US Election of 1816: If no James Monroe, then who becomes President?

Darth_Kiryan · Oct 28, 2016

For the sake of convenience, say that James Monroe died during the war of 1812 when he performed that rearguard action, therefore ensuring that he would not be able to be elected in 1816, who exactly would be the nominee/nominees for the Presidency in his place.

Andrew Jackson is a possibility, considering that he would be fresh off his victory of New Orleans. Southerner
William H Crawford - diehard states-rights man is also a possibility. Southerner.
Henry Clay - maybe.
John Quincy Adams - very much a unionist, decent diplomat. Eyes on the Presidency. Northerner
Rufus King - on the Federalist ballot in OTL. Northerner.
Maybe William Henry Harrison.

Are there any others people could think of who could run in 1816, and even be elected?

Indigo · Oct 28, 2016

Probably Crawford (he came in second IOTL and the Democratic-Republicans followed a pretty clear succession) Maybe Jacob Brown or Samuel Smith for a surprise military hero pick.

Nofix · Oct 28, 2016

As boring as it is: Probably Crawford/Tompkins.

The Gunslinger · Oct 28, 2016

It's almost certainly Crawford. The Federalists won't win and nobody else could rally the support Crawford could. He might have even been able to beat out even with Monroe running.

David T · Oct 28, 2016

Not only is Crawford by far the most likely but even in OTL he could have had the job if he wanted it--instead he was satisfied to wait until 1824, when he assumed he would be Monroe's successor. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/3Se75U753uU/Ks4iVZc2skIJ As I note there, "Obviously, Crawford could not have known in 1816 that he would suffer a paralytic stroke in 1823 that would ruin his chances for the presidency in 1824--along with the discrediting of the caucus system and the emergence of Andrew Jackson as a candidate."

Mikestone8 · Oct 28, 2016

Does this mean that we'll all be talking about the Crawford Doctrine instead of the Monroe Doctrine?

The Gunslinger · Oct 28, 2016

Mikestone8 said:
Does this mean that we'll all be talking about the Crawford Doctrine instead of the Monroe Doctrine?

Since Adams wrote it, most likely.

Darth_Kiryan · Oct 28, 2016

Mikestone8 said:
Does this mean that we'll all be talking about the Crawford Doctrine instead of the Monroe Doctrine?

The Gunslinger said:
Since Adams wrote it, most likely.

That would depend if Adams is in the Cabinet, and if Crawford actually opposes Foreign encroachment of the US like Monroe did for Spain and Britain.

Wendell · Oct 29, 2016

Harrison would be interesting.

David T · Oct 30, 2016

Wendell said:
Harrison would be interesting.

1816 was way too early for him--he was first elected to the US House of Representatives that year (though he had earlier been a territorial delegate from the Northwest Territory and territorial governor of Indiana) and to the US Senate in 1824. And as a war hero, he was simply not in the same league as Jackson.

Wendell · Oct 30, 2016

David T said:
1816 was way too early for him--he was first elected to the US House of Representatives that year (though he had earlier been a territorial delegate from the Northwest Territory and territorial governor of Indiana) and to the US Senate in 1824. And as a war hero, he was simply not in the same league as Jackson.

If I'm not mistaken, he nearly did not take the appointment to govern the Indiana Territory. Maybe Harrison's career trajectory is different?