Category: Week 3: 1800 and 1824 (Page 1 of 2)

Defamatory statements, intentional disinformation, and their presence in campaign strategies are not new, nor are they a thing of the past. Instead, they have always existed, surviving by adapting to the current political climate. Throughout elections, the popularity of misinformation and sensational stories serve to show manifestations of some greater collective political anxiety.

Slander, Slander, and More Slander

In the election of 1800, newspaper articles dictated the outcome of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr’s battle to become president. When Burr and Jefferson tied in the election, anti-Burr proponents were quick to issue a narrative damaging Burr’s character as the tie-breaking vote was delegated to the House of Representatives. The smear campaign garnered enough fear surrounding the stability of the U.S. under Burr and ended up dissuading the Federalist-controlled House of Representatives from electing him on the 36th round of voting. It didn’t help that throughout the ongoing scandal, enforcement of libel/slander laws concerning inter-party quarrels or attacks from opponent parties was lacking. It left Burr with little legal recourse to combat attacks on his character and ultimately lead to his complete public defacement upon accusations of treason in Burr v. United States (among other things). With bi-partisan support, Burr was ousted from U.S. politics.

A Coordinated Sensationalist Attack

In a similar vein, the contested election of 1824 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams provides a look at strategized misinformation and its utility in altering the political climate in the long run. With an additional audience of newly enfranchised white male voters, candidates now had to expand their campaign to include common men, along with aristocrats, to secure votes. In this climate, Jackson rose to prominence with his political promises and rhetoric that pandered to the growing number of recently enfranchised white men. Newspapers published headlines remarking about Jackson’s character, likening him to the average joe in an attempt to appear more relatable than Adams (a child of nepotism). When Jackson lost the election in 1824, he spread the conspiracy of a “corrupt bargain,” and easily turned it into sensationalized news. His insistence on corruption occurring between Adams and then-speaker of the House Henry Clay (also an 1824 presidential candidate) to elect Adams as president instead of Jackson served as the foundation for his election in 1828. As more white men were able to vote without property requirements, they increasingly wanted their interests to be fairly represented; Jackson’s positioning as an underdog victimized by corruption fulfilled that criteria. In the end, he set a strong precedent regarding effective methods to wield the media as a weapon.

Sensationalism, Misinformation, and Terrorism

Today, the utilization of the media as a political tool to manipulate public opinion remains steadfast. Nevertheless, the advent of various options for media consumption (TVs, electronic devices, newspapers, etc.) along with the internet itself has added layers of nuance to political messaging.

From his initial inauguration in 2016 to now, Donald Trump has rarely avoided controversy. However, it is clear that over the last few years, he, along with his other political allies, has upped the rhetorical ante dramatically. His recent debate against Kamala Harris provides a litany of misinformation, sensationalist clickbait-esque soundbites, and straight-up lies. In particular, his comment about Kamala Harris, saying “…she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison” quickly became viral due to its wildly unsubstantiated nature. As a means of gaining control, Trump commonly defaults to fear-mongering and creating political boogeymen as a tactic to incite outrage toward his opponents in an attempt to dampen their message.

Amplified greatly by uninhibited access to social media and news channels, Trump’s intentional spread of misinformation frequently incited terroristic actions (stochastic terrorism) that mobilized his fanbase at whim. By using his supporters as lackeys, he built a delocalized group of policy enforcers who took it upon themselves to threaten the lives of adversaries in a relationship not so dissimilar to a king and knight squadron. Examples of Trump’s incitement include his repeated insistence on labeling COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus,” which led to a notable uptick in hate crimes against Asian Americans during 2021-2022, his comments about shooting protestors demonstrating in Minneapolis (causing them to be targeted/antagonized), and the infamous January 6th insurrection as a result of his election fraud claim. In addition, he set a precedent for militaristic action in response to the practice of free speech (regarding opposition to his policies/protesting) using misinformation as justification. His large-scale use of threats and violence against criticism created a hostile political environment where backlash and unrest continue to propagate to this day. Trump’s success of misinformation-backed crusading emboldens his supporters while simultaneously increasing growing public concern over the bounds of executive power.

