By Paul A. Tenkotte, PhD
Special to NKyTribune
Two hundred years ago this month, President John Quincy Adams took the oath of office as the Sixth President of the United States (serving March 4, 1825–March 4, 1829). In the immediate years thereafter, American politics would usher in the so-called “Second Party System” (1828–1854), dominated by the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson of Tennessee and the Whig Party of Henry Clay of Kentucky.
In his September 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington warned Americans about institutionalizing political parties:
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.” (George Washington, Farewell Address)
Of course, President Washington’s admonitions were clearly ignored. In fact, his address was partly prompted by rising political opposition. By 1792, what historians refer to as the “First Party System” was already emerging along partisan lines. The Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others, generally opposed a strong national government, believed in strict interpretation of the Constitution, and supported an agrarian ideal of small farmers. On the other hand, the Federalist Party, associated with Alexander Hamilton, advanced a strong national government, supported a national bank, and advocated for tariffs to both promote industry and to raise revenue for the US Treasury.
In 1824 the First Party System broke. Understanding the presidential election of 1824 requires us to divest ourselves of modern concepts. In 1824, there were 24 states. Six of those states (Delaware; Georgia; Louisiana; New York; South Carolina; and Vermont) did not even hold popular elections for US president. Instead, they chose their electors through their state legislative bodies.
To make matters even more confusing, at least to us, there were no national conventions or primaries to choose presidential candidates either. Congressional leaders had some influence, but the system was highly decentralized. In fact, in 1831, the Anti-Masonic Party would become the first to hold a national convention to choose their presidential candidate (“The Evolution of Political Conventions: From Caucuses to primaries and Beyond,” Civics for Life).
In 1824 four men ran for president—all of them associated with the Democratic-Republican Party: John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts; Henry Clay of Kentucky; William H. Crawford of Georgia; and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee.
With four candidates running, the results were inconclusive. The US Constitution required that the winning candidate receive a majority of the electoral votes. None of the four candidates did. Of the 261 electoral votes, Jackson won 99, John Quincy Adams earned 84, William H. Crawford garnered 41, and Henry Clay trailed at 31. In terms of the popular vote, which was not even a determinant since six states did not hold popular elections, Jackson placed first with 151,271 votes, Adams came in second at 113,122, Clay was third at 47,531 votes, and Crawford placed last at 40,856. (The American Presidency Project, 1824)
Regarding the Electoral College vote, Henry Clay won three states, Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri. Adams carried eight states in the Northeast: Connecticut; Delaware; Maine; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; New York; Rhode Island; and Vermont. Crawford carried his home state of Georgia and his birth state of Virginia. Jackson won the electoral votes in the remaining eleven states.
According to the Twelfth Amendment of the US Constitution, the Electoral College results went to the US House of Representatives for a “contingent election,” whereby the top three electoral college winners were considered: Jackson, Adams, and Crawford. In the US House, each of the 24 states was allowed one bloc vote. Interestingly, Henry Clay, who disliked Jackson, served as speaker of the US House. Clay used his influence to support Adams, since they shared similar views on tariffs and the national government’s role in building a strong economy. The House results were disappointing for Jackson. On the first ballot, thirteen states voted for Adams, giving him the presidency.
An anonymous letter writer to the Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette newspaper resigned themselves to the situation. However, they underscored the growing sectionalism between the North and the South, stating that “The voters in the southern states are masters; the voters in the northern and western states are men who toil daily, and earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.” The writer further expressed that the “interests of the west [then meaning the Ohio and Mississippi River region] were tied to “the great leading fundamental doctrine that the national government should extend its aid to encourage and protect individual industry, and should engage in constructing roads and canals,” all of which would be supported by Adams. (“Mr. Adams—Mr. Clay—General Jackson,” Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, March 25, 1825, p. 3).
The Election of 1824 deepened and widened the enmity between Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. Some accused Clay and Adams of making a “Corrupt Bargain,” as Adams appointed Clay as his secretary of state. Jackson would never forgive Clay for his loss in the contingent election. Clay, in turn, would experience a great defeat in the Presidential Election of 1824, losing to Jackson. Two years later, in 1830, President Jackson vetoed Clay’s prized Maysville Road Bill, a signature of Clay’s “American System” for internal improvements. Hopes for the extension of the Zane’s Trace (from Maysville, Kentucky, to Zanesville, Ohio) as part of a national road system to Lexington, Kentucky and beyond were temporarily thwarted. More importantly, the Maysville Road Bill was at the “center of a national debate on the power of government and the direction of the federal government.” Despite this defeat, Henry Clay and the Commonwealth of Kentucky would continue to play a major role in national politics for decades (John Klee, “Maysville Road Bill,” in Paul A. Tenkotte and James C. Claypool, The Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2009, p. 602).
Paul A. Tenkotte, PhD is Editor of the “Our Rich History” weekly series and Professor of History at Northern Kentucky University (NKU). He can be contacted at tenkottep@nku.edu. Tenkotte also serves as Director of the ORVILLE Project (Ohio River Valley Innovation Library and Learning Enrichment). For more information see orvillelearning.org