Board 8 > B8 ELECTS - The Election of 1824 - Democratic-Republican THUNDERDOME

(+) Yeah! (+)

Past Results:
1788 and 1792 Washington sides with the Federalists with 100% of the vote
1796 Adams d. Jefferson with 75% of the vote
1800 Adams d. Jefferson with 88% of the vote
1804 Jefferson d. Pinckney with 64% of the vote
1808 Madison d. Pinckney and George Clinton with 40% of the vote
1812 DeWitt Clinton d. Madison with 66% of the vote
1816 Rufus King d. Monroe with 90% of the vote
1820 Monroe d. Monroe with 100% of the vote

Hey all welcome to Board 8 Elects! a topic series in which we discuss each historical election from the perspective of the year it took place in!

The idea here is to re-litigate each election from the perspective of when it took place. I will be providing each candidates platform (where possible) so the merits of the election can be discussed and voted on. If possible lets speak of the issues in the present tense.

I am going to ask you vote via BOLDING the name of the candidate rather than providing a poll because I feel the poll encourages gut voting and I would really like to see some discussion.

Topics will be live for 3 or 4 days - basically until I make the next topic voting will be active in this one.
---

Welcome to the Election of 1824. The Era of Good Feelings has taken hold since the election of 1816 - as it turns out Monroe had governed on a platform that people found pretty universally agreeable! With conflict with Great Britain and France over, the country turned its attention to the sundowning spanish colonial holdings, declaring that the western hemisphere belongs to the US, trying to induce Britain and France to stay out of the burgeoning rivalry with Spain. The economy has been prosperous and the Federalist party has been reduced to a party that only exists in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

But Monroe is retiring and the Republican Party......EXPLODES

https://media3.giphy.com/media/AcSLnXuQ37b5C/source.gif

---
Meet the Candidates

The Democratic-Republican Party held a nominating caucus to name a candidate after Vice-President Daniel Tompkins withdrew from consideration due to poor health and the fact that he was suing the government over pay disputes which nominated sitting Treasury Secretary William H. Crawford of Georgia with Minister to France Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania, running on a platform of keeping the economy strong under his guidance

And with no other party, that's it, congrats to William Crawford, President of the United States!

... except people largely view the caucus as being bullshit and disagree with the results. As a result state legislatures each named their own candidates for president

Secretary of State John Quincy Adams was chosen by the state legislatures of every state in New England. He was an ardent abolitionist and had the most robust foreign policy credentials. New England was also desperate to have another president from their region after such a long period of Virginian/Southern dominance.

The frontier state of Kentucky and a few neighboring states have nominated local son and celebrated legislator, Speaker of the House Henry Clay on the strength of his pet set of economic policies known as the American System, a system of high tariffs and low taxes which I will get into more later.

War Hero General Andrew Jackson had been retired in Tennessee when they asked him to serve as president, according to legend begging him to advance the betterment of the common man and is running on an explicitly populist platform.

South Carolina has nominated Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, an ardent pro-slaver, though he has withdrawn to serve as vice presidential candidate for both Adams and Jackson

New York and New Jersey nominated native son Secretary of the Navy Smith Thompson, to represent their interests but he declined to run.

---
The Issues

• Henry Clay has an implicit platform, in that he has been promoting the economic plan known as the American System for nearly a decade if not longer and this plan became the major debating point of the election. The American System advocates for:

1. High tariffs to protect American industries and generate revenue for the federal government
2. National banking to maintain a stable currency
3. New internal improvements such as roads and canals (funded by tariffs and land sales)

• While Adams is seen as likely the closest to Clay on these economic issues, none of the candidates outright oppose the American System in its entirety. Crawford was a strong supporter of rechartering a national bank and presided over various new internal improvements in his government positions - his position on trade is mixed, given his implementation of recent tariffs but strong and still-referenced opposition to the Embargo Act nearly two decades ago. Jackson's stance on tariffs has been vague and wavering, and he takes a centrist approach on internal improvements - that while many attempts at federal-level improvements are unconstitutional, the federal government nonetheless has a vital role to play in helping fund projects conducted largely at lower levels of government, in short Jackson opposes the American System but has been coy about declaring such.
• Jackson was a vocal opponent of the National Bank claiming it was unconstitutional and stole money from farmer's to create credit for rich bankers and blamed the Panic of 1819 on the National Bank.
• Jackson has also got a reputation for being an "Indian Fighter" and his hardliner position is popular in the frontier states while Adams and Crawford advocate a more measured stance. Clay is largely silent on the issue, likely owing to his residency in Kentucky.
• Slavery is largely not an issue in this election due to the Missouri Compromise, in which Missouri was established as a slave stat in exchange for the establishment of a firm line below which would be slave states and above which would be free. This Compromise is seen as a major accomplishment by Free-Soiler Henry Clay (Clay both owned slaves (via inheritance through his wife) and was also abolitionist, embodying the conflicts that defined his career).