Sources

Mike Levine (May 30, 2020): ‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults.

Libby Cathey & Meghan Keneally (May 30, 2020): A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as inciting violence

Khadijah Costley White (January 19, 2021): How Trump Shaped the Media

Carey Wallace (April 14, 2016): Forget Hamilton, Burr Is the Real Hero

William Nester (2013): The Corrupt Bargain, Chapter 6

Reeve Huston (2011): The Expansion of Democracy during the Jacksonian Era

Discourse surrounding modern American politics often focuses on the polarization and level of vitriol among candidates, voters, and commentators. This heightened level of tension is particularly evident during each presidential election. Many reminisce about the good ol’ days when civility and compromise still dominated political discourse and lament the current level of personal attacks. However, the modern political moment is not uniquely polarized or vituperative. In the election of 1800, the two candidates were themselves and the groups that they represented were highly polarized. The combination of the strong personalities of those involved with the burgeoning party system led to a sometimes nasty and personal campaign.

The election of 1800 was the first time that the brand new American electoral system was put under real strain. In 1789, George Washington was nearly unanimously elected after the creation of the United States Constitution. His Vice President, John Adams succeeded him in office in the election of 1796, but, under the constitutional rules of the time, the second place winner became the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson, a personal rival and partisan opponent, became his second-in-command. The two opponents faced off again in the election of 1800. John Adams represented the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson represented the Democratic-Republicans, with Aaron Burr as his “running mate.” The same rules applied in 1800 as in 1796. Jefferson and Burr tied in the electoral college, and, as a surprise to everyone, Burr refused to step aside and become Vice President. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, where it took thirty-six ballots to elect Jefferson as President.

Even beyond those directly participating in this election, there was a great deal of interest and sense of personal stakes. Alexander Hamilton, who had largely retreated from politics because of personal and political scandals and tragedies, reentered the conversation out of his opposition to Aaron Burr. In a letter he wrote to Harrison Gray Otis, a member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts, he framed the contest as an existential one for the country. Despite his well-known and long dislike of Jefferson, he says “Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government—Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself—thinks of nothing but his own aggrandisement—and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.” The upcoming presidential election of 2024 does matter—every election matters. But this is not the first time that the results of an election seemed to threaten to the future of the nation and the collapse of civilized political discourse.

Sources

Herbert Sloan, “‘In a Choice of Evils… Jefferson Is in Every View Less

Dangerous than Burr’: Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis on

the Deadlocked Presidential Election of 1800,” OAH Magazine of

History 18, no. 5 (2004): 53–57,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163723.

James Horn, “Election of 1800,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia,

https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-

encyclopedia/election-1800/.

Title from “The Election of 1800” from Hamilton: An American Musical.

If you have felt like the 2024 election has been light on policy, you are not alone in your thinking. 

As election day creeps closer, news articles are emphasizing the lack of clear policy positions as voters try to nail down where candidates stand. Nowhere has the lack of clear policy been more apparent than at the presidential debate on Tuesday, Sept. 10. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump traded pointed remarks and personal attacks, but little time was spent articulating the details of their agendas. When asked about his plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, Trump simply stated that he has “the concepts of a plan,” but he could not name the specific elements he will include. When Harris was asked to explain her vision for improving the economy, she struggled to point to specific policy changes she would implement to reduce the effects of inflation. 

For policy nerds — and frankly, anyone who pays attention to politics — the general devaluing of policy debates, replaced instead by personality politics, is alarming. After all, what is the role of the president if not to enact policy? 

Jimmy Kimmel summed it up nicely during his post-debate monologue on Sept. 10: “Who are we kidding, this election isn’t about the issues.” He’s not wrong. A 2023 study by Filipe Falcão et al. found political outcomes are most influenced by voters’ personality traits and the way they perceive the personality traits of the candidates. Policy often takes a backseat. But why is that? Why has it seemed policy plays an insubstantial role in presidential campaign strategy and election outcomes? 

