Bringing a close to the “Era of Good Feelings,” the presidential election of 1824 brought to scholarly attention some potential troubles which could arise in the early years of the newly formed country. This time of prosperity and harmony ceased to exist when sectional conflict and personal disagreements came to a head in one of the nation’s first real controversial elections. This election was based on the personalities of the candidates rather than on any important governmental issues. Its outcome caused an outcry from the supporters of Andrew Jackson and a distrust of John Quincy Adams that would lead to his defeat in the following election and ultimately the founding of the modern Democratic Party. In order to understand the succession of occurrences and the results that took place during the election of 1824, one must have knowledge about the men involved, the will of the people as shown by the popular and electoral vote and the ensuing fear of corruption due to an alleged deal struck between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, which led to the formation of what is known as the Democratic Party.
The Players
According to Paul F. Boller Jr., a political Scientist from Texas Christian University, “The real contest boiled down to five serious contenders: John Quincy Adams from the Northeast; Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson from the West; William H. Crawford and John C. Calhoun from the Southeast” (2004, 33). Each of the candidates had strong political backgrounds and governmental strengths and weaknesses. Although each man was qualified to be the next president of the United States and each had a significant base of supporters, only one could take office. The campaigning and election that took place would go down in history and would be directly responsible for the creation of the modern Democratic Party in the United States.
Andrew Jackson was born in the Waxhaw region, between North Carolina and South Carolina in 1767. When he was only twelve years old he joined the Revolutionary Army as a courier. After Jackson was married in 1794, he served as a judge, prosecutor, congressman and senator in Tennessee. After this he became a hero of the War of 1812, winning major victories against the Creek Indians in 1814 and at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 (Feller 2003). Due to his victories in war and his scattering of political experience, Jackson considered himself a true representative of the people of the west (O’Connor 1963, 7).
John Quincy Adams was born in 1767 in Braintree (now Quincy), Massachusetts. As a young man he lived abroad in Paris with his father, former president John Adams. It was in Paris that he met his future wife, Louisa Catherine Johnson (Hargreaves 2003). He spent his entire life serving the people of the United States in places such as the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia and Great Britain. In fact, John Quincy Adams served during James Madison’s administration as the first ever Minister to Russia. He also served as Secretary of State under James Monroe, the last president of the “Era of Good Feelings.” According to Joan O’Connor, Adams “referred to himself as the ‘man of the whole nation’ and desired to be looked upon as such, and not as a sectional representative” (O’Connor 1963, 6).
William Harris Crawford was born in Nelson County, Virginia in 1772. By 1783 Crawford and his family had settled in Georgia where he attended school and became a lawyer. He also served in the United States Senate from 1807 to 1813, after which he served as Minister to France until 1815. Under President Madison, Crawford was appointed Secretary of War and transferred to the Treasury a little more than a year later in 1816. Crawford continued to serve under James Monroe until the presidential election of 1824, where he would run against Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay (Mooney 1974). He was a true Southerner: a state’s rights supporter, who favored slavery but managed to maintain the respect of many Northern politicians (O’Connor 1963, 6-7). Because Crawford was supported by Monroe and other highly-ranked public officials, he was considered to be the front-runner of the election. Crawford’s election seemed eminent until “he suffered a paralytic stroke in the fall of 1823. Nearly blind and hardly able to articulate, he was unable to contend effectively against his rivals. Although his condition gradually improved, the damage to his presidential prospects was irreparable” (McManus 2000).
Born in Virginia in 1777, Henry Clay was one of the most well known statesmen in America during the early 1800’s. He lived in Kentucky and served in many positions of public office. He became a member of the Kentucky legislature in 1803 and later served in the United States Senate from 1806 to 1807 while being younger than the required thirty years to serve in Congress. He also served in the House of Representatives and as Speaker of the House several times throughout his political career (Mayo 1966). Along with Jackson, Henry Clay represented the West. However, Clay also embodied more Eastern policies because he was in favor of high tariffs and the controversial National Bank (O’Connor 1963, 8).
Another man who held a prominent role in the Election of 1824 was Vice Presidential candidate John C. Calhoun. Calhoun was born in South Carolina in 1782. He served in the state legislature and in the United States House of Representatives for six years. Calhoun also served as Secretary of War under President James Monroe until 1824. Originally Calhoun had planned to run as successor to President Monroe but dropped out of the race to run as Vice President for both Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams (Boller 2004, 33). Calhoun withdrew from the presidential race because Jackson was regarded more favorably among the people in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and most significantly, Pennsylvania (Brown 1925, 394).
Strengths
Because all candidates were running on the same party tickets, as members of the Democratic Republican party, “the basis of selection of candidates was therefore personal rather than political” (Brown 1925, 384). The selection of the president in 1824 was based on general popularity and sectional support, which is what eventually led to the controversy surrounding the election. As for popularity, each candidate had strengths in certain areas of politics or had generally gained the popularity of a large section of the United Sates. The nation’s support was divided before the election began. After the election however, the people would see a split among the people that was fueled by anger and disappointment, which would lead to the split of the Democratic-Republican Party and the development of the modern Democratic Party headed by Andrew Jackson.
