Very informative, thanks! So basically, if elected as a National Republican/Whig president, Crockett would likely if not certainly turn out to be a John Tyler type - someone who blocks almost everything they attempt (including just about all that stuff core to their platform, like a national bank) with his veto?
Yup. That's about the shape of it. If he's elected later on a "the Alamo holds out" scenario, he'll be able to be a bit more efficient, but the fact is that most of the things on which he really differed from Jackson have become fait accompli by then. Nevertheless, these are the obvious scenarios for him to gain the Presidency. It just doesn’t make for the most exciting material:
1. Minimalist POD. Say that the National Republicans run Crockett as a VP candidate, hoping to split the Western populist vote and thus deny Jackson a majority. Crazier strategies have been tried, and in fact, this one was tried in OTL. It’s what led to the Presidency of John Tyler. To make Crockett President, just assume that the same thing happens. the NR candidate wins... and then the guy croaks. Crockett thus becomes a “unexpected President”, same as Tyler in OTL. And like Tyler, he disagrees with his own (ostensible) party on practically everything. This is not very inspiring, and he’s going to be a lot like Tyler. (But without the stain of being the guy who did
everything to bolster slavery.)
2. We assume that,
somehow, the Alamo holds out. Crockett is the most famous of the survivors. This would require an earlier POD, so that a sizable Texian relief force can arrive before the Alamo actually falls, but let’s just take that as a given. The outcome would be that Crockett becomes a very famous hero, who held out against overwhelming odds. He could conceivably become the national hero of Texas... and subsequently President of Texas, too. If his status is secure enough, he could leverage that to get Texas annexed by the USA relatively quickly. Then, he could go on to become President of the United states on the basis of being a super-famous war hero. To this end, he could really co-opt either party. Most naturally, he would take over the Whigs, and run in 1844 to deny Polk (Jackson’s protégé!) the win. This is assuming that he manages to get Texas into the Union quickly enough, but I consider annexation by 1841 or so to be achievable.
The above scenarios both work, but both drastically limit Crockett’s potential as President. If he is an accidental President, he’s more likely than not a one-term lame duck. If he’s elected in the 1840s, Jackson has already done a lot of key things that Crockett would have done differently. The greater Jacksonian concentration of federal and executive power would already be a fait accompli, as would Indian Removal. His biggest potential impact, in such a scenario, would be that he might avoid the Mexican-American War altogether. (Because, as shown in OTL, he believed that any Western expansion should be achieved via settlement, and no via military conquest. Settlers had to achieve their
own independence first, and should
then join the USA, if they wished.)
Anyway, if we want a scenario where Crockett’s impact on American politics is maximised, a much earlier POD would be best. Which brought me to the notion of a POD during the War of 1812. That would provide us with the opportunity to really explore Crockett’s politics, and particularly the ways in which he was different from Jackson.
A President Crockett who's elected (from the right party this time) in place of Jackson sounds like he might be the best bet for an extension of the Era of Good Feelings, then. A president who essentially doesn't rock the boat, certainly not the way Jackson did. Stuff like the franchise being expanded beyond landowners was already happening on a state level before the Jacksonians came into the picture and I don't think Crockett would stand in the way of that, but from what I've read I also doubt Crockett would fight to considerably expand presidential power or challenge the Supreme Court, for example.
Though I doubt that state of affairs would continue indefinitely. With the Federalists already mostly out of the picture by the mid-1810s and definitively so by the 1820s, I imagine the Democratic-Republicans are probably going to split over the nation's growing internal contradictions and their own (slave vs. free states starting with the Missouri Compromise, strict vs. loose constructionism of the Constitution and exactly how much the feds can push the envelope against the states, laissez-faire economics or National System interventionism etc.) sooner or later.
One big thing is that Jackson set a major precedent from executive power (and central, federal authority). This is particularly important because he was the Democratic leader, so that really muddied things up a bit. If you have Crockett as President, things are more clear-cut: the old legacy of Jefferson-vs-Hamilton is continued in a more straight-forward manner:
— The Democrats want small government, state supremacy, strict constructionism of the Constitution, free trade, sound money, a balanced budget, and a weak/humble executive branch that motly exists to put a break on overly interventionist legislation via the veto.
— The National Republicans want bigger government, federal supremacy, loose interpretation of the Constitution ("implid powers"), economic protectionism, public debt as a policy tool, deficit spending to be permitted, and a strong/activist executive branch that takes the lead when it comes to proposing legislation.
In OTL, the Democrats really loved that Jackson was carrying out their agenda, by and large, so they just happily ignored that he vastly expanded federal and executive power. Meanwhile, the National Republicans happily attacked him for doing so, despite the fact that they actually advocated for that when it was
their guys doing it. A pretty simple case, on both sides, of "
It's okay when WE do it!" / "
It's NOT okay when YOU do it!"