Part of the answer may come from elections 200 years ago. The presidential elections of 1824 and 1828 mark pivotal moments that deeply influenced modern electoral dynamics. These elections, and the “Corrupt Bargain” claim that led to Andrew Jackson’s rise, paved the way for a style of campaigning that is reflected in modern politics. 

As William Nester reveals in his book on Jackson, the personality-driven politics, populism, and politics of grievance that we see overshadowing substantive policy discussions today grew out of this early 19th-century period. In many ways, these elections set the stage for modern presidential campaigns, characterized by emotional appeals and personal grievances drowning out detailed policy platforms.

After the election of 1824 was decided by the House of Representatives, where Speaker of the House Henry Clay played a consequential role in rallying support for John Quincy Adams, the nature of presidential elections shifted. Although historian Donald Ratcliffe has called into question whether Jackson truly won the popular vote in 1824, the frequent reality in politics, as this case reflects, is that constructed narratives matter more than objective truth. Jackson crafted a rhetoric around the perceived unfairness of the election result; he attacked the elitist, career politician mindset officials in Washington often hold and played up his toughness, military experience, and anti-establishment attitude. Regardless of whether Jackson actually won the popular vote in 1824, his ability to campaign on this narrative heading into the 1828 election, a tactic that had not previously been attempted to this degree, proved majorly effective. 

The 1828 election between Jackson and Adams was, by many accounts, an “ugly” election, with personal attacks becoming standard. Supporters of Adams threw accusations of adultery at Jackson, while Jackson supporters claimed Adams was only a successful diplomat because he procured women for officials of other countries. But while Jackson kept up the flamethrowing, Adams backed down. His refusal to play the dirty game likely contributed to his landslide loss to Jackson in 1828. This victory, in turn, only gave subsequent candidates more reason to attempt the objectionable strategy centered on personal grievances.

Supporters watch as former President Donald J. Trump walks onto the stage at a rally in Indianola, Iowa on Jan. 14, 2024. (Photo by Zach S.)

The parallels between Andrew Jackson’s rise to power in 1828 and Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016 are striking. Both men capitalized on a wave of populist sentiment that viewed the political establishment as corrupt and out of touch with the concerns of average citizens. Similar to Jackson, Trump ran on a platform that emphasized his outsider status as he railed against “the elites,” offering a brand of politics based on grievance rather than nuanced policy proposals. All the while, truth was secondary. What mattered was not the accuracy of the narrative but simply whether it landed with voters.

Ultimately, a well-crafted personal narrative that resonates with voters, making them feel seen and represented by someone who claims to understand them, often seems to be a more effective electoral approach than appealing directly to voters’ stances on substantive issues. As Americans become increasingly disillusioned with the political system, it seems likely that campaigns will remain intentionally light on policy, instead opting to appeal to the personality traits voters find most desirable in a candidate — traits that take priority over policy.

In the election of 1800, the Federalists were faced with a tough choice—whether to settle with Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr, both Democratic Republicans, as the man to run the country. 36 tie-breaking ballots in the House of Representatives proved this task was no small one. 

Amidst those 36 rounds of voting, men like Alexander Hamilton were writing letters to members of the House, urging them that in “In a choice of Evils, let them take the least”: Jefferson rather than Burr. Hamilton chose his recipients wisely. One such letter arrived to Harrison Gray Otis, Speaker of the Massachusetts House, addressed on Dec. 23, 1800—while the tie between Burr and Jefferson was still actively being contested. Hamilton’s purpose was not only to convince Gray Otis to change his vote to Jefferson, but also to hopefully convince Gray Otis so well that the Massachusetts congressman became a mouthpiece for the rest of the Federalists. Though Gray Otis never changed his own vote to Jefferson, the first contested election gives us a glimpse into political persuasions and inter-party relationships that still exist today. 

I’m reminded of the waves of calling for the end of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign this last summer. That political rhetoric—”choose the lesser of two evils”—is certainly something we’re familiar with in 2024. In 1800, the concern over Burr was that he could not be controlled. Hamilton tells Gray Otis in his letter, “Mr. Jefferson I suspect will not dare much. Mr. Burr will.” In 2024, Democrats worried Biden would practically throw the election to the Republicans due to a declining performance. 

