Gary J. Kornblith seeks to go beyond the interpretations of the fundamentalists and the revisionists by using a counterfactual method and creating a thought experiment. He argues that had Henry Clay won the presidential election of 1844, there never would of been a Mexican-American War and more importantly no Civil War. He hypothesizes about the Presidency of Henry Clay and how his personal politics would have led to decisions that would have changed many things in our history. He posits that by rethinking our history by changing one event, we can imagine a much different United States of America.
Kornblith argues that if Henry Clay had been elected President he would have focused on the economy and a central bank and ignored the annexation of Texas. Keeping Texas an independent republic would have prevented the Mexican-American War and would have kept the debate of slavery out of public discourse for the most part. Ultimately, his counterfactual method of imagining a Clay presidency would have prevented a domino effect that led to the Civil War.
I understand his goal of using a unique way of rethinking history in order to comprehend the true causal factors of the Civil War, but I am not convinced by his analysis. His main arguments seem too simplistic to explain the causes of the Civil War. Based on our readings from Manning and our discussion in class, one thing I have learned is that the Civil War is very complex. Kornblith seems to ignore all the complexities by making a change in history and positing a lot of assumptions. One cannot assume that if Clay were elected President that his values and policies would not be swayed by political pressure and an ever-changing status quo. One cannot assume that Clays election would prevent the Mexican American War and Texas would remain an independent republic. Granted this a “thought experiment” so there are a lot of assumptions, but it just seems way too farfetched.
One of the major issues I have with Kornblith is his assumptions about the decisions Henry Clay would have made on different policies. With the changing ideals about the two party system, the emergence of the Republican party, and the debate of slavery, there is no way to presume that Henry Clay would remain steadfast in his policies. Kornblith somewhat undercuts himself by referencing Leron Bennett, Jr. and the “evolving views of Abraham Lincoln.” Bennett posits, “He believed in the constitutionality of slavery where it already existed, and he was prepared to tolerate its persistence there for the indefinite future.” He goes on to say, “Had it not had been for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, Lincoln would have remained a loyal Whig who viewed southern Whigs as his political allies rather than as representatives of a slave power that endangered basic republican values”(p 99).
If Lincoln changed his views, then why would Henry Clay be immune to such a change?
Overall, I applaud Kornblith for using a dynamic method to interpret history, but realizing how complex the Civil War was, makes be believe that his analysis was too farfetched.