During William Henry Harrison's brief administration in OTL there were
some signs of tension between Harrison and Henry Clay, which seemed to be
working to Daniel Webster's advantage. For example, Harrison was annoyed
by Clay's insistence that Harrison appoint John Clayton Secretary of the
Navy, and in a stormy intervew reportedly reminded Clay that he, not Clay,
had been elected president. (Though the man Harrison did ultimately
appoint to that office, George Badger of North Carolina, was friendly to
Clay). Also, Harrison appointed a Webster ally, Edmund Curtis, collector
of the New York Customs House--the most powerful patronage position in the
United States--over Clay's vehement opposition. Michael F. Holt, *The Rise
and Fall of the American Whig Party,* p. 125.
https://books.google.com/books?id=hMkYklGTY1MC&pg=PA125 Moreover, on the
issue of whether there should be a speical session of Congress, Harrison
at first sided with Webster:

"Significantly, one of the Whigs who continued to oppose a special session
was Webster. He realized that he could benefit from Clay's prolonged
absence from Washington, and he worried about the disruptive potential of
hasty action. Clay, in contrast, passionately supported a special session.
When he learned that Harrison, with Webster's concurrence, had tentatively
decided against it, he sent Harrison a letter virtually instructing him to
call the session and writing out a draft for the presidential
proclamation.

"For Harrison, this insulting "lecture" was the last straw. In reply, he
chastised Clay for being too "impetuous" and ordered the mortified
Kentuckian to communicate with him in the future only by writing rather
than through personal visits to the White House. Clay's imperious letter
undoubtedly confirmed the president in his intention not to call a special
session. When Ewing reported that the government was in debt and faced an
additional deficit of more than $11 million unless additional revenue was
quickly raised, however, Harrison reluctantly consented. On March 17 he
summoned an emergency session of Congress to meet on May 31, 1841, to
address the economic crisis.

"Within two weeks of Harrison's inauguration, Clay had fallen out with the
new president, and Webster seemed to have won an initial advantage. Both
sought to benefit the Whig party as a whole, for only if the party
retained its popularity would the nomination in 1844 be valuable. Yet each
dearly had a different understanding of what was best for the party and
for his own personal ambition. How this conflict might have been resolved
had Harrison served out his term can only be speculated..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA127

One should not exaggerate Clay's setbacks: after all, despite Webster
being the Secretary of State and despite the absence of Clayton from the
Cabinet, it did consist mostly of allies of his (Crittenden, Bell, Ewing,
Badger). And Harrison did after all ultimately agree to a special session.
But it is clear that Harrison was annoyed with Clay's evident attempts to
be the real power in the administration. It is possible that had he lived,
Harrison would have worked for Webster as his successor in 1844 (Harrison
had pledged to serve only one term). Even if he did so, though, I am
unsure he could get the Whig party to go along, and even if they did I am
doubtful that Webster, with his image as an elitist and his background as
a Federalist, could win the election. But maybe he just has a chance if
the Democrats nominate the unpopular Van Buren. (It is not altogether
clear that the Democrats would do so, though. True, the Texas issue, which
was what allegedly defeated Van Buren in OTL would be less prominent than
in OTL--but Texas may just have been an excuse for some of Van Buren's
enemies in the Democratic Party. For example, the soft-money, pro-banking
faction of the party disliked him and rallied around Cass. And no doubt
many Democrats remembered how unpopular his administration had been. In
any event, Texas probably does not explain why a considerable number of
his nominal supporters *in the North* defected on the two-thirds rule.
https://books.google.com/books?id=2vu99nZ2h7cC&pg=PR10)

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net