all white Americans at the time) he was a racist. I don't see him getting the nomination in 1852, but I don't think you're presenting him fairly. His career was more nuanced than you indicate.
Henry Clay - talk about a career politician
Joe Biden: hold my 🍺
i cant believe that this guy still rocks
Henry clay is one of my favorite senators and politician
Good video, but 2 points. One is that I don't think that the reason why the 1824 election in the House came down to Adams and Jackson is that it would have been unseemly for Clay to advocate for himself. I think that Clay wasn't even eligible because he hadn't finished in the top 3 in the electoral college, and they weren't going to choose Crawford because of his mental problems. The other point is that part of the argument made for popular sovereignty being included in the Kansas Nebraska Act is that Congress had already endorsed that principle by including it the Compromise of 1850. Without the Mexican War, there's no Compromise of 1850. So I think it's very possible that without the Mexican War, that provision would have been left out of the Kansas Nebraska Act, and that provision is what led to the birth of the Republican Party and to Bleeding Kansas.
LOL Mexico has polygamous Mormons TODAY. They have no problem with that.
There is one issue with this alt-USA fighting the Civil War as historic. Specifically, the Union had the benefit of Nevada's large silver deposits and Californian gold and economic output. If those lands are Mexican, no silver or gold that the Treasury gets a chunk of.
Hillary Clinton and Henry Clay even have the same initials! Jeez! They are so similar!
The universe would collapse in on itself.
Mormons in Mexico is stuck in my head now. If the Mormons were able to keep their heads down and Mexico let them be, when gold is discovered in California, they may have a much easier time moving there than Stateseans. Many Mexicans would also go there, but Mormonism might dominate a much larger area and have more members than in our timeline.
The smaller number of church members in Sonora during this period OTL had few conflicts with the central government, though the Pancho Villa revolt was a problem.
I doubt it. mexico had pro catholic laws and my want to restrict the mormons fatith to an isolated area like a reservation. They're more likely to let ln other groups in like the irish Italians and german all of whom had no country or wouldn’t interven in mexican politics. But generally catholic Europe or catholics in general.
I guess part of this is if the gold rush might happen later than it did, with fewer Anglo settlers. If it's after the revolution then they won't have to deal with Catholic laws.
Even if it's before, I could see them expanding into peripheral areas to benefit from the rush, even if they can't move in where they can participate
Will the US ever gain the Southwest sometime after the Civil War in this timeline?
henry wasn't wasn't involved in libya at all
8:50 So John must of heard what Henry had to say so Henry would get credit here for HELPING but not doing it since he wasn't president. Had he told James about WANTING To do it, James would of agreed or done something different to get Texas. Can't say I'm shocked neither of them did it.
You sound just like Rudyard from Whatifalthist.
What if Saul Goodman became President?
Do a video of WW2 Yugoslavia including chetniks and yugoslav partisans from 1939-1946, as well as Ustase and such.
It was official Whig policy for presidents to only seek one term. Henry Clay would not have run for reelection.
Do you have any evidence for this?
@@procyon6370
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/whig-party-platform-1844
Some Whigs also supported a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to one term.
It be interesting how this effects this would have on future elections. Like we wouldn't have Ronald Regan as president . Vp Harris or president Biden ect
19:55 battle of Glorietta Pass, 1862