DOCSLIB.ORG

The Election Is in the House: Was There a “Corrupt Bargain?” O’Brien U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Election Is in the House: Was There a “Corrupt Bargain?” O’Brien U.S The Election Is in the House: Was There a “Corrupt Bargain?” O’Brien U.S. History 1 PreAP/CP The presidential election of 1824 represents a watershed in American politics. The collapse of the Federalist Party and the illness of the "official candidate" of the Democratic-Republicans led to a slate of candidates who were all Democratic-Republicans. This led to the end of the Congressional Caucus system for nominating candidates, and eventually, the development of a new two-party system in the United States (i.e. the 2nd Party System). In the election, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote. But John Quincy Adams became president. Four crucial elements of our election system were highlighted in the election of 1824: the nomination of candidates, the popular election of electors, the Electoral College, and the election of the president in the House when no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College. Guiding Questions How did John Quincy Adams win election in 1824? Learning Objectives Take a stand, supported by evidence, on whether there was a "corrupt bargain" between Henry Clay and John Q Adams. Instructions: 1. Step 1 – Let’s read some background: The election in the House of Representatives took place on February 9, 1825. Shortly thereafter, Adams announced that Henry Clay would be his nominee for Secretary of State. John Quincy Adams became president on March 3, 1825. There was an immediate accusation that some kind of deal had been struck, a so-called "corrupt bargain." On March 5, 1825, President Adams Nominated Henry Clay for Secretary of State. Had Adams specifically promised Clay appointment as Secretary of State in exchange for his support? (NOTE: At that time, the position of Secretary of State was considered the best stepping-stone to the presidency.) No "smoking gun" to prove or disprove the accusations of a "corrupt bargain" has ever been found. Well-respected modern historians disagree on the matter. It should also be noted that Clay's confirmation was contested in the Senate, with a third of the Senate voting not to confirm. The final tally was 27 for and 14 against. 2. Step 2 - What evidence do historians use to determine what actually happened in events of the past. Andrew Jackson has accused John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay of striking a Corrupt Bargain! You are to weigh the evidence, and carefully choose the exhibits which seem the most credible (believable, not emotionally driven) and use them to help you arrive at a decision. Does the circumstantial evidence indicate there was or was not a "bargain"? Or is the evidence insufficient to enable a conclusion? If a bargain had been struck, what criteria should be used to determine whether that bargain was in fact "corrupt"? 3. Step 3 – Let’s read the Historical Context section below. 4. Step 4 – Let’s now read the remainder of the excerpt from Robert Remini’s In The Life of Andrew Jackson: The fateful decision came on January 9, 1825. A meeting was arranged between Adams and Clay for an evening's conversation. "Mr. Clay came at six," Adams confided to his journal, "and spent the evening with me in a long conversation." In the course of the conversation Clay asked the New Englander "to satisfy him with regard to some 1 | P a g e The Election Is in the House: Was There a “Corrupt Bargain?” O’Brien U.S. History 1 PreAP/CP principles of great public importance, but without any personal considerations for himself." Nothing crude or vulgar, like declaring the terms of a political deal, passed their lips. No need. Both men understood one another's purposes. Surely they both realized that in exchange for House support Adams would designate Clay as his secretary of state. Historical Context Jackson could barely contain his fury at having lost the election in what he claimed was a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay to overturn the will of the people. To most Jacksonian supporters it looked as if congressional leaders had conspired to revive the caucus system, whereby Congress greatly influenced—if not determined—the selection of the president. Jackson laid the blame on Clay, telling anyone who would listen that the Speaker had approached him with the offer of a deal: Clay would support Jackson in return for Jackson's appointment of Clay as secretary of state. When Jackson refused, Clay made the deal with Adams instead. In Jackson's words, Clay had sold his influence in a "corrupt bargain." Clay denied the charges, and while there certainly had been some behind-the-scene maneuvering by Clay to push the vote to Adams, it most likely reflected Clay's genuine doubts about Jackson's qualifications as a president. In assessing the odds of successfully forwarding his own political agenda, Clay questioned Jackson's commitment to the American System of internal improvements. On the other hand, Clay knew that Adams had supported it consistently over the years … Enraged, Jackson resigned his seat in the U.S. Senate and vowed to win the