In 1824, 1812 war hero Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but did not gain the majority electoral college vote. In fact, none of the presidential candidates had the majority in the E.C.! So the House decided the outcome instead.Henry Clay, himself an 1812 war veteran, personally hated Jackson. John Adams, on the other hand, agreed with Clay's political agendas (i.e. American System, nationalism, etc). So Clay swung the House's votes away from Jackson, and Adams became the 6th president of America.
Jackson and his followers became outraged and accused Adams of "striking a deal" with Clay. They formed the Democratic-Republic Party (the forerunner to today's Democratic Party) and sabotaged Adams' presidency at every turn. Jackson vigorously campaigned against Adams, and in 1828, won a landslide victory with three times the voting turnout (mostly by poor, working-class white males who supported Jackson) than the 1824 election.
In the end, Jackson had the last laugh.
Do you sympathize with Jackson? If you were in his shoes in 1824, how would you have responded?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do sympathize with Jackson. It was wrong for Adams to swing the vote just because he hated Jackson. If I were Jackson I would've tried to sabotage Adams too because it was wrong of Adams to do that. Also I think it was right of Jackson to go for what he really wanted, which was the presidency.
ReplyDeleteI do believe Jackson has the right to go for what he wanted but he shouldn't have attacked Adams in an unfair way
ReplyDeleteI think the 1824 election was unfair to both Adams and Jackson. Henry Clay personally hated Jackson and gave all the E.C. votes to Adams. In the end, I agree with Jackson's action. The election was unfair and I think Jackson forming the Democratic-Republic Party was the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI think this just begins corruption in voting, promoting votes that are toyed with. Not a good role model for future ages.
ReplyDeleteI think Jackson was right in this situation, he was the one to actually win the popular vote. Even though he lost after being so close, he kept fighting and ended up winning from this. I think it is Clays fault for not realizing how much Jackson wanted to be the president, therefore Jackson deserved his victory.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was right for Jackson to try and get back at Adams, but not by the way he did it. Him and his followers insulted and tried to take down the other administration. This is basically what goes on now with the democrats and republicans.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tommy. If Adams was not able to hold his own and be well liked enough to win by himself he had no business being in office. Jackson also made a good decision in the way he reacted, and it did help him in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree and sympathize with Jackson. If I were him I would be upset too because it was unfair and wasn't the right way to elect a president. I would've also tried to sabotage Adams, knowing that it wasn't right of Clay to swing the votes. Like Clara said it was good for Jackson to go for what he wanted.
ReplyDeleteI don't sympathize with either of them. Although it was wrong for Clay to swing the vote, the other members of the House should probably have made their own decisions. If they couldn't make their own decision, then it's a flaw in either the system (representatives shouldn't be trusted) or a flaw in the representatives themselves. Either way, we don't have evidence that Adams specifically asked Clay to swing the votes for him. Clay swung the votes for him because Adams agreed with his ideas, and he really did not like Jackson. As we have learned, Clay had a personal conflict with Jackson, and that shouldn't have been a part of the political election, but it was.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think it was okay, if in bad-taste, to try to sabotage Adams. Adams should have just proven to him that he was a good candidate for presidency by doing great things for our country.
I think that Jackson made the right decision in the way he reacted to the problem. I think that, even if the accusations of Adams and Clay "striking a deal" were false, it was wrong of Clay to choose a President based only on his own decisions. I think Clay's poor decision was reflected by Jackson's landslide victory later on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tommy, having the decision of our next president put into one person's choice is just wrong, especially since Clay voted for Adams just because he hated him; he should have a political reason for doing this. Also Jackson believed in most of the things Clay did so it was just a mistake. I am not sure if i agree with Jackson's followers for taking such "extreme" actions but if that's what they thought was right then what can we do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa (because I <3 her and shes super pretty). Neither of them were in the right in this case. Clay shouldn't bring his personal issues into a political issue. I believe that things like that should stay completely separate.
ReplyDeleteI would accuse Adams of corrupting Clay instead of just say he making a deal with him. I think that in this situation Jackson had to use more anger in his action and bring this case to a court;not just to win the next election but to avoid future cases of corruption too.But i think he shouldn't have insulted him and tried to take down his administration.
ReplyDeleteClay shouldn't have used his personal issues to go against a presidential candidate. But at the same time one of them had to be picked and that was his way of campaigning against Jackson.
ReplyDeleteI think what Jackson did was completely fair after Adams sabotaged the first election. Although it isn't right to fight fire with fire, I think in this case it was needed or else Adams would have never been punished for what he did.
ReplyDeleteIf I were the president at this time I think I would have done the same thing. I would have relocated them or gave an option to join the population.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Costa, in this case it is right to fight fire with fire because Adams and Clay started this fight.
ReplyDeleteCosta i respectful disagree because if it was Adam's fault that he won the elections that would have been ok but Clay was the one who gave the final. judging vote, so taking actions like this may be rash
ReplyDeleteI completely sympathize with Jackson because it was a wrong doing of Clay to "sabotage the election" and choose the president based on his own personal opinion of Jackson. Jackson's 1824 election proved him to be the superior leader based on the majority of the US citizens votes for him. I would have responded the same way that Jackson did and form that Democratic-Republic Party to sabotage Adam's every move just like Adams did to him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa too because I think it was wrong of them on both sides to try to mess with the election. I also think that since we don't have any evidence that Adams asked Clay to sabotage the election, that it isn't Clay's fault and it was rather just Clay trying to get the side he liked (Clay's) to win although it should have done it in a better way than swinging the votes (which is wrong to do).
ReplyDeleteBarak I do agree that it was mostly Clay's fault but I think that Adam's sort of influenced Clay to vote for him by agreeing with all of his political ideas.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Barak, Clay was the one to pick Adams just because he hated him, as said in the article "Henry Clay, himself an 1812 war veteran, personally hated Jackson." So Clay's decision wasn't fair it wasn't because Adams was a better president than Jackson, it was mostly because of hate. Also it is Adams fault for not fighting back, which meant that he did not care for his presidency as much as Jackson wanted it.
ReplyDeleteJust because he hated Jackson*
ReplyDeleteI would have done the same thing Jackson did because it was obvious that Adams hated him and I thought he did the necessary thing to sabotage him.
ReplyDeleteYa but Costa the whole point of Clay's decision was made out of spite, and not because Adam was influencing him
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying Allen but i don't believe that Adam should be punished for something Clay did. Maybe Jackson's supporters should have gone after Clay and not Jackson.
ReplyDeleteI would be on Jackson's side because it does seem unfair to have one person convince the E.C. to pick Adams when they should decide themselves. Therefore it seems like he was sabotaged. If I were him I would have been just as mad because that would feel really unfair to loose like that.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, it is Adams fault for not realizing that Jackson will fight back. He should have understood that Jackson and Clay had a bad relationship, so Adams should have fought back.
ReplyDeleteDue to the unfairness Jackson experienced as a result of the election, I sympathize with Jackson. Like many others have stated, it was not fair for Adams to swing the vote simply because he disliked Jackson. If I had been in Jackson's shoes, I would have probably attempted to sabotage Adams in order to attempt to reach Jackson's main goal-to obtain the presidency.
ReplyDelete