Though the five men had their strengths, Jackson “swept into presidential politics in 1824 on a wave of unprecedented popularity. No man before had been taken seriously as a candidate without long service in high public office. . . . the people giddily embraced a glamorous military hero, whose views on national political issues were nonexistent, or unknown” (Phillips 1976, 489). Andrew Jackson’s main strength was in his popularity with the people. He was hailed as a war hero, a status which gathered him votes not only in his state of Tennessee but also across the entire nation.
Because many people had moved from New England to Ohio, Adams had a large section of supporters in the Western Reserve region of Ohio as well as in New England. Adams’ main support came from anti-slavery northerners who wished to end the Southern reign over the presidency. They thought it was necessary to elect Adams because he was from the North, because four of the five preceding presidents had come from Virginia; the only exception was his own father John Adams (O’Connor 1963, 8-9).
Henry Clay’s advantage was that he held standing among politicians in Washington. Clay corresponded “extensively with well connected men in various states whose friendship he had gained in Congress” (Watson 1998, 60). Clay was also dedicated to forming a policy that would not only be accepted by state leaders, but also mirror his personal goals for the United States, which included the federal protective tariff. Because of this and his past experience as Speaker of the House, Clay was able to form and maintain connections among influential politicians in Washington (Watson 1998, 61).
William Crawford was a strong presidential candidate because he was current president James Monroe’s choice of successor. Monroe, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all respected and trusted Crawford and accordingly supported him as a Presidential candidate. The problem with Crawford however was that he received a caucus nomination in 1824 which was more a detriment to his candidacy than a benefit. His adversaries considered the caucus to be undemocratic, unconstitutional and dictatorial because only one third of the Republicans in Congress were present for the caucus (Boller 2004, 33). The caucus caused Crawford trouble through the entire campaign. By the time he received his nomination, his health had severely declined. He attempted to recover but never fully regained virility, which was a devastating blow to his chances at the presidency (Boller 2004, 34). Election of 1824
When Election Day arrived in November of 1824, the people of the United States voted and voiced their choice for the next president of the United States. “Of the electoral votes Andrew Jackson received ninety-nine, John Quincy Adams, eighty-four, William H. Crawford, forty-one, and Henry Clay, thirty-seven” (Lathrop 1937, 273). Among the candidates, votes were distributed as follows:
Presidential Candidate/Party/HomeState/Popular Vote/Electoral Vote/Percent of Vote
Although Jackson had won the most electoral votes, he did not have the majority required to take office. Because of the Twelfth Amendment, the vote would be sent to the House of Representatives. Because Clay came in with the least electoral votes, he was eliminated from selection. However, Clay would prove to have the most influence on the vote because he was the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Wait 2001, 29). The supporters of both Adams and Jackson quickly began pursuing Clay to gain support for their favored candidate.
From the beginning, Clay had decided to support Adams. Clay was fearful of what would happen if Jackson took office because of his strong military background. Although he and his supporters were aware that a vote for Adams would mean advancement for Clay’s career, he claims to have voted solely for the good of the people (Brown 1925, 399). Harry L. Watson claims that “Despite differences in their personal styles, Clay easily realized that he and Adams shred similar goals for the country, while he saw little of value in the policies of Jackson and Crawford. Crawford, moreover, lay deathly ill and could not perform the duties of the presidency” (1992, 64). Both Adams and Clay supported a high tariff, a national bank and a system for unifying the nation and disintegrating the sectional factions. Clay also felt that Jackson lacked the experience to hold the office. Clay also hesitated to support Jackson because he felt that Adams was less of a threat to his future political career than Jackson.
When the vote came through with thirteen states voting for Adams, seven for Jackson and four for Crawford, the Jacksonians were disappointed and angry. They felt that Jackson was the real choice of the nation’s people because he had won both the popular and the electoral vote. This dissatisfaction with the outcome of the House of Representatives vote led to a very bitter and angry group of Jackson supporters who felt that democracy had been undermined by the House vote (Boller 2004, 36).
The Bargain
Three days later, the disappointment of Jackson supporters turned to outrage when Adams announced that Clay would be appointed Secretary of State, a position which was considered a stepping stone to the Presidency. They screamed that Adams and Clay had killed virtue, liberty and independence in the United States. The people believed that there had been a “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay (Boller 2004, 37). While Clay and Adams denied this claim, Clay did support Adams in the House, the House chose Adams over Jackson even though Jackson originally had more support than Adams and Adams did choose Clay as his Secretary of State. Because these facts could not be disputed, Adams and Clay were both unable to convince the people that corruption had not taken place. Because the people of the United States felt that democracy had been undermined and because Adams did little during his presidency to make improvements and win over the people, Jackson went on to defeat Adams in the Election of 1828, setting straight the wrong which had been committed against him (Watson 1998, 66).
