The Elections of 1800 and 1824: Glimpses of the Modern Political Climate in Contested Elections from the Past

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 Archiv e). 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:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply