News

1828 Presidential Elections - History

1828 Presidential Elections - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

1828 Election Results Jackson vs Adams

The election of 1828 was a seminal election in American history. It was the first election which was to be decided by popular vote. It was an election which pitted Andrew Jackson, who projected an image of a populist, against President Adams, who was a member of "the ruling class." Once again the election campaign included numerous personal attacks on each of the candidates. Adams was attacked for living in "kingly pomp and splendor." Adam was also attacked for traveling on Sunday and having premarital relations with his wife. Jackson was attacked as being uneducated and reckless. They also attacked Jackson, branding him a murderer, for his executions of deserters. Jackson's marriage to his wife also came under attack, based on a technicality. Jackson's wife was an adulterer when she initially began her relationship with him.

Beyond personality traits, there were actual policy differences between the two candidates. Adams supported the National Bank. He wanted high tariffs and advocated federal funds for internal improvements. Jackson opposed the bank. He wanted lower tariffs and was in favor of only limited federal support for internal improvements.

Adams continued the tradition of presidential candidates not personally campaigning at all. Jackson, on the other hand, was intimately involved in organizing his campaign. Jackson won the southern and western states, which were enough to ensure his victory. Adams maintained his support in New England.


Published 6:43 am Tuesday, November 10, 2020

W ith the voting over and done with (probably maybe), it’s time we all sat down and tried to gain a little perspective. History is a great teacher, so let’s be its students for a few minutes.

Perspective, especially this close in, is tough to come by. But it is clear to anyone who paid any attention at all that this election taught us that in twentieth-century America, reason and political thought don’t matter, experience no longer counts, and accomplishments are merely things to be tossed aside. In point of fact, truth itself was too often cast aside, and lies were easier to form than logic.

Oh, I’m not taking sides in the presidential election. And I’m not necessarily referring to any local elections. I’m just commenting on the state of the American political conversation.

I kept thinking that someone would take on issues without taking on the character of the opponent. I saw some on the national level, but not much. Remember the debates? Did you feel better informed, or did you just need a mental bath?

What did I really see? Character assassination. And that is an old tool. Aristotle wrote about it four centuries before Christ, and he even gave it the high-sounding name of argumentum ad hominem. That is when you attack the person instead of attacking his position.

We—all of us fallen humans–bear some responsibility for this. People tend to look for people who think as they do. And they tend to look specifically for things that make their argument better. Psychologists call it confirmation bias, and (he said ironically), we see it everywhere.

Do you think Democrats play dirty pool, or do you think Republicans are the scoundrels? For most people, their party affiliation predetermines their initial predispositions, and those initial predispositions are less like points of beginning and more like ideas cast in concrete. In other words, most people won’t budge.

Think about the presidential election. If you are of one party, you believe that American finally got rid of a rogue and why isn’t it obvious to everyone if you are of another party, you believe the election was stolen and that you have tons of information to support your position and why aren’t people in jail? Which is true? Neither? Both? What you believe—notice I did not say what is true—is too generally determined by your point of view.

In elections, does the truth even matter? My experience and this saddens me to no end, is that it seems to matter less and less.

Why are lies too effective? Mark Twain said it best: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

But before we go all old-school, and wish for the way things used to be, let’s take a look at how things used to be.

As I pointed out last week when we were visiting the electoral college, don’t forget that we once had what was called the Democratic-Republican party. In 1824 it had won six consecutive presidential elections and was our only national political party.

John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee and two others battled for the presidency (remember, they were all members of one party) so hot and so close that none of the four candidates could secure enough electoral votes to win. Co congress had to decide the election. Did their decision come from the best men in America sitting down to carefully reason amongst themselves? Hardly. House Speaker Henry Clay (he holds the same position that Nancy Pelosi holds today) met with Adams. After the meeting, Clay swayed enough congressional support to secure the presidency for Adams. Guess what happened next. Henry Clay was quickly appointed as Secretary of State by the newly-elected President John Q. Adams.

Jackson and his people revolted, left the Democratic-Republican party and formed what is now the Democratic party.

Let’s pause here for a moment. If you are a Republican, the lesson you take from that story is different than if you are a Democrat. See where we are going.

The 1828 election—which was really a follow-up to the 1828 election–is known as “the dirtiest campaign in U.S. history.”

Jackson, who felt that the presidency had been stolen from him, came out swinging. Jackson accused Adams of misusing public funds Adams accused Jackson of murdering six of his own militiamen. Jackson’s wife had been previously married, and the Adams camp accused her of adultery. Jackson fired back that Adams, charging that when he was the American ambassador to Russia, used prostitutes to curry favor.

Jackson won—I’ll leave it to you to decide if it was because he played the dirtier pool– and that lead to him being elected president of the United States, the first Democrat to hold that office.

What conclusions can we draw? The outcome of modern elections—much like elections in prior centuries—is not determined by careful reasoning and clear thinking. Often, when politics goes to the lowest common denominator, we get the lowest possible elected officials.

Does that apply to the 2020 election cycle? You decide. I suspect that your beginning point predetermines your decision.


1828 United States presidential election in Delaware

The 1828 United States presidential election in Delaware took place between October 31 and December 2, 1828, as part of the 1828 United States presidential election. Voters chose three representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.

Delaware cast three electoral votes for the National Republican candidate, John Quincy Adams, over the Democratic candidate, Andrew Jackson. These electors were elected by the Delaware General Assembly, the state legislature, rather than by popular vote. [1]

1828 United States presidential election in Delaware [2]
Party Candidate Votes Percentage Electoral votes
National Republican John Quincy Adams 3
Democratic Andrew Jackson 0
Totals 3
  1. ^"1828 Presidential General Election Results". U.S. Election Atlas . Retrieved 13 April 2013 .
  2. ^
  3. "Electoral Votes for President and Vice President 1821-1837". National Archives and Records Administration . Retrieved 2 March 2013 .

This Delaware elections-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


“Change” Elections: 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1960, 1968, 1980, 2000, 2008, And Now 2016?

America has now had 58 Presidential elections, and it can now be said that 12 of them, about 20 percent, have been transformational elections.

In 1800, for the first time. the “opposition” won the Presidency, when Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams.

In 1828, the “common man”, Andrew Jackson, was elected over John Quincy Adams, and all white males over 21, whether or not property owners, were able to vote, and Jackson was perceived as representing the western frontiersman and the urban worker.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln’s victory ushered in a new political party, the Republican Party, as dominant for the next half century, and the Civil War developed out of the split over slavery and its expansion between the Union and the Confederacy. But the sectionalism of that period still exists in many ways in 2017.

In 1896, William McKinley’s victory over William Jennings Bryan promoted the growth of industry and urbanizastion over the previously predominant agricultural and rural nature of America, but in reality, that conflict still exists in 2017.

In 1912, the high point of progressive reform, and the evolution of government playing a major role in the economy from that point on, became a long term reality, with three Presidents–the past President Theodore Roosevelt the incumbent President William Howard Taft and the future President Woodrow Wilson—all competing in promoting what one could call the most reform oriented election, with all three Presidents being “progressive” to different degrees.

In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s victory over Herbert Hoover, was the time of the beginning of Democratic Party dominance, and ever bigger national government, even beyond the Progressive Era of the early 20th century.

In 1960, the election of John F. Kennedy was the triumph of overcoming the “religion issue”, as our first non Protestant President, a Roman Catholic from Massachusetts, was accomplished.

In 1968, the election of Richard Nixon marked the beginning of a turn to the Right, although Nixon actually continued and expanded elements of the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson in domestic affairs.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan’s victory marked the sharpest turn to the Right since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, and began an era of conservative government, that in many respects, continued under his successors, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

In 2000, the Supreme Court intervention in the Florida vote count, and the awarding of Florida to George W. Bush by 537 votes, giving him the Presidency, was a revolutionary change that changed the course of history, when Al Gore won the popular vote by more than a half million, and with the economy having improved during the Clinton years, should have led to Gore in the White House.

In 2008, Barack Obama’s victory over John McCain was a sharp turn to the left after what were arguably 40 years of conservative government to different degrees, including under Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and Obama overcame the race issue, in becoming the first African American President.

And now, in 2016, Donald Trump’s victory MIGHT be a sign of another “change” election, with the white working class voting for Trump, giving him the victory in the Electoral College, even though rival Hillary Clinton won the biggest popular vote margin of a losing candidate (2.85 million), greater than many Presidents won on their road to the White House,

But it may eventually be seen as a “fluke” election, and may not be long lasting, and only time and events will tell us what the reality is.

Share this:


Contents

Andrew Jackson won a plurality of both the popular (a) and electoral votes in the Election of 1824 but still lost to John Quincy Adams when the election was deferred to the House of Representatives. Henry Clay (then Speaker of the House) received the chance to play king-maker. Although Clay did not have cordial relations with Adams, Clay despised Jackson, in part due to their fight for Western votes during the election. Clay met with Adams to confirm his support, and shortly thereafter Adams won the Presidency. A few days after the election, Adams named Clay his Secretary of State, a position which at that time often led to the presidency. Jackson and his followers immediately labeled Clay and Adams as striking a “corrupt bargain," and they continued to lambaste the President until the 1828 election.

(a) A full quarter of the states did not hold a popular vote. The Election of 1828 had the highest voter turnout to date.


1828 United States elections

The 1828 United States elections elected the members of the 21st United States Congress. It marked the beginning of the Second Party System, and the definitive split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Democratic Party (organized around Andrew Jackson) and the National Republican Party (organized around John Quincy Adams and opponents of Jackson). While the Democrats cultivated strong local organizations, the National Republicans relied on a clear national platform of high tariffs and internal improvements. [3] Political scientists such as V.O. Key, Jr. consider this election to be a realigning election, while political scientists such as James Reichley instead see the election as a continuation of the Democratic-Republican tradition. [4] Additionally, this election saw the Anti-Masonic Party win a small number of seats in the House, becoming the first third party to gain representation in Congress.

In a re-match of the 1824 Presidential election, Democratic General Andrew Jackson won a large victory over incumbent National Republican President John Quincy Adams. [5] Adams again won New England, but Jackson took most of the rest of the country. Jackson was the first successful presidential candidate who had not served as secretary of state or vice president in the preceding administration (aside from George Washington). Adams was the first President to lose re-election since his father, John Adams, lost re-election in 1800. John C. Calhoun was re-elected vice president, making him the second and last vice president to serve under two different presidents. Jackson's election as president marked the start of Jacksonian democracy, and an ongoing expansion in right to vote saw a dramatic increase in the size of the electorate. [6]

In the House, Democrats won several seats, increasing their majority. The Anti-Masonic Party won a small number of seats, gaining representation in Congress for the first time. [7]

In the Senate, opponents of Jackson won minor gains, but Democrats retained control of the chamber. [8]


Corruption In Andrew Jackson's Spoils System

The fierce election of 1828, featured former president John Quincy Adams against the war hero Andrew Jackson. Jackson felt cheated due to the "corrupt bargain" during the election of 1824,and has decided to take one more shot at presidency. Jackson, the candidate who gained popular support from both the West and South, arrived victorious at the conclusion to the election of 1828. Despite his political campaign, some historians regard Jackson 's presidency as "great," which in terms places him among with the top tier of American presidents. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, in my opinion doesn 't fit on that magnitude of placement.&hellip


ELECTION OF 1828

The election of 1828 was one of the nastiest in American history. In some ways, the contest was an extension of the previous presidential election in 1824. On both occasions, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson vied for the highest office in the land. In 1824 a total of four candidates ran, with the electoral votes scattered among them. Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes, but lacked a majority in both categories. Thus, the election went to the House of Representatives, where Adams was chosen primarily because of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Henry Clay. Jackson cried foul when Clay was subsequently appointed secretary of state by Adams. The thunder of "corrupt bargain" rumbled throughout the nation, and as a result, campaigning for the election of 1828 began immediately.