presidency in 1828 as an outsider to Washington politics. It was the intention of the Founding Fathers that the time between the election and the final determination of the result in any instance where the vote would end up in the House would be brief to discourage backroom deals. Yet the election of 1824 was not settled until February of 1825. Discussions about how to conduct the election in the House dragged on. Was this a reflection of concern for detail in a matter of such importance, or was this part of a concerted effort to stall the proceedings until deals could be made? 2 | P a g e The Election Is in the House: Was There a “Corrupt Bargain?” O’Brien U.S. History 1 PreAP/CP Exhibit 1 Andrew Jackson's reaction to the announcement of Clay's appointment: "The people [have] been cheated. Corruptions and intrigues at Washington...defeated the will of the people." —Cited in the Society section of the essay Andrew Jackson: Champion of the Kingly Commons "So you see, the Judas of the West [Clay] has closed the contract and will receive the thirty pieces of silver…Was there ever witnessed such a bare faced corruption in any country before?" —Andrew Jackson to William B. Lewis, February 14, 1825 "This, to my mind, is the most open, daring corruption that has ever shown itself under our government, and if not checked by the people, will lead to open direct bribery… " —Andrew Jackson to George Wilson, February 20, 1825 3 | P a g e The Election Is in the House: Was There a “Corrupt Bargain?” O’Brien U.S. History 1 PreAP/CP Exhibit 2 - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj01844 Henry Clay vigorously defended himself in Congress against the "corrupt bargain" allegations, which were already circulating prior to the final vote in the House; his statement was entered in the official record. House Journal --THURSDAY, February 3, 1825. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1824-1825 The SPEAKER [Clay] rose, and … requested the indulgence of the House for a few moments, while he asked its attention to a subject in which he felt himself deeply concerned. A note had appeared this morning in the National Intelligencer [newspaper], [written by]… a member of this House from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Kremer)… containing serious and injurious imputations [accusations] against him, and which the author avowed his readiness [ability] to [prove]… [Clay]he hoped that he should be allowed, respectfully, to solicit, in behalf of himself, an inquiry into the truth of the charges to which he referred [written about him in the newspaper]… The House…appeared to him…was the proper place to institute the inquiry, in order that, if guilty, here the proper punishment might be applied, and if innocent, that here his character and conduct may be vindicated [corrected, restored] . He anxiously hoped, therefore, that the House would be pleased to direct an investigation to be made into the truth of the charges… 4 | P a g e The Election Is in the House: Was There a “Corrupt Bargain?” O’Brien U.S. History 1 PreAP/CP Exhibit 3 In The Life of Andrew Jackson (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), Robert Remini writes that: The fateful decision came on January 9, 1825. A meeting was arranged between Adams and Clay for an evening's conversation. "Mr. Clay came at six," Adams confided to his journal, "and spent the evening with me in a long conversation." In the course of the conversation Clay asked the New Englander "to satisfy him with regard to some principles of great public importance, but without any personal considerations for himself." *Note: This is a secondary source (a book written by Robert Remini). Exhibit 4 Diary Entries of John Quincy Adams (1-2 months prior to House Election) Diary Entry 1 [Edward} Wyer [confidential informant] came … to …[my] and told me that he had it from good authority that Mr. Clay was much disposed to support me, if he could at the same time be useful to himself... I had conversation at dinner with Mr. Clay... December 15, 1824 Diary Entry 2 [conversation with R. P. Letcher, member of the House of Representatives of Kentucky, Clay’s state]: ...The drift of all Letcher’s … [words] was much the same as Wyer had told me, that Clay would willingly support me if he could … [also] serve himself, and the substance of his meaning was, that if Clay’s friends could know that he would have a prominent share in the administration, that might induce him to vote for me..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Martin Van Buren: the Greatest American President
    SUBSCRIBE NOW AND RECEIVE CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN* FREE! “The Independent Review does not accept “The Independent Review is pronouncements of government officials nor the excellent.” conventional wisdom at face value.” —GARY BECKER, Noble Laureate —JOHN R. MACARTHUR, Publisher, Harper’s in Economic Sciences Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive a free book of your choice* such as the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. This quarterly journal, guided by co-editors Christopher J. Coyne, and Michael C. Munger, and Robert M. Whaples offers leading-edge insights on today’s most critical issues in economics, healthcare, education, law, history, political science, philosophy, and sociology. Thought-provoking and educational, The Independent Review is blazing the way toward informed debate! Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! *Order today for more FREE book options Perfect for students or anyone on the go! The Independent Review is available on mobile devices or tablets: iOS devices, Amazon Kindle Fire, or Android through Magzter. INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE, 100 SWAN WAY, OAKLAND, CA 94621 • 800-927-8733 • [email protected] PROMO CODE IRA1703 Martin Van Buren The Greatest American President —————— ✦ —————— JEFFREY ROGERS HUMMEL resident Martin Van Buren does not usually receive high marks from histori- ans. Born of humble Dutch ancestry in December 1782 in the small, upstate PNew York village of Kinderhook, Van Buren gained admittance to the bar in 1803 without benefit of higher education. Building on a successful country legal practice, he became one of the Empire State’s most influential and prominent politi- cians while the state was surging ahead as the country’s wealthiest and most populous.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrupt Bargain" Charge Against Clay and Adams
    THE "CORRUPT BARGAIN" CHARGE AGAINST CLAY AND ADAMS: AN HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS BY WILLIAM G. MORGAN Oral Roberts University Tulsa, Oklahoma The election of 1824 provided a substantial portion of the ground- work for the notable political changes which emerged from the some- what misnamed "Era of Good Feelings," while at the same time involv- ing several unusual political phenomena. A cardinal feature of this electoral struggle was the large number of prominent candidates. Early in the contest the serious contenders totaled as many as "16 or 17," in- cluding William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury; John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State; Henry Clay, long-time Speaker of the House; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Smith Thompson, Secretary of the Navy; Vice-President Daniel D. Tompkins; Governor DeWitt Clinton of New York; Representative William Lowndes of South Carolina; and a comparative latecomer to politics, General Andrew Jackson] As the campaign progressed, several of these men dropped from conten- tion: Lowndes died in 1822, while Thompson, Tompkins, and Clinton fell from the ranks for lack of support, though there was mention of the latter's possible candidacy late in 1823.2 Calhoun subsequently withdrew from the race, deciding to delay his bid for the presidency to accept the second office.8 Of the prominent contenders remaining in the contest, Crawford was the administration favorite, and his position as Treasury Secretary had enabled him to build a significant following in various circles.4 Despite these advantages, Crawford's success proved illusory: among other difficulties, the Georgian suffered a severe stroke in the summer of 1823 and was the victim of the growing antagonism toward the caucus, the very insti- nation on which he was relying to bring him broad party support.5 Adams, Clay, and Jackson fought actively to secure an electoral majority or, failing that, to gain sufficient votes to be included in the top three who would be presented to the House of Representatives for the final decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Compromise (1820) • Compromise Sponsored by Henry Clay
    Congressional Compromises and the Road to War The Great Triumvirate Henry Clay Daniel Webster John C. Calhoun representing the representing representing West the North the South John C. Calhoun •From South Carolina •Called “Cast-Iron Man” for his stubbornness and determination. •Owned slaves •Believed states were sovereign and could nullify or reject federal laws they believed were unconstitutional. Daniel Webster •From Massachusetts •Called “The Great Orator” •Did not own slaves Henry Clay •From Kentucky •Called “The Great Compromiser” •Owned slaves •Calmed sectional conflict through balanced legislation and compromises. Missouri Compromise (1820) • Compromise sponsored by Henry Clay. It allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a Slave State and Maine to enter as a Free State. The southern border of Missouri would determine if a territory could allow slavery or not. • Slavery was allowed in some new states while other states allowed freedom for African Americans. • Balanced political power between slave states and free states. Nullification Crisis (1832-1833) • South Carolina, led by Senator John C. Calhoun declared a high federal tariff to be null and avoid within its borders. • John C. Calhoun and others believed in Nullification, the idea that state governments have the right to reject federal laws they see as Unconstitutional. • The state of South Carolina threatened to secede or break off from the United States if the federal government, under President Andrew Jackson, tried to enforce the tariff in South Carolina. Andrew Jackson on Nullification “The laws of the United States, its Constitution…are the supreme law of the land.” “Look, for a moment, to the consequence.
    [Show full text]
  • Calhoun Webster
    CALHOUN WEBSTER : AND TWO VISIONS OF THE FEDERAL UNION SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR JOHN C. CALHOUN SAW THE FEDERAL UNION AS A COMPACT OF STATES. MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR DANIEL WEBSTER SAW IT AS A NATION OF ONE PEOPLE. THEIR DIFFERING VISIONS LED TO HISTORIC DEBATES, BUT UNDERLYING THEM ALL WAS THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY. The intent of the writers of the Calhoun also pursued a career in Constitution was to create a politics. He was elected to the U.S. stronger central government than House of Representatives in 1810 and Library of Congress of Library existed under the old Articles of was the chief deputy of Speaker of John C. Calhoun (1782–1850), who served Confederation. During the ratifica- the House Henry Clay. Calhoun was as vice president, U.S. senator, and tion of the Constitution, many ex- a strong nationalist who pushed for member of Congress in his long political pressed fears the federal war against Britain in 1812. career, was the leading advocate for states’ rights. government would expand its pow- After the war, Calhoun sup- ers at the expense of the states. ported Henry Clay’s “American Sys- to the South, such a majority might The Bill of Rights, in the form of tem,” which called for Congress to someday vote to abolish slavery. 10 amendments, was added to the fund roads, canals, ports and other These developments changed Cal- Constitution to further limit the pow- national improvements. In 1816, he houn from a nationalist to an advo- ers of the federal government. The voted for a tariff (a tax on foreign cate for states’ rights.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Triumvirate: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun
    Essential Civil War Curriculum | David S. Heidler and Jeanne T Heidler, The Great Triumvirate | October 2015 The Great Triumvirate: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun By David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler Beginning in the War of 1812, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun achieved a national prominence that endured for more than four decades. As they rose in fame, they personified the regions that quarreled over expansion, finance, foreign policy, and slavery. Webster, who originally represented New Hampshire and then Massachusetts in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, reflected a New England Yankee’s promotion of merchant trade and rejection of slavery. The South Carolinian Calhoun personified the South’s gradual transformation from staunch nationalism after the War of 1812 to the belligerent sectionalism that caused all the trouble during the 1850s. Henry Clay was from Kentucky, which at the time made him a westerner, and he too mirrored his section’s role in the unfolding national strife. The West was seen as a potential counterweight by North and South as the two sections sought to prevail politically in Congress. When they quite literally took the argument outside and began shooting at each other, the West became the decisive military counterweight for the Union. It was fitting, for through it all Henry Clay had been the most consistent nationalist of the three. Over the course of his long career, he refused to tolerate anything that threatened the Union. Because these three wielded often irresistible political influence during the sectional crises that led to the Civil War, their careers are linked to the catastrophe despite their having died roughly a decade before secession brought on the conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • The Corrupt Bargain
    The Corrupt Bargain Thematic Unit Introduction Drama! Intrigue! Scandal! The Presidential Election of 1824 was the most hotly-contested election in American history to that time. Join Andrew Jackson’s Hermitage, Home of the People’s President, in an interactive look at the election that changed the course of American history, examining the question of whether or not our nation is a republic, or a democracy. By referencing primary source documents such as the diary of John Quincy Adams, the official record of the electoral vote, the vote in the House of Representatives and personal letters from Andrew Jackson, students will be able to see a Revolutionary nation come into its own. Objectives A. Examine historical information from a variety of sources, including museum and library collections, letters, maps, government documents, oral histories, firsthand accounts, and web sites. B. Analyze documentation to uncover the events of the Presidential Election of 1824. C. Understand, through dialogue and discussion, how the Presidential Election of 1824 reflected the political climate of the era, its effect on John Quincy Adams’ presidency, and the future of American politics. Background A former cabinet member and Senator. The Speaker of the House of Representatives. A well-travelled international diplomat and the son of a Founding Father. An Indian- fighter, duelist, and powerhouse in Western politics. The Election of 1824 was the first election to that time in which there was not a majority of votes earned by a candidate. As a result, the election moved to the House of Representatives, where each state received one vote. John Quincy Adams, despite being outgained by almost 40,000 votes, won the presidency, and the campaign for the election of 1828 began almost immediately after claims from Jackson supporters alleged a “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Speaker of the House Henry Clay.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumption and Compromise: Illness and Its Impact on the Political Career of Henry Clay
    Journal of the Southern Association for the History of Medicine and Science Volume 2 (no. 1) 2020 https://journals.troy.edu/index.php/JSAHMS/ Consumption and Compromise: Illness and Its Impact on the Political Career of Henry Clay David Petriello Lecturer, Department of History, Caldwell University, Caldwell, New Jersey, United States Email: [email protected] Abstract Henry Clay’s nearly fifty years of public service coincided with the social, economic, and territorial growth of the Early Republic. Though much has been made of the influences of geography and political philosophy on his accomplishments, little has been done in addressing the role played by his own health and various illnesses of the era. Disease and personal health issues were perhaps the greatest natural allies, catalysts, and limiting agents of Henry Clay’s accomplishments. Ill health helped to start his career under the tutelage of George Wythe, the deaths of his daughters while undertaking the seasonal journey from Kentucky to Congress pushed his ideas on internal improvements, and disease collided with several of his campaigns for the presidency. This article focuses on the personal letters of Henry Clay and those around him to discern their views on the various illnesses of his day and gauge their impact on his career. Keywords: United States, Henry Clay, public health Henry Clay once claimed that he would, “rather be right than be president,” a desire that would, perhaps unfortunately, come true for the indefatigable politician. Perhaps because of this he has largely been forgotten by the American public. Despite this, his nearly fifty years of public service spanned the most important events in the history of the early Republic, including the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the U.S.-Mexican War, and the various compromises that helped to slow the descent of the nation towards civil war.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods and Philosophies of Managing American Presidential Scandals
    Public Disgrace: Methods and Philosophies of Managing American Presidential Scandals Travis Pritchett Pritchett !1 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................2 Corruption and Indiscretion: the Election of 1884........................................................................7 "Corrupt Bargain": A Phantom Scandal.......................................................................................11 Scandals of Abraham Lincoln: Insufficiently White Supremacist...............................................15 Scandals of Richard Nixon: Funding and Watergate...................................................................19 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................24 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................27 Pritchett !2 The study of political science is often seen as a study of political movements and mechanisms; more concerned with the patterns and statistics of human activity than with the basic human elements. But, ultimately, politics is a human construction, and any human construction is shaped by the human beings who created it and participate in it. Nowhere, perhaps, is this more apparent than in the idea of scandal, of a political secret whose potential to destabilize or alter politics at large comes entirely
    [Show full text]
  • The Election of 1824 I
    Do Now 151, 383 Based on this chart, who became president in 1824? The Presidential Election of 1824 Henry Clay VS. William CrawfordVS. John Quincy Adams VS. Andrew Jackson Directions: 1. Google Classroom 2. Open: Election of 1824 What does the Constitution say? Amendment XII The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President… and if no person have such majority... the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President...in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote. Is that fair? 39.3 million people 582,000 people Intro. Video What do you notice on the Electoral College Map? Type here The Election of 1824 I. Results Vs. A. No candidate won a majority of the electoral votes 1. Andrew Jackson gets most 2. John Quincy Adams get second most B. Constitutional Response 1. 12th Amendment determines what to do 2. House of Representatives will decide who becomes president ● Leader of the House of The Corrupt Bargain? Representatives ● Elected by the members of the majority party ● What they do: ○ Sets the order of issues discussed ○ Moderates debates ○ Determine who sits II. House of Representatives decides on what committee A. Henry Clay was the Speaker of the House The Corrupt Bargain? B. The Deal 1. A newspaper published an unsigned letter. 2. Letter says that John Q. Adams promised Clay would become Secretary of State if he convinced people to vote for him. The Corrupt Bargain? C. Outcome Tally sheet showing each state’s vote 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth of Presidential Power
    Growth of Presidential Power A. Article II of the Constitution 1. Article II is the part of the Constitution that deals with the Executive Branch. 2. Article II is basically just a short outline of powers. 3. A large part of America’s early political history deals with defining the extent of the executive power. B. The Changing View of Presidential Power 1. Why Presidential Power Has Grown -The presidency is in the hands of one person, rather than many, and many Presidents have worked to expand the powers of their office. -As the country grew and industrialized, especially in times of emergency, people demanded that the Federal Government play a larger role and looked to the President for leadership. -Congress has delegated much authority to the President, although presidential control over foreign affairs is greater than it is over domestic affairs. Congress simply continues to assert itself in the implementation of social programs. -Presidents have the attention and general respect of the media, the public, and their own party. C. How Presidents Have Viewed Their Power 1. Stronger and more effective Presidents have taken a broad view of the powers of the office. 2. Teddy Roosevelt viewed his broad use of Presidential powers as the “Stewardship Theory”, which means that the President should have the power to act as a “steward” over the country. 3. Recent, very strong presidents have given rise to the phrase “Imperial Presidency”, which implies that the President becomes as strong as an emperor. The term is often used to refer to the administration of Richard Nixon.
    [Show full text]
  • Synopsis of American Political Parties
    Synopsis of American Political Parties FEDERALISTS DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICANS Favored strong central gov't emphasized states' rights Social order & stability important Stressed civil liberties & public trust "True patriots vs. the subversive rabble" "Rule of all people vs. the favored few" "Loose" constructionists "Strict" constructionists Promoted business & manufacturing Encouraged agrarian society Favored close ties with Britain Admired the French Strongest in Northeast Supported in South & West Gazette of the United States (John Fenno) National Gazette (Philip Freneau) Directed by Hamilton (+ Washington) Founded by Jefferson (+ Madison) First Two-Party System: 1780s-1801 During most of George Washington's presidency, no real two-party political system existed. The Constitution made no provision whatever for political parties. While its framers recognized that reasonable disagreement and organized debate were healthy components in a democratic society, creation of permanent factions was an extreme to be avoided. (The consensus among the founding fathers was that political parties were potentially dangerous because they divided society, became dominated by narrow special interests, and placed mere party loyalty above concern for the common welfare.) Hence, to identify Washington with the Federalist Party is an ex post facto distinction. Accordingly, Washington's first "election" is more accurately described as a "placement"; his second election was procedural only. The first presidential challenge whereby the citizenry genuinely expressed choice between candidates affiliated with two separate parties occurred in 1896, when John Adams won the honor of following in Washington's footsteps. The cartoon above shows the infamous brawl in House of Representatives between Democratic-Republican Matthew Lyon of Vermont and Federalist Roger Griswold from Connecticut.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Jackson
    THE JACKSONIAN ERA DEMOCRATS AND WHIGS: THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM THE “ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS” • James Monroe (1817-1825) was the last Founder to serve as President • Federalist party had been discredited after War of 1812 • Monroe unopposed for reelection in 1820 • Foreign policy triumphs: • Adams-Onís Treaty (1819) settled boundary with Mexico & added Florida • Monroe Doctrine warned Europeans against further colonization in Americas James Monroe, By Gilbert Stuart THE ELECTION OF 1824 & THE SPLIT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY • “Era of Good Feelings” collapsed under weight of sectional & economic differences • New generation of politicians • Election of 1824 saw Republican party split into factions • Andrew Jackson received plurality of popular & electoral vote • House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams to be president • Henry Clay became Secretary of State – accused of “corrupt bargain” • John Quincy Adams’ Inaugural Address called in vain for return to unity THE NATIONAL REPUBLICANS (WHIGS) • The leaders: • Henry Clay • John Quincy Adams • Daniel Webster • The followers: • Middle class Henry Clay • Educated • Evangelical • Native-born • Market-oriented John Quincy Adams WHIG ISSUES • Conscience Whigs – abolition, temperance, women’s rights, etc. • Cotton Whigs – internal improvements & protective tariffs to foster economic growth (the “American System”) THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS (DEMOCRATS) • The leaders: • Martin Van Buren • Andrew Jackson • John C. Calhoun • The followers: Martin Van Buren • Northern working class & Southern planter aristocracy • Not well-educated • Confessional churches • Immigrants • Locally-oriented John C. Calhoun DEMOCRATIC ISSUES • Limited power for federal government & states’ rights • Opposition to “corrupt” alliance between government & business • Individual freedom from coercion “KING ANDREW” & THE “MONSTER BANK” • Marshall’s decision in McCulloch v.
    [Show full text]