Dozens of figures publicly called for Biden to step down this summer, with the most prominent, famous figure perhaps being George Clooney in his op-ed to the New York Times. It is heavily suspected that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also called for Biden to step down behind closed doors. Though both Pelosi and Clooney were a part of Biden’s own political party, I still believe we see connections between men like Hamilton’s attempted persuasion of Gray Otis and today’s political world. When faced with no other option but to choose a Democratic Republican, Hamilton set down to write letters to his fellow Federalists. In 2024, when faced with a candidate Democrats believed would fall short of the election, they turned to behind-closed-doors persuasions and open letters for all eyes to see. 

Sources:

Sloan, Herbert. “‘In a Choice of Evils… Jefferson Is in Every View Less Dangerous than Burr’: Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis on the Deadlocked Presidential Election of 1800.” OAH Magazine of History 18, no. 5 (2004): 53–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163723.

Alexander Hamilton’s Letter to Harrison Gray Otis from Dec. 23, 1800

The election of 1800 was a turning point in many ways. It included two parties with formal tickets (much like today), would end in a tie throwing the election to the House of Representatives, and be the first election to oversee the transfer of power between rival parties. For this reason, the election is often called the “Revolution of 1800”. 

In the electoral stalemate between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, a new form of politics would creep in. The mechanisms of how Hamilton convinced several Federalists to sway their vote is reminiscent of a political phrase thrown around today, “the lesser of two evils”. It would turn out to be an effective strategy, as Jefferson would ultimately be elected with help from a group of Federalists sympathetic to Hamilton’s ideas.

In Alexander Hamilton’s letter to James Bayard (which can be accessed here), he lays out not why Jefferson is an ideal candidate, but why Burr is an impossible one. Hamilton starts by quelling the notion that he intends to be an “apologist” for Jefferson or the fact that he would want to be. Hamilton goes on to list many of his perceived imperfections. The most aggressive language is reserved for the shortcomings of Burr. Hamilton berates Burr as an egomaniac who will use the executive to accomplish his own goals and establish “permanent power” for himself. The letter ends with a vivid display of accountability for the chosen candidate, “if he acts ill, we must share in the blame”. 

In a sense, the “Revolution of 1800” can be viewed as a transformation of politics from ideological purity to pragmatic bargaining. Just as in 1800, 2024 voters may find themselves driven more by fear of the opposition than a love for their chosen candidate. It is important to know that these dilemmas are not new and have been a part of the political debate since its founding. The intense partisanship and negative campaigning that we see today are not anomalies, but rather recurring features of American politics.

Sources:

“From Alexander Hamilton to James A. Bayard, 16 January 1801,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0169.

Sometimes it feels like American politics are in the worst state they have ever been, but in 1800 the problems they faced were unfathomable. The issues faced stemmed from the 1796 Election of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr versus John Adams and Charles Pinckney, but the rematch in 1800 replicated the issues and made them worse. Even with George Washington’s warning against political parties, they were quickly evolving into what we know them to be today. The party lines were drawn, and there was intraparty and interparty turmoil boiling up until the election. 

Nowadays, the Electoral College is a point of contention, but the whole electoral system was functioning improperly as soon as there wasn’t a universal choice like Washington. In the Election of 1800, there were 4 leading candidates from two different parties and none of them reached the required majority to be elected President. There was no distinction between votes for President or Vice-President, and the candidate with the second amount of votes became Vice-President. Because no candidate got the majority of votes, the election went to the lame-duck House of Representatives. The choice for the tie-breaker was between the two Democratic-Republicans, Burr and Jefferson. The Democratic-Republican issue was that Burr didn’t specify that the House of Representatives should vote Jefferson for President and many speculate that Burr wanted to take the glory of the Presidency for himself.

Because of this, the Federalists in the House of Representatives had the option of disrupting the opposition by electing Burr, the Vice-Presidential candidate as President. A letter from Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis, a fellow Federalist on December 23rd, 1800, was a perfect representation of the problems in this election. Two of the main points in the letter that Hamilton brought up were that, “Mr. Jefferson is respectably known in Europe” and “Mr. Burr, as I believe, a bankrupt beyond redemption”. In the letter, Hamilton laid out the situation as two bad choices, but he believed Jefferson was the better choice for President. Although Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson’s foreign policy, specific to France, he still had respect for him and knew that Europe did too. He believed that Jefferson had his own beliefs because of his conviction in himself, which was the opposite of how he viewed Burr. He thought Burr’s opinions could be changed with ease as his only goal was monetary gain. On the flip side, Jefferson believed that Federalists were attempting to uproot everything that the Nation believed in and return to a monarchical ruling. The fact that the House of Representatives had so much power over the fate of the Presidency in this situation was a fault of the system.

Jefferson was eventually elected by the House of Representatives, but the electoral system had to be changed afterwards. This election revealed the awkward nature of the system because of the development of party systems and the lack of distinction between Presidential candidates and Vice-Presidential candidates. Originally it was thought that the two best candidates should be President and Vice-President, but the party system wouldn’t allow this. The problems of the Election of 1800 were so consequential, it was coined the Revolution of 1800. After the national complications, the 12th Amendment was quickly ratified which attempted to solve the problems from the election. 

One of the greatest travesties of the last century was the sinking of the Titanic. It might be one of the most preventable tragedies. When the ship sank in the Atlantic, it only carried enough lifeboats for a third of the passengers leaving them to survive in the freezing Atlantic with nothing more than a lifejacket and dramatically presented in the award winning film “Titanic.” How does this relate to elections? Well, let’s talk about an election that sank the entire era of political goodwill and a major party in the process, the election of 1824.

Let’s start with the basics: the parties and the candidates. The election of 1824 was quite unique. There was only one major party, “Democratic-Republicans” as we call them today. As a result, the previous election in 1820 was uncontested and Monroe won every electoral vote. This period before the 1824 election is known as the “Era-of-Good Feelings” because of this non-competitive atmosphere. In 1824 there were four candidates of note. William Crawford, the very articulate former Treasury Secretary, preferred by Thomas Jefferson and probably front runner if not for suffering a stroke the summer before. There was Henry Clay, the savvy long-time Speaker of the House, who knew D.C. like the back of his hand. Next, John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State, the son of president and founding father John Adams, not as charismatic as others but a skilled diplomat and mastermind of the Monroe doctrine. Lastly, there was the ”Hero of New Orleans,” former general, controversial figure, and, at that time,  Senator Andrew Jackson.

The good part is the election itself. No one candidate won on election night in 1824. The Electoral College vote was so split no one candidate received an outright majority. The closest anyone got was Jackson with 99 electoral votes and who won the popular vote. Many Americans would have no idea what should happen in that case or even if there was a way to handle it. In the case of a tie in the Electoral College the decision goes to the House of Representatives and as with everything in the U.S. government, that process is not what it seems. Instead of each member getting a vote, there is one vote for each state. Another thing that might not be obvious is that the House was not to vote on all four candidates but only the top three leaving Clay out. This led to a great irony: the Speaker at that time was the same Clay. Guess what Adams does? He cut a deal with Jackson for Adams to receive the most votes. In what is now known as the “corrupt bargain,” Clay traded the votes for the prestigious Secretary of State position in Adams’ cabinet causing Jackson and his supporters to scream in fury over the apparent cheating. The bargain might have made Adams president but it allowed Jackson to sweep into power in 1828 and win a second term as well.

Is the commonly recounted story a lie? Yes, Adams won, but maybe it wasn’t a corrupt bargain at all. Maybe it was just a democracy at work. The Miller Center at UVA (Hogan, 2024) suggests that instead, Clay supported Adams because of “Jackson’s qualifications [president]…[and] commitment to the “American System.” Similarly, I want to come clean about the Titanic. It’s true there weren’t enough lifeboats. However, even if the Titanic had enough lifeboats it probably wouldn’t have mattered in the end. The last lifeboat was released at 2:05am, 15 minutes before the sinking (Diekmann, 2024). 