The Problems
The main problem with the election of 1824 was that personalities rather than issues dominated the campaigning. Newspapers glorified their favored candidates and scandalized their opponents. For example, Adams was criticized for dressing “slovenly” and marrying an English woman. Clay was presented as a worthless drunk that gambled away his money while Crawford was accused of official misconduct. Jackson was accused of being a murderer because he had executed mutineers in 1813 (Boller 2004, 35). There were no dominant issues surrounding the campaign, even though some had feared that slavery would become a deciding factor in the election. The fact that there was only one party running in the election caused further problems. Because all candidates were from the same party, the issues at hand were blurred and the electors were forced to rely on personal preference rather than a candidate’s stance on any one issue (Wait 2001, 29).
Another significant problem in the election was sectionalism. It was thought that the extreme sectionalism displayed in this election would destroy free government in the Untied States. Hezekiah Niles, a popular journalist, had “expressed a fear that common national feeling was not dominant in the nation, but the divisions were more on personalities rather than on issues, despite the electoral emphasis on issues above personalities” (Wait 2001, 24). Not only was sectionalism a problem, but the geographic sections of the population were voting on personalities rather than issues alone. This proved to be a problem because no one candidate was able to gain enough support to win a majority and the vote was sent to the House of Representatives, the result of which was dubbed “the corrupt bargain.”
The End of an Era
The Election of 1824 was the cause of a major shift in political atmosphere. After the United States won the War of 1812 against Britain, Americans began to place less importance on military and political affairs in Europe, especially after the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The mood of unity and harmony, which was referred to as the Era of Good Feelings, was further advanced by the election of James Monroe as president in 1816. His election marked the defeat of the last Federalist candidate, which led to a virtual one-party rule under the Democratic-Republicans in the United States (Encyclopedia Britannica 2005).
However, the Election of 1824 brought an abrupt end to the Era of Good Feelings. The good feelings of unity and harmony ended due to the outrage of Jackson’s followers. The outcome of the election led to a severe distrust of government and disappointment with the Democratic-Republican Party. Jackson, who is “generally considered – along with Jefferson – one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party, organized his supporters to a degree unprecedented in American history. The Jacksonian Democrats created the national convention process, the party platform, and reunified the Democratic Party with Jackson’s victories in 1828 and 1832″ (The Democratic National Committee 2005). An election that was considered by most American citizens as a corruption of the democratic process was responsible for the founding of today’s Democratic Party. According to Paul C. Nagel, former director of the Virginia Historical Society, “the bitterness of sentiment engendered by the campaign [of 1824] encouraged a revitalized two party system” (1960, 328). Not only was the outcome of the 1824 election a driving force in the formation of the modern Democratic Party, but it also brought back into control a two-party system which still flourishes in today’s society.
Conclusion
In 1824 a close and controversial election was decided by a small group of men. The campaigning had been brutal due to a one party system, with voters deciding on personalities rather than issues. Also, sectionalism played a large role in the outcome of the actual national vote. Although each candidate was qualified for office in different ways, none managed to grasp 131 electoral votes, enough for the majority needed to win the presidency. Both sectionalism and deeply rooted anger at the result of the House of Representatives vote led to outrage and cries of corruption of the government. This election impacted voters because it instilled in the people a distrust of government and paranoia about corruption violating the will of the people. The election of 1824 also had a great impact on the next election in 1828 because the people voted Jackson as president by a landslide.
References
Boller, Paul F., Jr. 2004. Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, Everett S. 1925. “The Presidential Election of 1824-1825.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (September), 384-403.
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2005. “Era of Good Feelings.” Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9037368 (November 20, 2005).
Lathrop, Barnes F. 1937. “Monroe on the Adams-Clay ‘Bargain’.” The American Historical Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, (January):273-276.
Mayo, Bernard. 1937. Henry Clay: Spokesman of the New West. Archon Books.
McManus, Edgar J. 2000. “Crawford, William Harris.” American National Biography Online. http://www.anb.org/articles/03/03-00114.html (November 21, 2005).
Mooney, Chase C. 1974. William H. Crawford: 1772-1834. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press.
Nagel, Paul C. 1960. “The Election of 1824: A Reconsideration Based on Newspaper Opinion.” The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 26, No. 3 (August), 315-329.
O’Connor, Joan. 1963. “Ohio Responds to the Corrupt Bargain Charge of the Election of 1824.” Akron: The University of Akron.
Phillips, Kim. 1976. “The Pennsylvania Origins of the Jackson Movement.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 91, No. 3 (Autumn): 489-508.
Wait, Eugene M. 2001. Adams vs. Jackson. Huntington: Kroshka Books.
Watson, Harry L. 1998. Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay: Democracy and Development in Antebellum America. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
