200 years ago, our nation was entering its third decade of western expansion, beginning with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. During the administrations of three American Presidents, the country witnessed a massive movement of Americans from the Eastern states to the west, starting with the Ohio Territory, and followed by more territories west of the Appalachians. Presidents Jefferson, Madison and Monroe—all Virginians—shared a vision of an American Empire stretching from sea to sea. As part of the steady movement of settlers from the East, treaties were negotiated with Native-American tribes that effectively relegated them to lands west of the Mississippi River. In this thirty-year period, eight new states joined the Union, from Louisiana in the South, to Maine in the North, and to Missouri, which was then the western frontier.
Adding an exclamation mark to this explosive growth, in 1823, President Monroe announced his “Monroe Doctrine,” effectively declaring that the entire Western Hemisphere was within America’s sphere of influence, and that our Nation’s neighbors would be safeguarded by the United States against foreign intrusions (meaning, European powers such as England, France and Spain). America saw itself on the cusp of greatness, surpassing all other countries in its size and scope. This era in American history was dubbed the “Era of Good Feelings,” as Americans experienced a period of peace and prosperity never before experienced.
The Presidential election of 1824, now largely forgotten, was a transition point in the story of the American West. The election pitted two well-known candidates with strong sectional support, unencumbered by party politics—both were allied with the Democrat-Republican party, which was the only organized party of its time. On one side was John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, who had served as President Monroe’s Secretary of State for all of Monroe’s two terms of office, and previously had served in various roles in the administration of President James Madison. He was one of the most experienced government officials in the land. On the other side was Andrew Jackson, a military hero who gained fame in the War of 1812, and the Battle of New Orleans in particular. Jackson was heavily supported by the Southern slave-holding states, as well as Americans living on the western frontier. Also running for President were House Speaker Henry Clay and Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford, both of whom eventually finished a distant third and fourth in the popular and electoral college voting.
Adams and Jackson actually had been close allies during Monroe’s presidency, and it was Adams who defended Jackson against political attacks after Jackson had executed two English soldiers during the capture of Florida in 1818. So close were they that when Adams decided to run for President in 1824, he asked Jackson to be his running mate for Vice President. Although Jackson at first said yes, he was implored by his closest advisors to run for President himself, which he did.
Adams was a nation-builder. He was a strong advocate for internal improvements needed to connect its citizens politically, economically and militarily. This included the building of roads, bridges, canals, and other means of transportation that would connect farmers and merchants, food producers with cities and major ports, and emerging western communities with the resources needed to grow. As the son of John Adams, a committed Federalist, John Quincy was also a supporter of a strong federal government with the authority to tax its citizens, as well as a strong national banking system. Jackson was more the populist, and drew his support largely from Americans who disliked “big government” and centralized authority. After all, that’s why many Americans were moving west—to escape the political rule of the Eastern elites, among whom they placed Adams. Jackson also was not averse to the Southern States’ quest to extend slavery into the Western territories (he was born in the South, lived most of his life in Tennessee, and owned a plantation with hundreds of slaves). It is no surprise, therefore, that in the 1824 election, Jackson swept the voting in the Southern States, while Adams won the popular vote in a majority of the New England states (Jackson also won in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania).
The 1824 race itself was hotly contested. While Jackson won the overall popular vote—41.3% to Adams’ 30.9%– he won only a plurality of the electoral college vote (99-84 in favor of Jackson over Adams). As a result, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives pursuant to the terms of the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution. Each of the 24 states had one vote, and Adams won by two votes, with 13 states voting for him, 7 states voting for Jackson, and 4 states voting for the third candidate, William Crawford of Virginia. Adams was helped by the support of Henry Clay, who was no longer in the race, but who had widespread popular support. The election of 1824 ended up being one of the tightest elections in American history. While Jackson harbored deep resentment over the election results, he was gracious in defeat, shaking Adams’ hand at a White House reception shortly after the election was concluded.
Why is the election of 1824 important to the story of the West, and why celebrate its 200th anniversary in 2024? In some respects, the election was a plebiscite on how the West was to be settled. Would it become a haven for slaveholders seeking to expand the plantation system to the West, against the opposition of Northern abolitionists who sought to outlaw slavery? Would “big government” seek to end the rampant land-grabs then underway by profiteers and small farmers alike, or would settlers be free to claim lands further and further west, without significant impediments from Washington? Would America seek peaceful resolutions with the Native American tribes who occupied the frontier, or would those issues be settled through violence? The election of John Quincy Adams largely led to a legislative impasse on these issues during his single term in office, but the debate over western expansion continued.
This is not to say that Adams did not have strong expansionist tendencies, or that he opposed efforts to expand America’s territorial limits. During the administration of President Monroe, it was Adams who actually formulated the expansionist “Monroe Doctrine,” and who negotiated the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1821, by which the United States acquired Florida. He also served as Secretary of State when the U.S. negotiated the Treaty of 1818 with England, by which the two countries settled boundaries between the U.S. and Canada, and agreed to joint occupation of the Oregon Territory. With this record, one could reasonably say that the difference between Adams and Jackson was not whether America was going to conquer the West, but how.
Of course, it was Andrew Jackson who succeeded Adams, serving two terms as President from 1829 to 1837. Jackson won the 1828 election in a landslide. In a year’s time, he signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which led to the displacement of tens of thousands of native-Americans, and cemented his lasting legacy as a U.S. President who pursued an aggressive policy of western migration at the expense of the Native-American tribes. For this he has been vilified, yet he was not along among U.S. presidents who pushed an expansionist agenda. But it was the election of 1824 that launched the era of “Jacksonian Democracy,” ultimately leading to the formation of the Democrat party. While Adams was in office, Jackson and his allies continued to promote their own vision of a more democratic society, and gained the presidency four years later. Under Jackson, the right to vote was extended to all white male adult citizens, and the rights of the “common man” were strengthened. Jackson embodied the political philosophy of majority rule, and openly challenged the elitist attitudes that had dominated American politics since the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789. While he did not technically win the battle of 1824, many historians would say that he won the war.