In the year of 1824, tempers were flaring and insults were being exchanged as politicians argued over who would be the sixth president of the United States. John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were the two major candidates in the election. However, this would be an election that would be remembered in history for its unique result. Despite being the more popular candidate, Andrew Jackson would not become the president. The presidential election of 1824 is remembered as one of the most controversial elections to have ever occurred in the history of the United States.
After James Monroe’s second term as the fifth president of the United States ended, preparations were already underway for the next election to determine who would become the president. There were four prominent candidates running. They were Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, and Andrew Jackson. John C. Calhoun, who was Secretary of War under Monroe, was originally thinking of running as president but dropped out in the hope of becoming Vice President. Clay was the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Adams was the Secretary of State under President Monroe, Crawford was most notably Secretary of the Treasury under Monroe, and Jackson was a war hero during the War of 1812. For the first time, none of the men who were running for office identified as Federalists. A Federalist is someone who believes in a strong central government. All four men said that they were Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic-Republicans, who were also known as the Republican party, generally opposed the viewpoints that the Federalists held. They believed in states’ rights; that is that the states should be more powerful than the National government....
... middle of paper ...
...resentatives would choose the new president from the top three candidates (“Amendment Twelve: Election of President and Vice President”). Due to these terms, Henry Clay was eliminated as a possible choice to become the president. It was now between Jackson, Quincy Adams, and Crawford. However, just because Clay was out of the election, it didn’t mean that he wouldn’t play a major role in how it eventually turned out. Clay wanted to have as much power as possible. When being president wasn’t an option anymore, he turned to the remaining candidates in hope of striking a deal that would give him the influence that he so desperately sought. The most promising candidates were obviously John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Clay openly detested Jackson. He did not believe that he was qualified to be the next leader of the country. (Gould, Lewis, Ohshinksy, and Soderlund).
The leaders of the anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry from Virginia, George Mason from Virginia, Richard Henry Lee from Virginia, James Monroe from Virginia, George Clinton from New York, Samuel Adams from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts, Luther Martin from Maryland, and Samuel Chase from Maryland. The anti-Federalist leaders were men who had their careers and reputations already established. The anti-Federalists were the losers in the Constitution debate. They had accepted their defeat very well. They did not attempt to create problems and start fights or wars. Instead some leaders became well-known leaders in the government. James Monroe was the fifth president. George Clinton, along with Elbridge Gerry became vice presidents. Samuel Chase was in the Supreme Court. The anti-Federalists brought awareness to the subject matter of giving more power to the government and how dangerous it could be. They thought the Constitution could be improved with a bill of rights. They brought awareness to why our government needed to include a bill of rights. They wanted one to protect the rights of the people and the states. The anti-Federalists found the ratification process unreliable. They were correct because the Articles of Confederation stated it being
At first, Andrew Jackson started off as a democrat, serving the people with his actions. For instance, in the document Indian Removal Document three, Jackson appeals to the indians and congress. He told them that the indians needed somewhere to go in an eloquent manner. To congress, it sounded like he was being morale for the indians, but in reality, he was still forcing the indians off their lands. Guarenting land for the indians is not as fair as letting them stay on their current ground and already beings to show his inner autocratic side.
Andrew Jackson was a man that people see that he is a good person and others say he is a terrible person. Andrew Jackson can be bad person and a good person it depends what type of person is Andrew Jackson is he going to help out the world or is he going to mess up the world? Democracy is a form of government were the people have a right to assist in the law making process. If Jackson didn’t support the people and wasn’t in the government the bank and the people would be in a huge mess. Andrew Jackson was very democratic and there are political , economic and geographic ways to prove it.
Andrew Jackson has been described as a great hero of his time and a man who was atrocious and would destroy the Union. Andrew Jackson accomplished a great number of things during his life but some of his actions were quite questionable. Looking from the present to the past gives insight into areas where the events can be examined more objectively. However, it is vital when examining past events to keep in mind the mindsets of the past. People had a different point of view and a different perspective than the current one. This must be kept in the forward part of the mind to understand the actions of those in the past. This paper will serve as a guide into the life of Andrew Jackson, his trials and tribulations, decisions and contradictions. From the beginning of his life, he was headstrong and that would lead him straight into the history books.
As the young colonies of America broke away from their mother country and began to grow and develop into an effective democratic nation, many changes occurred. As the democracy began to grow, two main political parties developed, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. Each party had different views on how the government should be run. The Jeffersonian Republicans believed in strong state governments, a weak central government, and a strict construction of the Constitution. The Federalists opted for a powerful central government with weaker state governments, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Throughout the years, the political parties have grown, developed, and even dispersed into totally new factions. Many of the inconsistencies and changes can be noted throughout the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
John Adams was the last Federalist president which led to the next 16 years of Thomas Jefferson as president for two terms and James Madison as president for two terms. Jefferson and Madison were members of the Republican Party, which had principles and philosophies that were very different than the views of the Federalists. Jefferson and Madison each abandoned the Republican philosophies for Federalism. Jefferson and Madison took on Federalist views while being President of the United States. However, Jefferson and Madison each picked somewhere to stand their ground and keep some of their Republican views.
The federalists view saw the republicans view as a weakness. They insisted on a stronger common government. The federalists had an understanding that there could only be one sovereign in a political system, one final authority that everyone must obey and no one can appeal. They thought this was the only effective way in creating an effective central government. The independent states seemed to think it was clear that each one of them were independently sovereign, although based on history only small countries were suitable for the republican government. With history proving the republicans wrong for trying to create a republican government in the states the federalists were slowly trying to create a stronger central government. There first step was making the sovereign states agree to the Articles of Confederation which established a close alliance of independent states. The federalist central government was referred to as a “confederacy”.
