What were the issues of the Election of 1824 and 1828?

Question

I can't them my history book and the web isn't doing much of a good job.

Answer 1

I'm not all that surprised your history book doesn't help. For starters, the most remarked upon aspect of these elections is always how the first one was settled in the House, and then how Jackson, charging a Clay-Adams "Corrupt Bargain" came back to win in 1828.

This stuff is important, and in some ways did play into the national debates about various issues. At least for the 1832 election. But, of course (sorry Calstan), all of this could HARDLY have been an "issue" of the 1824 election campaign, which PRECEDED it.

As for the mudslinging --on BOTH sides-- in the 1828 campaign, that too was important but:

a) it is VERY doubtful the accusations against Adams did much if anything to affect the voting, much less to have cost Adams the election

b) it was only secondarily an "issue" and chiefly BECAUSE of process by which the 1824 contest was settled

________________

1824

So what were the "campaign issues"?

Actually, in 1824 they were fairly muted, which helps to explain WHY so many focus on the odd ending as if it were THE issue that year. One of the factors that shaped this election was that this was the "Era of Good Feelings" during which there was only ONE national party. Without a clearcut successor to Monroe (as he had been to Madison, and Madison to Jefferson) and with no well-defined PARTY difference (as had been the case briefly between Federalists and Republicans, and as would soon be the case again) different groups began to organize around the CANDIDATES.

What supporters mainly focused on was the individual qualifications and personality of their candidate AND on the national SECTION they represented and would likely be of most help to. Adams was the "New England" candidate, Crawford (though a stroke ending up greatly weakening his bid) had key Southern support, Clay and Jackson divided the West. As such, they did to some degree favor policies that benefited their sections.

Note especially:

Adams leaned toward old "Federalist" positions, in support of a high tariff that helped New England manufacturers, and for much more federal involvement in "internal improvements" (including such things as canals). Note that these were positions ALSO supported by Clay. (In fact, a major part if not THE key in Clay's urging his supporters to back Adams in the House vote was that, though he was not personally friendly with Adams, the latter's concerns were very close to his own.) Adams was ALSO highly respected for his years of experience and expertise in foreign affairs, ending with his service as Monroe's Secretary of State.

Indeed this position had been THE stepping stone to the Presidency for Madison and Monroe, and many expected that Adams would follow the same road. But when it came to it, even if there was an implicit understanding that this was how it should work, the South would not give Adams the endorsement, and chose native son Crawford instead. (Jeffersonians were afraid of Northerners gaining power, even if they were party loyalists. This had earlier led to Jefferson's turning on Burr, beginning with dumping him from the 1804 ticket.)

So you can see the SECTIONALISM came into this -- even when the "issues" were not so clearly defined. It was basically a battle of 'native sons'.

And note that the issues were even LESS defined in the 1824 race because of the "single party" of the time, and the custom of the Presidential candidates NOT campaigning personally.

Also PERSONAL popularity was even more of an issue with Jackson in the race. He did not really run on ANY national issues this time out -- few had any idea where he stood on policy issues! His appeal was a popularity as a war hero (esp. from the Battle of New Orleans) and as a no-nonsense Westerner. And he had served only briefly in the Senate before his nomination for the Presidency (indeed, that is the REASON he was sent to the Senate), so had no real track record, not having had to vote in the various debates (as the others all had, to some degree).

So it is all the more that case that for Jackson here WERE in a sense "no [policy] issues" in the election of 1824.

________________

1828

By this time some issues HAD been clarified. That's partly because Adams had, as President, attempted to carry out a program, esp. of tariffs and internal improvements (including a national observatory), though with little success due to lack of political skill and Congressional support.

At the same time, Jackson reached out to various groups to build a coalition for his next bid. In the process he had begun to adopt positions. In fact, new PARTY --the "Democratic" Party (no longer "Republican" nor even "Democratic Republican") -- organized around him, through the efforts of men like political genius Martin VanBuren in New York (a bit like Burr before him) and John Calhoun in the South.

It gained much of its support from the South and Southwest, opposing higher tarriffs, supporting "states rights" and "limited" federal government.

Jackson also became a MAJOR opponent of the National Bank, which he thought aided Eastern banking interests to the detriment of Westerners and farmers. (Farmers ALWAYS liked a bit more inflation, easier credit, paper money -- as well as more LOCAL power-- because this enabled them to pay off their debts. Merchants and creditors liked hard money [gold standard, etc])

So in 1828 BOTH the "Corrupt Bargain" Jackson alleged, and these mostly Western and Southern interests, defined the victorious campaign of the new Jacksonian Democrats. (By the next election, his opponents who had in 1828 called themselves "National Republicans" had re-organized as "Whigs", the second major party till its collapse in the 1850s, to be replaced by the new Republican party. The Whigs might include ANY Jackson opponents, but came to be chiefly defined by its belief in a larger role for the federal government, support of the tariff and of American BUSINESS)


So what you're looking at in the 1824-1832 era is the emergence of the "second [two-]party system". As had happened with the development of the first party system in the 1790s (Federalists vs. [Jeffersonian] Republicans) things were at first VERY personal and the specific distintive "party" issues took some time to be clarified. This, along with the personal popularity of Jackson, helps explain WHY people have trouble seeing particular "issues" (that is, different policy positions) in the election of 1824.

The following links do better than most at covering some of the matters above (NOT just the election numbers, House vote, "Corrupt Bargain" charge, etc)

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Politics-of-the-Jacksonian-Era.topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25040.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h325.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter8section1.rhtml
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jackson/section7.rhtml
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h262.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824
http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=551

Answer 2

Election 1828

Answer 3

The biggest issue of the 1824 election was that it was the first time that the election of the President went to the House of Representatives, and here's the surprise: Andrew Jackson, who won more of the electoral vote and popular vote than the other candidates, LOST to John Quincy Adams!

Jackson got him back in 1828, mostly by accusing Adams of giving an American servant girl as a love slave to the Russian czar. And you thought elections today were nasty...

Answer 4

there grew to become into in common terms one occasion in 1824, Democratic Republican occasion. Jackson lost the nomination in '24, desperate then by the Congressional Caucus, which represented the electoral college requirement interior the form. In 1828 he ran on the recent Democratic occasion set up by Calhoun and others, after being nominated by the Pennsylvania convention. He grew to become into elected, in many circumstances referred to as a JackAss, he enjoyed that and observed it as his occasion's emblem.For his inaugaration Jackson invited all human beings, fantastically from the Carolinas, and this is declared they very almost wrecked the Whitehouse. He spent lots time attempting to get the form amended to do away with the Electoral college. He did no longer be triumphant. understand interior the 30's he reaped havoc on the financial device by removing the critical financial enterprise, coming up afterwards the optimal, and in '33 he defied a determination of the spectacular courtroom pertaining to to the removing of Cherokee Indians (an Impeachable offense).He grew to become right into a Federalist, implementing value lists between States, and based the "spoils" device..firing Federal workers and changing with friends.

Answer 5

I've been browsing online more than three hours today seeking the answer to the same question, yet I haven't found a more interesting debate like this. It's pretty worth enough for me.