The meanness of the campaign engendered charge and countercharge. Jackson's supporters declared that Adams, while acting as secretary to his father, then ambassador to Russia, had procured a young American girl for the tsar's pleasure. Adams's forces, in turn, announced that Jackson's mother was a prostitute and that he was the result of her liaison with a mulatto. Notwithstanding such tawdry accusations, the election actually involved important issues. Jackson's supporters argued that the will of the people had been cheated in the 1824 election because he had received the highest number of popular and electoral votes. On the election of 1828, insisted Jackson forces, teetered the very survival of constitutional, majoritarian democracy.

Such an argument was a rather new concept. The founding fathers had embraced democracy, but their emphasis was more on representative republicanism. They referred to the nation as a republic and believed firmly in deferential government. In other words the elite, educated men of the nation should lead, and the masses should defer to the elite's superior judgment. Jackson challenged and ultimately dismantled this system. He was not born into aristocracy. Rather, he was the first president reared in poverty. He struggled, fought, and worked his way to a position of respect and power. As a result, the people connected with him in a way they had never done with prior presidents. Even George Washington, revered as the nation's father, had not achieve such a status. Both the broadening right of suffrage throughout America and Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans (1815) played significant roles in the election. Ultimately, Jackson became a symbol of burgeoning democracy and was venerated as representative of the common man. He promised reform in government and the people believed him.

John Quincy Adams appeared in stark contrast to Jackson's humble origins. Born into an elite Massachusetts family and educated at Harvard, Adams was the son of the nation's second president and had held a plethora of offices, including secretary of state under President James Monroe. After winning the questionable election of 1824, he announced in his First Annual Address that government was "invested with power" and made continual comparisons between the progress of Europe and the backwardness of America. He insisted that the nation should not "slumber in indolence," nor should the legislature be "palsied by the will of our constituents." This and other statements of Adams had the tone of haughtiness and aristocracy about which Jackson and his supporters warned. Adams's more-or-less-rejection of the popular will as a guide for America's leaders paralleled that tone. Furthermore, the belief that the burgeoning United States was second to the decadence of centuries-old Europe angered Americans.

Jackson opposed that belief. His victory over the British at New Orleans, the crushing of an army that had defeated Napoleon's best by a ragtag group of yeoman militia, quickly became a symbol of America's greatness. As the commander of such a triumph, Jackson personified the nation's finest attributes. This, in fact, was the very reason that his popularity exploded following the battle and why the road to the executive office opened before him. Add the alleged corruption of 1824 and the inborn aristocracy of Adams, and Andrew Jackson's success in the election of 1828 was virtually assured.

Once presidential victory arrived, the nation witnessed an inauguration like no other. People flooded the streets in order to see "their" champion. Whereas in the past the ceremony to usher in a new leader had been an affair for Washington society only, this time the elite found itself surrounded by the members of the "rabble" who now felt they had license to partake in democratic government. America would never be the same.


The election of 1828

he 1828 election is arguably one of the most significant elections in American history which involved perhaps the longest presidential campaigns. The historical race involved the incumbent, John Quincy Adams, and the once-defeated Andrew Jackson. The election is deemed significant in the political arena as it marked the beginning of modern American politics and the formation of the two-party system. Andrew Jackson’s victory marked a fundamental shift in American history until then the American people had drawn their presidents and other leaders mostly from the elite.

By 1828 the United States was by no means a nascent democracy by all standards with elections being hallmarks of a growing democracy. However, some elections were deemed as significant as they were controversial that they changed the election culture and served as a blueprint from which future political developments sprouted from. By the end of 1828, Americans had voted into office a man who was widely regarded as a champion of the common people1.

The 11th elections proved to be a turning point in American history as, in as much as it was mired in smear underhand tactics and open character assassination, it heralded a return of party politics as it managed to whip the masses into two major party lines and the consequent party conflicts and bitterness would resonate for years.

