Had the Whig national convention in 1839 chosen Henry Clay for the presidency, they would have balanced the ticket with a Northerner like Tallmadge of New York. Having instead chosen William H. Harrison, a Northerner (though born in Virginia) as their candidate, the convention thought it should choose a Southern supporter of Henry Clay as vice-president. One of the possibilities talked about was John Clayton of Delaware (generally still considered a southern state, if just barely). However, Clayton insisted that his name be taken out of consideration; he did not want to profit from the defeat of Clay, whom he had supported.
Now as it happened, Clay in the late 1830's had been somewhat muting (though hardly abandoning) his nationalism and harshly condemning Northern abolitionists. This got him the support of John Tyler of Virginia, a strong states' righter. Because Tyler seemed (quite wrongly) a prototypical Southern Clay supporter, and because nobody else who fit that description would accept the nomination, Tyler (who had been Hugh White's running mate on "opposition" tickets in the South in 1836) was chosen.
The result was a tragedy for the Whig Party. Harrison died soon after taking office and Tyler became president and proceeded to show that he was as opposed as ever to the Whigs' nationalist economic program--and would use his veto to block it. Furthermore, Tyler ruined any chance to make 1844 a referendum on Whig versus Democratic economic policies by pushing for the annexation of Texas--and in the most sectionally divisive way conceivable, with his Secretary of State, John Calhoun, explaining that Texas must be annexed to frustrate British plans to abolish slavery there.
What if Clayton had been nominated as vice-president--and accepted the nomination (and presumably soon become president, since Harrison is still going to be elected, and I don't see how a different running mate improves Harrison's health)? To be sure, Clayton had his own problems, especially with the bottle. But Clayton drunk would be vastly preferable from the Whig viewpoint to Tyler sober. Clayton would not have vetoed Whig economic legislation, and would not have helped provoke the Texas Annexation Crisis. The Whigs would take credit for the improvement of the economy since 1840--and without the Texas Annexation Crisis, they would probably face Martin Van Buren, who was widely associated by the public with "hard times."
I don't know if Clayton himself would run for a second term as president in 1844--arguably Harrison's Inaugural Address could be seen as making a one-term presidency part of the Whig philosophy of opposition to "executive tyranny":
"I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution; others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction. As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the lover of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting, nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term." http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/address/address-by-william-h-harrison-1841
Perhaps Clayton would argue that what Harrison meant was only one *elective* term. (And after all, Whig principles did not prevent Fillmore from seeking the nomination in 1852, though he had served as president for the majority of Taylor's term.) But whether the Whigs in 1844 would be headed by Clayton or Clay, their prospects IMO would have been better than in OTL.
Now as it happened, Clay in the late 1830's had been somewhat muting (though hardly abandoning) his nationalism and harshly condemning Northern abolitionists. This got him the support of John Tyler of Virginia, a strong states' righter. Because Tyler seemed (quite wrongly) a prototypical Southern Clay supporter, and because nobody else who fit that description would accept the nomination, Tyler (who had been Hugh White's running mate on "opposition" tickets in the South in 1836) was chosen.
The result was a tragedy for the Whig Party. Harrison died soon after taking office and Tyler became president and proceeded to show that he was as opposed as ever to the Whigs' nationalist economic program--and would use his veto to block it. Furthermore, Tyler ruined any chance to make 1844 a referendum on Whig versus Democratic economic policies by pushing for the annexation of Texas--and in the most sectionally divisive way conceivable, with his Secretary of State, John Calhoun, explaining that Texas must be annexed to frustrate British plans to abolish slavery there.
What if Clayton had been nominated as vice-president--and accepted the nomination (and presumably soon become president, since Harrison is still going to be elected, and I don't see how a different running mate improves Harrison's health)? To be sure, Clayton had his own problems, especially with the bottle. But Clayton drunk would be vastly preferable from the Whig viewpoint to Tyler sober. Clayton would not have vetoed Whig economic legislation, and would not have helped provoke the Texas Annexation Crisis. The Whigs would take credit for the improvement of the economy since 1840--and without the Texas Annexation Crisis, they would probably face Martin Van Buren, who was widely associated by the public with "hard times."
I don't know if Clayton himself would run for a second term as president in 1844--arguably Harrison's Inaugural Address could be seen as making a one-term presidency part of the Whig philosophy of opposition to "executive tyranny":
"I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution; others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction. As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the lover of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting, nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term." http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/address/address-by-william-h-harrison-1841
Perhaps Clayton would argue that what Harrison meant was only one *elective* term. (And after all, Whig principles did not prevent Fillmore from seeking the nomination in 1852, though he had served as president for the majority of Taylor's term.) But whether the Whigs in 1844 would be headed by Clayton or Clay, their prospects IMO would have been better than in OTL.
Last edited: