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 2 nd 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
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
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
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
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 Entry 1 Diary Entries of John Quincy Adams (1-2 months prior to House Election) [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... December 17, 1824 5 P a g e
Exhibit 5 Letter 1 - (January 29, 1825) Letters from Henry Clay (2) to Francis P. Blair The friends of [Jackson] have turned upon me [They] cannot comprehend how a man can be honest. They cannot conceive that I interrogated [asked] my conscience what I ought to do. That it [convinced] me not to [support] a military chieftain [Jackson], merely because he has won a great victory... I [wouldn t] have selected [Adams], if [I was able to choose] from the whole mass of our citizens for a President. But there is no danger in [choosing Adams] now Not so of his competitor [Jackson], of whom I cannot believe that killing two thousand five hundred Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult, and complicated duties of the [presidency]. Letter 2 - (February 4, 1825) I observe what you kindly tell me about the future Cabinet. My dear sir, I want no office. When have I shown avidity (hunger) for office? If Mr. Adams is elected, I know not who will be his Cabinet. I know not whether I shall be offered a place in it or not. If there should be an offer, I shall decide upon it according to my sense of duty... 6 P a g e