If Crockett gets elected, we may presume that he's riding the Democratic wave into office, so Congress will probably be on his side most of his time in office. His party will dominate both Houses, at least initially. So he won't need to use exeutive power, and he'll still be able to roll out the Democratic platform, same as Jackson did. Or rather: Congress will do it, and he'll just nod and smile.
Beyond the Democratic platform, as outlined above, what can we say about Crockett and his potential policies? Well, Crockett was basically the living embodiment of the mythologised Jeffersonian ideal— both in his actual life, and in a political sense. He was the self-reliant Man-of-the-West, who achieved success through hard work and honed skill, who practiced honesty and integrity, and who had a strong aversion to big cities and financial elites. In many ways, Crockett’s political views were a throwback to the old, idealistic Jeffersonianism. He was heir to the Principles of '98, you might say. Like Jackson—and, indeed, like Jefferson—Crockett favoured the rural population over urban elites. He held up the ideal of the yeoman farmer and the intrepid frontiersman, and (like Jackson but unlike Jefferson) he actually came from a humble background.
This suggests (as his OTL voting record attests as well) that he’d carry out the Democratic platform, but with different stresses and priorities, compared to Jackson. As mentioned, Crockett cared less about the Bank, and I’m not aware that he had much of an economic theory. Given his political attitudes, though, his policies would no doubt resemble what we’d call “libertarianism” nowadays. In other words: I expect Crockett to go with the traditional Jeffersonian notions of free trade, low tariffs, low government spending, opposition to deficits, opposition to public debt, opposition to unbacked currency, and support for the gold standard. But his own pet peeve was
land reform.
Crockett held that the settlers who lived out West by rights owned (or ought to own) the land they had settled. The existing legislation meant that those settlers were essentially squatters. The government formally owned the land, and the government habitually sold it to speculators. Crockett always advocated new, simple legislation that would codify the Lockean principle that empty land, mixed with one’s labour, made that land one’s property. “Settlers’ rights”, you might say. I think he’d be able to get enough support to get some serious reform done on that account. In this, he wouldn’t actually disagree with Jackson, but he’d put way more emphasis on this issue.
So, in what ways
would Crockett’s policies meaningfully differ from the Jacksonian policies of OTL?
— First of all, as mentioned, he would be rigidly opposed to empowering the executive. In this, he’d be the polar opposite of Jackson. To Crockett, government in general was a dangerous power that typically inflicts harm unto the common people. And the President’s task was to do his utmost to limit the legislative from inflicting such harm. (In practice, his main occupation as President would therefore be much like it was for Grover Cleveland: to just outright veto damn near every bill that came across his desk.)
— Additionally, regarding the National Bank, Crockett wouldn’t use executive measures to “kill the Bank”. Instead, he’d just rely on his Congressional majority to let the Bank’s charter expire and not to renew it. This would liquidate the Bank, and in a manner Crockett would deem Constitutionally sound. It might take a bit longer, but not much longer, and the outcome would be the same. (In OTL, Jackson just didn’t want to be patient, because he hated the Bank with an obsessive intensity. In fact, the Bank was Jackson’s berserk button, just as executive power was Crockett’s...)
— Also, Crockett was adamantly opposed to the forced relocation of the civilised tribes. The whole issue was deeply controversial in OTL, so his opinion wouldn’t cripple him politically. This is one of those cases where a committed leader can really swing things in another direction. Again, Crockett was a living throwback to the old Jeffersonianism of the 1790s, when men like Washington and Jefferson still believed that the Indian tribes could be integrated into mainstream society and culture. Decades later, Jefferson has grown more cynical, but many still believed in the idea. Crockett could really sway his Congressional faction to take some big steps, there.
—Finally, while Crockett avidly supported Western expansion, he exclusively wanted it to happen through settlement. Basically, “go West, young man!” and then when you win your independence, you can join the USA. Unlike many Jacksonians, Crockett didn’t advocate US military intervention. You want to back the Texians? Then go to Texas to volunteer and fight! (As history proves, Crockett actually did as he told others to do.)
----------------------------------------------
So, let's speculate a bit on the scenario, just to round this out.