Andrew Jackson’s loss in the 1824 elections which were regarded as a ‘corrupt bargain’,2 and his ride to victory four years later through the support of the poor or working class clearly formed a template many future elections that were to follow where political power closely resembled the growing population of the United States. It was now possible for a person of humble descent like Andrew Jackson to ascend to the highest pinnacle of political power unlike where it was a reserve of a small clique of aristocrats.

Andrew Jackson won in the election of 1824, but faced a loss to John Adams when the election was deferred to the House of Representatives3. He (Andrew Jackson) and his loyalist were outraged when the House of Representatives because of the influence Henry Clay, an unsuccessful presidential candidate and speaker of the house, awarded the presidency to John Quincy Adams. One may wonder if the process was free and fair and totally unbiased as a few days later, the president-elect John Quincy Adams named Henry Clay his secretary of state4. At the time, this was a position that had been a launch-pad for future presidents. The American people who had clearly demonstrated their preferred candidates felt betrayed by the very system that unified them as a people.

One is compelled to raise various questions on the turn of events since Andrew Jackson won a plurality of electoral votes in the election which meant that he was the ultimate choice of the Americans. Andrew Jackson was devastated by the turn of events and one would understand his reaction at the time and devoted himself for the next four years to winning the presidency in the 1828 election: the next election. The modern Democratic Party was formed through the efforts of Andrew Jackson’s loyalist, Martin Van Buren. This political machine was one of the many strategies they used. Van Buren worked extra hard to gain popularity in the East as Andrew Jackson was already popular in the west. Nominations for the 1828 elections changed and legislatures were tasked with the job of making the nominations. John Quincy Adams was re-nominated by the National Republicans while the Democrats nominated Andrew Jackson. The nomination presented a rematch between two great rivals of the time, Andrew Jackson and President John Adams.

The campaign was one of the nastiest in American history. The elections of 1828 proved to be unique from all the previous elections in American history in various ways. The campaign was marked by considerable cased of mudslinging. This vice was uncommon during previous elections and was reported in isolated cases. One is convinced without any reasonable doubt that the degree of mudslinging in the 1828 election surpassed all the previous elections. According to Parson, 5 the campaign was highly motivated by personal issues. John Quincy Adams was mainly attacked for pompous living in the White House and his opponents perceived him as a potential threat to democracy and also thought him to be reckless and uneducated. On the other hand, Andrew Jackson and his wife faced attacks targeting the legality of their matrimonial union.

The pressure was very high in this campaign period and the two decided to remarry. The newspaper on Andrew Jackson’s side retaliated with an outrageous charge saying that John Quincy Adams had secured a servant girl to satisfy the Czar of Russia6. Unlike in previous elections, Andrew Jackson image as a glorious war hero was unaffected by the negative press campaign against him. The attacks his lack of an education also didn’t tint his image unlike previous elections. The election of1828 was not one of the kindest in America, but it was a very significant one. Not a single election conducted prior to the 1828 election had such impressive cases of mudslinging. The election also pioneered the nomination of candidates by popular vote. The aggressive nature of the campaign strategies employed by both candidates cannot be ultimately rebuked, but should be looked upon as something to learn from. These strategies have been abused in modern politics and the effect has been a whole lot of dirty tactics and character assassination.

The election was of great importance to the American people for it marked major shifts towards democracy and it acted as a realigning election for it separated the first party system and the second party systems in America. Upon election, Jacksonian democracy dominated the second party system which had tremendous impact on the future political development7. The election affected future political development as it was the very first election to be decided by popular vote and it was a great step for the masses to have a voice in the political process. The election proved that the common man’s voice could be heard and honored. The 1828 election influenced future politics as demonstrated by the Democratic Party that Andrew Jackson and Van Buren built dominating American elections until the civil war (1861-1865). T

he election was the first time individuals began to fight against corruption in politics. Andrew Jackson era marked a new dawn and dimension in American politics as far as elections were concerned. He proved to the world that the common man would impact the future of any country especially if they were united. Democracy was given a chance in American history which has been used as a major historic example in shaping many countries’ politics. His era was also associated with the growth and increased energy of the nation.


Watch the video: The American Presidential Election of 1828 (May 2022).