why did John C. Calhoun, henry clay, and Daniel Webster all fail to reach the presidency?

Answer 1

There are different reasons in each case. Clay had by far the best chance, Calhoun became too narrowly identified with extreme Southern views to gain the needed NATIONAL support.

Details:

Clay actually came VERY close on a couple of occasions, but specific circumstances ("dumb luck" even) intervened. Some blame his supposed 'corrupt bargain' to give Adams the vote in the House of Representatives after the 1824 election cost him the support needed. But I do not think the facts bear this out. There is no clear evidence that this "old history" had any affect on later races, in which he did quite well. (And note that those who opposed Clay for this reason were Jacksonian Democrats who would not have supported him in any case!)

Another factor for Clay -- the Whigs, eager to gain the Presidency, liked to draft popular war heroes to run, probably in part to counter the popular aura left behind by 'General Jackson', whose rise to the Presidency was largely due to HIS 'war hero' status.

(Note too that in tense political times such a person may also be attractive if they do NOT have a strong, clear position on various policies that everyone is dividing over. Given Clay's long tenure in the national legislature, that would hardly be possible for him.)


I know less about the details of Webster's case, though for all the Northern admiration for him (esp his debate prowess) his "base" --largely New England-- may have been a bit too small for him to have much of a chance in landing the nomination.... against other sectional 'native sons'.

I believe Webster may ALSO have lost some support among Whigs for his strong SUPPORT (loyalty) to John Tyler, when serving in his cabinet. Tyler, though elected (with Harrison) on the Whig ticket, was really more of a Democrat who had had a falling out with Jackson. Thus the perception, fair or not, was that Webster supported and compromised with the Democrats. (Webster had even pushed hard for Tyler to assume the "FULL prerogatives" as President, not just as "acting President" when Harrison suddenly died. Thus he helped STRENGTHEN Tyler, who went on to OPPOSE the policies that the Whigs were fighting for in Congress.)


As for CALHOUN -- he basically lost his chance in the early 1830s, first by getting on Jackson's 'bad side'. He had, as Jackson's VP, had the "inside track" at first.... but ultimately that ended up going to Martin VanBuren. The key to this (see the link below) was the "Petticoat Affair" in Jackson's cabinet. (One might argue that it was a misstep by Calhoun's WIFE that cost him Jackson's support, but no matter..)
http://www.historynet.com/culture/politics/3032691.html?showAll=y&c=y

(The link above notes Webster's prediction that this whole matter would probably do much to determine Jackson's successor. Indeed it did!)

The barrier to the Presidency became far GREATER for Calhoun once he became identified with "nullification" and took a stand that seemed to many to undermine the Union -- and that over against Jackson's strong pro-Union stance.

Along with this came his strong defense of slavery as a GOOD thing. All this made him VERY popular in his native South Carolina, and something of a saint to a whole group of Southern leaders of the next generation, and later to his appropriate nickname "grandfather of the Confederacy". But much of the country regarded this as extreme and divisive...

(Democrats eventually ended up choosing "compromise" candidates to run for President -- esp. Northerners who would support Southern interests, such as Pierce and Buchanan. ALSO, since the party had in the 1830s adopted the practice of requiring a 2/3 vote of convention delegates to nominate a candidate, even those with a strong base could not be chosen if they also had "strong negatives". This certainly would rule out Calhoun!)

Answer 2

Because he is not a nice guy.