Maybe we sometimes want to convince ourselves that there is a juicy conspiracy where there is just an election and processes of the government making a decision. This tells us that we shouldn’t get too carried away or convinced by conspiracies like with couches and pets in Ohio. They might be more interesting or make us feel justified in our preferences. However, most things have a more reasonable (and maybe boring) explanation. Let’s try to assume and hope that most people are trying to do the best they can and have faith that democracy will still function this time as it did then. 

References:

This source is from Margaret A. Hogan, no date found,  last retrieved 9/13/2024.

https://millercenter.org/contested-presidential-elections/corrupt-bargain

This source is from William Nester, no date found,  last retrieved 9/13/2024.

https://www-jstor-org.grinnell.idm.oclc.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt1ddr80h.11.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%

This source is from Caitlynn Dieckmann, no date found, last retrieved 9/13/2024.

https://urj.uccs.edu/index.php/urj/article/view/491/243

Research published in 2022 by the Pew Research Center has shown that many Americans today are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the current political system and, particularly, what many perceive as a rise in partisan politics (Pew Research Center Report Regarding Rising Partisan Hostility in the U.S.). While it may not be reassuring, it can be comforting to know that the U.S. political system is not only no stranger to alleged corruption and extreme polarization, but has been able to operate under these stressors from as early as 1800 (John J. Turner, “The Twelfth Amendment and the First American Party System” (1973)). There are perhaps no better sources with which to demonstrate the constancy of these stressors in U.S. politics than first-hand accounts of the state of the nation during and in the aftermath of two notoriously contentious elections which occurred early in the nation’s history: the elections of 1800 and 1824.

From the Election of 1800: Letter from Charles Pinckney to Thomas Jefferson (February 9th, 1801), National Founders Archive

In a letter from South Carolinian Democratic Republican Charles Pinckney (not to be confused with his cousin Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a member of the opposing Federalist political faction) to then presidential candidate, Thomas Jefferson, speaks to the state of the US political system during the contentious election of 1800 (Letter from Charles Pinckney to Thomas Jefferson (February 9th, 1801), National Founders Archive). The letter was written on February 9^th, 1801, just ahead of a vote in the House of Representatives which would break the tie between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in the votes of the electoral college and decide the election. While the political party system had not yet been implemented, the lines of division and lack of trust that people recognize between major US political parties today were certainly present. Democratic Republicans, believing that “big-government” Federalist policies were too similar to those seen in a monarchy system, did not trust Federalists to protect the nation, while Federalists believed that the high levels of state independence, lack of national bank, and expressed intention to support France in their brewing conflict with the British (characteristic of a Democratic Republican political approach) would eventually lead to a dissolution of the union. This letter reveals glimmers of those conflicts, with Pinckney expressing his extreme concern with the possibility of a Federalist “trick” leading to the reelection of Federalist incumbent John Adams rather than Jefferson, a leading Democratic Republican.  In this letter, Pinckney, who had just arrived in New York on his way to Washington, states that the severity of his anxiety has inspired him to “risk” his injured arm in order to “be on with [Jefferson] as quick as possible”.

Pinckney closes out the letter by informing Jefferson of his plans to be with him in Washington by the next week and voicing his hope that the “Voice of [the] country” will be heard and that, because of the country’s voice being heard, its wishes to see Jefferson as President will come to fruition. This closing statement further reflects his strong belief that to elect Jefferson as president was, not only the best choice for the future of the United States, but also that Jefferson was the candidate that the nation itself preferred, despite the fact that the will of much of the nation was notably not directly represented in the voting that occurred in both the electoral college and the House of Representatives (Jack N. Rakove, “Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies”, Published in Volume 119, Issue 1 of Political Science Quarterly (2004)).

Pinckney’s sense of duty and urgency is indicative of just how dire politicians from both factions believed the election of 1800 to be. In his short letter to Jefferson, Pinckney encapsulates the magnitude of the election of 1800 in the eyes of Americans at the time as well as the severe fracturing between Democratic Republicans and Federalists at the core of the first contentious presidential election in US history.

