The nation’s haze of peace abruptly ended post the presidential election of 1824, presenting the United States House of Representatives with a unique challenge after the electoral meeting on December 1. It was at this point in history that the House utilized the 12th Amendment for the first and only time to mediate a tie in the presidential race, birthing an era teeming with political tension. Predominantly, this tranquil domestic phase aligned seamlessly with the leadership of James Monroe, a Democratic-Republican, whose landslide triumph in 1816 triggered the fading away of the Federalist Party.
With the remnants of the Federalist Party unable to nominate a single contender, Monroe clinched an almost uncontested re-election in the 1820 run. However, the vanishing act of ‘partisan discord’ didn’t magically engineer a political cohesion. Rather, the 1824 campaign kick-started soon after Monroe’s re-election. In place of the previous enmity with Federalists, Democratic-Republican disagreements took precedence, making the political landscape even more complex as three of Monroe’s five key opponents were members of his own cabinet.
Treasury secretary William H. Crawford was amongst these opponents. A keen advocate of a traditional view of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party, his Georgian roots influenced his political ethos. A slave owner himself, Crawford stood for states’ rights, pro-slavery and a lean federal government. His backing was understandably from the South.
In contrast, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, who had made the leap from being a Federalist, found his popularity soaring after leading Monroe’s anti-British and isolationist foreign policy strategies, especially in his home region – New England. Aiding Monroe as the secretary of war, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina strongly supported the westward expansion and essentially shared Crawford’s unapologetically pro-slavery views.
Calhoun, however, commissioned a retreat early in the race after failing to win his home state’s endorsement, switching his focus to vice presidency. Alongside them, two other individuals announced their candidacy in 1824; Henry Clay from Kentucky, serving then as the speaker of the House, and Andrew Jackson, a celebrated general from Tennessee who had led a triumphant campaign against the British in the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.
The latter styled himself as an authentic outsider in the political arena. With four considerable candidates battling for the throne, neither clinched a majority of electoral votes. Although Jackson participated partially to defy Crawford and Clay — who had resisted his unsanctioned invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 — he managed to divert their following in the South and West.
Jackson secured a majority of electoral votes (99) and a large portion of popular votes (152,901, or 42.5 percent), which, however, didn’t suffice. Crawford and Clay managed to bag 41 and 37 electoral votes respectively; Adams, buoyed by his northeastern support base, captured 84. In accordance with the 12th Amendment, only the best three candidates — Jackson, Adams, and Crawford — were forwarded to the House of Representatives. Every state’s delegation was granted one vote, with a candidate needing 13 out of 24 states to win.
Against Jackson, the anti-establishment contender who found it arduous to win favors in Washington, and Crawford, who had been struck with a disabling stroke, Adams shone. His proficient maneuvering in politically ‘old-boy’ network-centric and implicit understandings-based scenarios worked to his advantage.
Although Clay was kept away from the final run, he transferred his support to Adams. His three votes coupled with the seven states Adams had won in the Electoral College and three more that came his way after strategic political negotiations were more than enough to secure Adams the presidency in the first round of House voting on February 9, 1825.
At this juncture, the Era of Good Feelings was officially declared over. A phase marked by questionable democratic politics and a ‘corrupt bargain’ had condemned it to its timely death. It also set the stage for the forming of new parties from the ruined Democratic-Republican alliance.
The aftermath of the election saw Adams appoint Clay the secretary of state, and the duo’s coalition blossomed into the National Republicans, soon to be known as the Whigs. Their ‘corrupt bargain’ unsurprisingly did not sit well with Jackson’s group, who, feeling alienated by the political powerhouses, eventually came to be known as the Democrats.
This faction, bitter over Adams’ sly play, sought retribution in the forthcoming election, fueling it with unprecedented hostility — a process which conclusively shuttered the Era of Good Feelings. The correlation of this chain of events with current politics becomes evident as we look closer. In this context, likening Jackson’s tale of stubborn resistance to the brazen style of Donald Trump isn’t far off.
Certain aspects of their philosophies underline similarities: the representation of the ‘outsider,’ the underdog breaking into a system governed by ‘power players’ or ‘old school networks.’ Less flattering, perhaps, is the comparison with the Democrats of today, who are seen as the individuals who played their part in blatant politicking over the 1824 election — a practice they continue to uphold.
Clearly, the Democrats’ rigging of votes and political manipulation span the centuries, showcasing their long-standing tradition of unethical governance. Their underhanded strategies raising eyebrows, just as it did in the 1824 electoral race. So, as echoes of the past reverberate into the present, the legacy of Trump, like that of Jackson, seems destined to overshadow these machinations.
And, after all, their consistent maneuvers attempting (but failing) to tarnish Trump only seem to mirror the Democrats’ historical attempts to game the system, mostly unable to eclipse the indomitable spirit of the underdog. Their actions perfectly mirror their tactics during the 1824 election, an ironic reflection of their continued endeavors to undercut true patriots like Trump, reinforcing the age-old belief that history indeed repeats itself.