In our ATL, Jackson is dead, and Crockett is a famous war hero. Come 1824, he is drafted to run. The consequences will be immediately obvious: for all he was unwilling to compromise on his ideals, Crockett would ironically have a better shot at keeping most of the Democratic-Republicans rallied behind him. The fact is, in OTL, old man Jefferson himself never quite trusted Jackson. Both Jefferson and Madison backed Crawford in 1824. In this ATL, I could see them backing Crockett. Crockett shared Jefferson’s wariness of men in power, whereas Jackson in OTL raised both their hackles because he sought to expand the executive power. Crockett is far more likely to meet Jefferson’s approval. With Jefferson’s personal backing for Crockett, there’s little doubt that Crawford could be persuaded to drop out if he’s promised a prestigious position in Crockett’s administration. (Although Calhoun would probably still be VP, since giving that nod to the slavocrats was a must.)
This development would reduce the split in the Democratic-Republican party. Even if Clay stubbornly runs anyway, it’s likely that Crockett just wins outright. Supposing his ATL hero status gets him as much traction as it did Jackson in OTL, he’ll get a similar number of electoral votes. If Crawford backs him, the bulk of Crawford’s OTL electoral votes also goes his way. He’ll likely make it past 131, and then it’s not thrown to the House. Crockett just wins it. Results: the Democrats avoid Jacksonianism, and instead get a more modest, small-government variation on the same theme.
President Crockett will (assuming his party has a legislative majority, which seems certain) oversee as his party goes to work. They shrink the size of government and push for simplification of existing legislation. They’ll be committed to a low tariff and to even lower government expenditures. They’ll push for the US treasury to just deal exclusively in gold certificates, while letting the Bank’s charter expire without replacement.
As far as the whole question of the Indians is concerned, it seems probable that Crockett would push for statehood for the Five Civilised Tribes. For Crockett personally, it’s not only the moral thing to do, but also the smart one: that’s a few more states that will definitely vote for him and his political heirs for the foreseeable future. For the Democratic party, it’s a bunch more Southern states, who will be solidly Democratic, and most of which are going to be vocally pro-slavery, too. This is going to be controversial. That’s just as in OTL, except the controversy leans the exact opposite way. Matters are compounded by the fact that while Crockett would use his office as a pulpit, he would expect Congress to actually handle the legislation. Again: the President’s only meaningful role, in his view, was to approve Constitutional bills, and to veto unconstitutional ones. At the very least, though, the Trail of Tears is avoided.
Then there’s Texas. Crockett’s Presidency (1824-1832) would precede OTL’s revolution, but Crockett would no doubt be encouraging young intrepid Americans to trek West and “claim their birthright”. The result may be that more Anglo settlers move into Texas earlier. By 1830 in OTL, it was already clear that there was going to be an issue in Texas. I imagine that President Crockett would make it clear that intervening across the border was
not the task of the United States. His reasoning may be paraphrased as: “the land belongs to those who live there”. As such, since the Spanish (and then Mexicans) had left Texas practically empty for centuries, while Anglos were filling it up within decades.... by God, Texas belongs to these new settlers who make it their own! ...However, they’d have to wrest control of it by themselves.
Their rights,
their duty. (However, I could see Crockett, after leaving office, outfitting and leading a volunteer force into Texas to help the settlers fight for independence. For extra awesomeness, have the Texians elect Crockett as their President once they become independent, so he gets to be President of
two countries during his lifetime.)
In the longer term, I think the big geopolitical outcome of Crockett-instead-of-Jackson will be that the solution to the Texas question is considered permanent. With Crockett downsizing the government, I don’t think there’s going to be a Mexican-American War. In OTL, Crockett advocated for the closure of West Point, because he believed it was an elite institution for the sons of wealthy families— which was fairly accurate. Like most dedicated Jeffersonians, he wanted to abolish standing armies altogether, and anything like a permanent officer corps was anathema to him So a post-Crockett USA isn’t going to be big on any military expansionism. Instead, imagine an agrarian nation that seeks free trade with all and otherwise keeps to itself.
Naturally, the direction that Crockett is taking the USA would piss off the Nationalists. Clay would be deeply embittered, and would soon conclude that his brand of Nationalism will never take hold in the Democratic party now. So I imagine Clay reaching out to Adams, and the two of them running on a combined ticket in 1828. They’d still lose. But it would seal the deal on splitting Clay’s Nationalism away from the Democrats. Clay and his faction would merge into the National Republicans (instead of Clay folding the remnants of the National Republicans into the Whig Party, as he did in OTL).
The big domestic outcome of this scenario, then, would be a slightly earlier and somewhat different Second Party System. The two major parties of this ATL would already be well-positioned to respectively become a mostly-Northern anti-slavery party and a mostly-Southern pro-slavery party. As such, the OTL Third Party System is probably avoided altogether. Or rather: the ATL Second Party System is enough like the OTL Third Party System that it can survive until the matter of slavery finally comes to a head. Only in the aftermath of that clash will an ATL Third Party System be likely to emerge.