From the election of 1824: Letter from Andrew Jackson to William Berkeley Lewis (February 14, 1825), Library of Congress

The election of 1824 marked the end of an era in the History of the United States known as the “Era of Good Feelings” (1815-1825). During this era, American citizens were finally able to turn their attention away from European affairs and pay it, in full, to what was happening in their home country – a country which, in 1820, at least appeared to be a nation united under one political party: the Democratic Republicans (Britannica, “Era of Good Feelings”). The Democratic Republican party’s dominance in 1820 was, in many ways, the result of long-term effects stemming from the presidential election of 1800: a bitter battle between the two dominant political groups at the time, the Federalists and Democratic Republicans, which ended in Thomas Jefferson’s presidency (Democratic Republican). The election of 1800 also spurred the formation and ratification of the 12th amendment which facilitated what we know as “party politics”, by allowing the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from the same party to essentially run as a “package-deal”, and set guidelines for protocols in the event that no candidate received a critical majority of the votes in the electoral college (John J. Turner, “The Twelfth Amendment and the First American Party System” (1973)). When the state delegates in the electoral college cast their votes in the election of 1824, they were faced with a choice between five different members who were all, at least nominally, members of the Democratic Republican party: William H. Crawford of Georgia, Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (Statistics from the Election of 1824, “The American Presidency Project”, Published by the University of California at Santa Barbara).

While Jackson won the popular vote of the American people as well as the most electoral votes of the five men, with Quincy Adams having the second most popular and electoral votes, he did not win the 131 electoral votes necessary to win the election (Chapter 6: “The Corrupt Bargain” from William Nester’s The Age of Jackson and the Art of American Power 1815-1848 (Copyright 2013)). So, as was established with the ratification of the 12th amendment in the aftermath of the contested election of 1800, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives through which each state delegation would be able to vote (John J. Turner, “The Twelfth Amendment and the First American Party System” (1973)). While the 12th amendment allowed for the top three candidates with the most electoral votes to be included in the tie-breaking vote, Henry Clay, the candidate with the third most electoral votes, decided to drop out of the election in order to use his influence as Speaker of the House to bolster John Quincy Adams’ chances of defeating Andrew Jackson.

Despite all being members of the same party, a few of the five men had serious misgivings about some of their opponents’ character and ability to successfully lead a nation. Much of these misgivings were either directed towards or held by General Andrew Jackson, a divisive figure known primarily for his military prowess. Perhaps most notable among Andrew Jackson’s conflicts with political adversaries was the shared animosity between him and Henry Clay. This animosity reached a fever-pitch of sorts when, after being endorsed by Clay as Speaker of the House, John Quincy Adams won the tie-breaking vote in the House of Representatives and, consequently, the presidency despite having received less electoral and popular votes than Jackson. However, it was not Clay’s endorsement of John Quincy Adams alone that inspired great anger among Andrew Jackson and his supporters, but rather Quincy Adams’ later appointment of Clay to the office of the Secretary of State. Jackson and his supporters, understandably, did not view Clay’s appointment following his endorsement of John Quincy Adams to be a coincidence, but rather an instance of political malfeasance which would go on to be known as the “Corrupt Bargain” (Chapter 6: “The Corrupt Bargain” from William Nester’s The Age of Jackson and the Art of American Power 1815-1848 (Copyright 2013)). In a letter to his friend and advisor Major William Berkeley Lewis, Jackson pondered if not only the nation, but the world, “[had] ever witnessed such a bare faced corruption” before Clay and John Quincy Adams’ alleged, and still unsubstantiated, “Corrupt Bargain”. Earlier in that same letter to Major Lewis, Jackson described Clay as “the Judas of the West”, emphasizing the extreme nature of the betrayal he believed to have occurred  (Letter from Andrew Jackson to William Berkeley Lewis (February 14, 1825), Library of Congress).

With the intense political climate of the present-day United States, and the fears and uncertainty that this climate can inspire, it can be hard to fathom that the United States has endured, and could continue to endure, the kinds of partisanship and animosity we currently see between political parties and politicians. However, a brief look into the history of U.S. politics can show us that the nation has endured many perilous events that, arguably, posed a greater threat to our democratic system than any trials and tribulations we have seen in the past two decades. While the perspective one can gain from learning about these past events may not bring peace of mind, or some form of guidance with which to navigate issues in the present-day, it can hopefully provide some semblance of assurance that our democracy has the ability to survive in and adapt to the increasingly rocky landscape that is U.S. politics.