Throughout the period dating from 1801 to 1817, the United States government was primarily controlled by the Jeffersonian Republican party, whereas the Federalist Party began to slowly fade away from public view. The Jeffersonian Republican party, led by Thomas Jefferson, professed to favor a weak central government through the support of more states' rights, "...that the states are independent... to...themselves...and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." (Document A). The Federalists of the United States were known as the loose constructionists, where if there is something which the constitution does not state, then it should be allowed to be done. The Jeffersonian Republicans were known as strict constructionists for their views towards the constitution that if there is anything that is not in the constitution, then it cannot be done. The Jeffersonian Republican party centered many of their political moves on the basis of creating a strong agricultural society with a weakly centralized government where each of the states have more rights to govern themselves, where the Federalist party believed more strongly on industrializing the nation and creating a strong central government. Even though strict constructionism was the idea behind the Jeffersonian Republican party, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both have evidence against them which can prove that they were not strict constructionists. This is based on different political moves made by these two presidents which are more towards the Federalist side of things opposed to their own Republican and strict constructionist ideas.
Andrew Jackson is one of the most controversial presidents. Many regard him as a war hero, the father of the Democratic Party, an inspiring leader, and a spokesman for the common man. While there is plenty to praise about the seventh president, his legacy is tarnished by his racism, disregard for the law of the land, cruelty towards the Native Americans, and ruthless temper. Jackson was an intriguing man who was multi-faceted. One must not look at a singular dimension, and cast judgment on him as a whole. To accurately evaluate one of the most complex presidents, it is crucial to observe Jackson from all possible angles. Prior lifestyle, hardships in life, political ideology, lifestyle of the time, political developments, and his character
He won popular vote and the electoral vote, but lost in the House of Representatives (192). He may have lost, but he and the Democratic Party began to campaign for 1828 (192). The election of 1828 was one of the most “vitriolic” and personal campaigns in history (193). Every questionable thing in from Andrew Jackson’s past was brought back (193). From his actions during the Indian wars to his marriage to Rachel (193).
During The Jacksonian Era many different views and ideas were predominant about the United States. The Jacksonian Democrats were a loose coalition of different peoples and interests pulled together by a common practical idea. That idea was that they all were followers of President Andrew Jackson. Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as guardians of the Constitution when in fact they were not. When dealing with politics and ideas within the Democratic Party of the time the Jacksonians proved to be both guardians and violators of the Constitution. Individual liberty is another area in which the Jacksonians were advocates to different sides of the topic at different times. The Jacksonians also proved to be champions for equality of economic opportunity. The Jacksonians demonstrated themselves to be, not the proponents they thought they were, but instead violators of the US Constitution.
Many people found this election to be a revolution and a great future for the country. That is not exactly what happened. In 1832, Andrew Jackson sent a letter to congress saying he does not support the National Bank. He says that if the bank were to happen, it would be the rich in most control. The bank would be more for the rich and the foreign but have no benefits for the poor. (Doc.4) Jackson’s political rival, Daniel Webster believes that this letter from Jackson showed just how evil Jackson was. Webster does not think Jackson was vetoing for the good of the people but to ‘stir the pot’. By Jackson sending this letter, it causes a stir between the rich and the poor. The poor would feel imbalanced against the poor and arguments would rush out. (Doc.5). This letter he wrote to congress was one of his many times when he was “selfish” and used his powers unjustly to make something go the way he wanted. Was Jackson trying to inflame the different classmen? Was this
Andrew Jackson had many significant contributions to the democratic state of the country. One of those contributions, as stated in document B, was Jackson’s victory of the 1928 Presidential election. What this election did was accelerate the transfer of power from the national elite to the common-man; the universal-white-men now had a larger role in the government. As the graph in document A shows, the methods of electing Presidential electors before Jackson’s Presidency was for-the-most-part dominated by state legislature, it was during Jackson’s administration by which the people were electing Presidential electors. As President, Jackson sought to rid the government of all its corrupt officials. This is backed up by the information in document D, which states that Jackson believed that the offices should be rotated every four years and filled by the people. The same document states that Jackson believed the president should serve a single term of no more than four or six years; the senators should have similar constraints with subjection to removal. All of this was fueled by his theory that there was more to be gained with the rotation of office holders that the long continuance of them and that office were not created to give certain men support rather than help the people, as ex...
During the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson succeeded in defeating the incumbent, John Adams, and assumed the presidency. In terms of elections though, the election of 1800 itself was a fascinating election in that it a heavily-contested election and was effectively the first time political parties ran smear campaigns against each other during an election. The Republican Party attacked the Federalists for being anti-liberty and monarchist and tried to persuade the public that the Federalists were abusing their power through acts such as the Alien & Sedition Acts and the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion (Tindall and Shi 315). The Federalists, on the other hand, attacked Jefferson for his atheism and support of the French Revolution and warned that his election would result in chaos (316). By the end of the presidential election, neither Adams nor Jefferson emerged with his reputation completely intact. Still, rather than an election between Adams and Jefferson, the election of 1800 ultimately boiled down to a deadlock between Jefferson and his vice presidential candidate, Aaron Burr, who each held seventy-three electoral votes, resulting in the election was sent to the House of Representatives. In the end, the deadlock was resolved only by Alexander Hamilton, whose immense hate for Burr allowed Jefferson to claim the presidency. However, the election of 1800 was more than just a simple presidential election. The election of 1800 was the first peaceful transfer of power from the incumbent party to the opposition and represented a new step in politics, as well as a new direction in foreign policy that would emerge from Jefferson’s policies, and to this extent, the election of 1800 was a revolution.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not