---

The Campaign

• The popular wisdom was that this election was primarily an Adams vs Crawford affair as the two agreed on virtually everything economically. Adams portrayed himself as the most immensely qualified citing his very long career in the diplomatic corps and his incredible obvious intelligence and formal education, while Crawford countered that that his 'noble upbringing' made him out of touch with the common man. Jackson argued Adams would rule as a monarch.
• Crawford meanwhile, accentuated his humble upbringing and his and his relatively uncontroversial tenures as Secretary of War and later Secretary of the Treasury. In the latter role, he helped implement the new tariffs that put the federal budget on a more stable path, portraying himself as the best of both Clay and Adams with the drawbacks of neither. However, Crawford suffered a major stroke and was rendered temporarily blind.
• Clay ran on the strength of his popular term as Speaker, his accomplishments tangling with even the messiest issues of the day securing the Missouri compromise, garnering popular support for tariffs and having both frontier bona fides AND federal policy bona fides, making him uniquely situated to address the wide array of issues facing the nation, while opponents say he has no foreign policy bona fides making him poorly suited to dealing with the Spanish.
• Jackson surprised everyone by awakening popular resentment for what had been seen as settled issues, his violent opposition to the National Bank and his hardliner position of Indian Removal made him popular amongst the poorer farmers in the West and South, while his signaling that he might roll back tariffs appealed to plantation owners in Virginia. He is also the only candidate openly suggesting an aggressive western expansion instead of infrastructure improvements in the current nation.

There's almost no way we get a winner outright who does b8 like?!

---

John Quincy Adams

The whole 'out of touch with the common man' strain of political horseshit is strong throughout the ages, and while I'm sympathetic to some strands of populism, this argument never has any substance. The foreign policy bona-fides are really what I'm looking at more than anything else. Economically I would certainly prefer expansionism to be restrained, and the 'American Plan' which he is largely in favor of sounds reasonable, even if I think tariffs need to be applied carefully.

I'd also prefer not to vote for anyone who has a platform of uh 'Indian removal'. I'm not sure what I would have thought as a person at the time, but I'm generally not in favor of use of force as a person now (for example I gave Trump some credit when he pulled out of Syria, although then it turned out he kinda didn't anyway).


---

Adams

He has the only coherent foreign policy plan, is anti-slavery, and is willing to improve infrastructure. I can't really support Clay or Jackson.

---

To be clear, Crawford does also own slaves, being from Georgia as you might expect.

I am curious what you don't like about Clay, since you called it out

---

There are two things I dislike about Clay.

The first is that his high tariffs, low taxes approach signals to me that he's going an isolationist route. It's possible I've misinterpreted this, but that was the immediate impression I got. I obviously approve of infrastructural work and the national bank.

The second is related to the first, which is that he appears to have no coherent foreign policy. If you're going to throw down the high tariffs gauntlet, you've got to have some kind of foreign policy that works within that framework. He obviously has no idea what to do about Spain, which is a major world power and potential trading partner, and I don't get the impression that he has anything in particular planned with Britain or France, either.

I'd still take him over Jackson, though.

---

John Quincy Adams.

His abolitionism and his experience in foreign affairs pretty much speak for themselves; he's also the son of the best President we've yet had. The argument about his "noble upbringing" doesn't really hold water considering the Adamses were the only Presidential family so far that *weren't* landed elite Virginia planters.

His opponents are also not that great - particularly Jackson who is just awful. Hopefully we never see THAT asshole in the White House. /nervous laugh

---

Yeah that Andrew Jackson guy.... Woof.

Henry Clay is well pissed too. Clay knew he was gonna need support from all the Western states to have a shot and Jackson boned him hard.

I'm sure that won't come up in the future.

---

Up

---

Crawford.

Im a pretty strong believer in presentism so Im trying to vote as if I was actually living in 1824. With historical hindsight, this is actually a really good selection of candidates. Ive always been a Henry Clay fan. I also think Quincy Adams is a very qualified candidate himself. Jackson is, of course, awful. However Im sympathetic to his appeal to the farmers.

Crawford is the candidate I know the least amount. But it sounds like a good compromise candidate between everyone. I think he could build a good Cabinet that draws from the experience of both Quincy Adams and Clay.

Awesome topic series by the way. I love the research.

---

john Quincy adams

Dang I missed an election.

---

Maniac64 posted...

john Quincy adams

Dang I missed an election.

(( The joke is I didnt run the election of 1820 because Monroe ran unopposed))

---

Adams

---

Final up

---

I will vote on this in a bit, am busy at the moment, forgot to get around to reading this one

Henry Clay

---