Sources

In order of first appearance:

1. Pew Research Center Report Regarding Rising Partisan Hostility in the U.S.
2. John J. Turner, “The Twelfth Amendment and the First American Party System” (1973)
3. Letter from Charles Pinckney to Thomas Jefferson (February 9th, 1801), National Founders Archive
4. Jack N. Rakove, “Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies”, Published in Volume 119, Issue 1 of Political Science Quarterly (2004)
5. Letter from Andrew Jackson to William Berkeley Lewis (February 14, 1825), Library of Congress
6. Britannica, “Era of Good Feelings”
7. Statistics from the Election of 1824, “The American Presidency Project”, Published by the University of California at Santa Barbara
8. Chapter 6: “The Corrupt Bargain” from William Nester’s The Age of Jackson and the Art of American Power 1815-1848 (Copyright 2013)

1828 was a comeback election for Andrew Jackson.

Having lost to what he described as a ‘corrupt bargain’ in 1824, he became determined to win both the popular vote and the majority electoral college vote, defeating John Quincy Adams this time around. This election would be a tough one for Jackson and his family, though. Not only was Jackson running against the man who had defeated him four years prior, he was running against an anti-Jackson campaign, one that was fueled by rumors put out against him in newspapers and pamphlets.

Jackson had one enemy in particular that sought to destroy both him and his wife’s reputation. In his monthly pamphlet, Truth’s Advocate and Monthly Anti-Jackson Expositor, Charles Hammond published over three hundred pages attacking Andrew Jackson’s politics, personhood, as well as family.

The pamphlet reads, “we deem it proper that the public should be acquainted with the offences of Gen. Jackson, against morals, law, and decency, the commission of which, spreads over his whole life from the seduction of Mrs. Robards to the slander of Mr. Clay” . Hammond’s jab is a reference to the rumor that Andrew Jackson had relations with his now wife Rachel Jackson while she was previously married to Lewis Robards. Calling Rachel Jackson by the last name of another man acted as an innate attack on the Jackson family values, and in turn, Andrew Jackson’s values as a presidential candidate as well as a man.

 Truth’s Advocate and Monthly Anti-Jackson Expositor (June 1828), 235

Further, in a piece titled Groanings within the pamphlet, the legitimacy of Andrew and Rachel Jackson’s relationship is again challenged, this time blatantly accusing the couple of engaging in adultery. The pamphlet reads,

Truth’s Advocate and Monthly Anti-Jackson Expostior (June 1828), 235

“And then about that Mrs. Robards affair–

That too, they’ve told Adams and Clay–

Had it never leaked out, I’ll make bold to de-

clare,

‘Twould not be known to this day.”

By means of combating these attacks on his values, Andrew Jackson positioned himself amid the everyman. With his nickname, Old Hickory, Jackson made himself seem familiar to the American people, something the anti-Jackson campaign had been trying to further him away from. For example, on the ‘Jackson Ticket’, Jackson’s image is replaced by a tree, signifying him as sturdy, rooted, and down to Earth.

 Andrew Jackson, “Jackson ticket. ‘Firm united let us be, rallying round our Hickory tree’” (1828), courtesy Library of Congress

Much like the mudslinging in the 1828 election, modern day elections are no stranger to this kind of abuse. Most recently, as seen in the presidential debate between President Trump and Vice President Harris, name calling and rumors still manage to find a place on the election stage. During the debate, both members used the word ‘weak’, among other things, to describe one another. In addition, moderators questioned President Trump’s on his comments about Harris’s identification as a Black woman. It is interesting how in both the 1828 and 2024 election, women are both at the forefront of criticism.

While 1828 was one of the first elections that political opponents engaged in mudslinging, it is clear that even almost two hundred years later, this same sort of smearing remains, such messiness characterizing what we understand today as simply: politics. In this day and age, though, pamphlets are pushed to the side in exchange for viral twitter rants, as social media created a brand new platform for politicians to engage in mudslinging.