Pres. William H Harrison

[Storebought]

Suppose William H Harrison survived through his one term (but died before he could run for a second). Would he have been of any greater consequence than he is now?

 

[minionofmidas]

John Tyler wouldn't have been president, which might have somewhat changed the course of American history.
But of course, if Harrison had been president throughout his term, we wouldn't know this, so we probably wouldn't regard his presidency as highly important.

[Storebought]

John Tyler wouldn't have been president, which might have somewhat changed the course of American history.
But of course, if Harrison had been president throughout his term, we wouldn't know this, so we probably wouldn't regard his presidency as highly important.

So far as I can surmise, Harrison was pretty apolitical (unlike that other famous genocidal Indian killer, Jackson). On first thought, he would have signed whatever Henry Clay and the congressional Whigs offered him. On the other hand, regarding the two major issues of the time (1)  Henry Clay's "American Sytem" (2) admission of the Texas Republic to the Union, I doubt even a strict congressionalist like Harrison would have turned down the biggest peaceful enlargement of the United States since the Louisiana Purchase or stomached the expansion of government Clay wanted.

But in that case, he would be no different than Tyler, who is pretty much ignored anyhow.

[minionofmidas]

John Tyler wouldn't have been president, which might have somewhat changed the course of American history.
But of course, if Harrison had been president throughout his term, we wouldn't know this, so we probably wouldn't regard his presidency as highly important.

So far as I can surmise, Harrison was pretty apolitical (unlike that other famous genocidal Indian killer, Jackson). On first thought, he would have signed whatever Henry Clay and the congressional Whigs offered him. On the other hand, regarding the two major issues of the time (1)  Henry Clay's "American Sytem" (2) admission of the Texas Republic to the Union, I doubt even a strict congressionalist like Harrison would have turned down the biggest peaceful enlargement of the United States since the Louisiana Purchase.

The admission of Texas was highly controversial, for obvious reasons. It took a lot of effort, especially presidential effort, to push it through the senate.

[Storebought]

A great deal of that difficulty arose from the fact that Tyler had no party; he essentially had to "free agent" the entire thing with deeply mistrustful Democrats.

It would have been marginally easier with Harrison, because moderate Whigs from the West and South, not to mention expansionist Democrats, would have formed the senate majority needed for Texas's admission.

[PBrunsel]

The National Bank would have been reinstated by 1842. Clay would have been President, elected in 1844.

[Erc]

Why wouldn't Harrison run for re-election?

I remember hearing rumors that Harrison was proving more politically independent than was thought (and less of a pawn of Clay).

But, yeah, we'd have a Third National Bank, the Whigs might have stayed around for longer, etc.

Although it's likely that the Dems would have gotten rid of it again later on...by which point nobody wants it b/c it becomes unstable and causes financial panics.

[minionofmidas]

A great deal of that difficulty arose from the fact that Tyler had no party; he essentially had to "free agent" the entire thing with deeply mistrustful Democrats.

It would have been marginally easier with Harrison, because moderate Whigs from the West and South, not to mention expansionist Democrats, would have formed the senate majority needed for Texas's admission.

But that's assuming that Harrison would have pushed the matter...which is by no means certain.

[PBrunsel]

Why wouldn't Harrison run for re-election?

In the 1840 Campaign Harrison promised not to run for reelection, you might say it was the only campaign promise he completed!

[Storebought]

Why wouldn't Harrison run for re-election?

In the 1840 Campaign Harrison promised not to run for reelection, you might say it was the only campaign promise he completed!

In his inaugural address, Harrison stated his dislike of the overbearing chief executive; he would defer to Congress for legislation rather than propose it himself; and serve only one term.

Harrison would have gladly been a place-holding president if it weren't for the fact that the Whig Party was a circle of self-serving dicks.

The very moment he arrived in Washington DC from Indiana, he made it clear he wouldn't defer to Henry Clay, "Mr Clay, you forget that I am president!" His cabinet officers cared more about running for president in 1844 than they did about their executive office. Not to mention, Harrison himself was a vigorous territorial governor of Indiana and admitted that he enjoyed being elected president.

I think Harrison's instantaneous bitterness towards Clay, Webster, and the Whig congress, etc. would have made him a Democrat-loving WINO, a Whig Eisenhower, in his single term. 

Had he lived to 1845 (like Jackson), he would have either retired in absolute disgust of Washington politics, or he might have tried to run for reelection as a whiggish-minded independent (Free Soil, Anti-Mason, Catholic Immigrant Denyer, etc.)

Could that personal animosity toward the leading Whigs have caused him to actually veto Clay-inspired legislation like the Third Bank of the US, federal expenditures for railroad building, I can't say. In spite of his inauguration promise, though, he certainly would have vetoed any attempt by Clay to make the sale of federal territories to settlers more difficult. And, in the end, he may have favored the annexation of Texas, but would have had immense difficulty persuading stupidly partisan Democrats to join him.

All of that, by 19th century Anglo-American standards, is still a pretty damn activist chief executive. But a great deal of that was done by Tyler anyway.