PC & WI: No Corrupt Bargain of 1825 = Curbed Andrew Jackson

JQ Adams became the image of a political creature who meandered his way through the system to the detriment of his good character. Really, I think he and Jackson were natural partners that should have worked together to defeat the menace of people like Clay, Crawford, and most especially Calhoun.

Although JQA briefly courted Jackson as a possible running mate in 24 and seems to not have had that initial gut-level disdain which Clay developed for Jackson, I can't see Jackson and Adams ever working together successfully. Their personalities were far too divergent and, even more important, their views of the country were radically different. Adams could work together with Clay because they both envisioned something similar to the American Plan. Adams wanted internal improvements to help facilitate communication and travel, a national university system and museum to help educate American citizens, a bloody national astronomical observatory(!!!). He was staunchly opposed to slavery and became a more vocal abolitionist as he got older. Jackson enjoyed getting into duels and shooting people in his spare time.

I really can't even begin to think where you get the idea of Adams as a "political creature who meandered his way through the system to the detriment of his good character" unless its taken from too much Jacksonian propaganda from '28. This is a man who was nearly censured by the House of Representatives a number of times because of his vocal oppositions of that body to silencing abolitionists. He took the Amistad Case when few others wanted to touch it. He was a political creature in so far as he dedicated his life to public and governmental service, but he rarely compromised his ideals - and on those few cases where he did slip up, they stand out all the more, because it was unusual for him.

Henry Clay plays second fiddle to no man. I am heavily biased against him and may not be seeing things clearly, sorry.

I will agree that Clay would have problems playing Second Fiddle to anyone (well, save for when he did - he actually was a pretty successful Secretary of State for Adams). I can't say he's my favorite figure of that time but, and here I'm going to reveal my own heavy bias, he was certainly preferable to Andrew Jackson.
 
How would the 1830's, and subsequent American history, be changed from OTL if the American System faction controlled the presidency during this time? If we can safely say the Second Bank survives, how does that affect the US economy? Would there still be an Indian Removal Policy, and would it be as strong (e.g. if the Supreme Court still finds in favor of at least some of the tribes)? Do we still get the Spoils System, the Nullification Crisis, and the rise of what OTL calls *Jacksonian* Democracy? Does US FP change in any important ways -- for example, if the Texas Revolution still happens, does the US still hold on annexation? And does TTL see any other major changes, in the 1830's or beyond?
 
So if we end up with

Democrat: Andrew Jackson (1825-28)
Whig: Henry Clay (1829-36)
Whig: JQA (1837-40)

Or even with

Democrat: Andrew Jackson (1825-28)
Whig: Henry Clay (1829-36)
Whig: JQA (1837-44)

What does that do for the Whigs? Our TL they were plagued by one term presidents but here we have back to back 12-16 years of Whig dominance.
 
So if we end up with

Democrat: Andrew Jackson (1825-28)
Whig: Henry Clay (1829-36)
Whig: JQA (1837-40)

Or even with

Democrat: Andrew Jackson (1825-28)
Whig: Henry Clay (1829-36)
Whig: JQA (1837-44)

What does that do for the Whigs? Our TL they were plagued by one term presidents but here we have back to back 12-16 years of Whig dominance.

A less severe 1836 recession, more canals, roads, etc instead of the ad hoc system in place. I think by '44 you'll have a populist backlash against the Whigs though.
 
I think, if Jackson won in 24, the opposition party would likely be the National Republicans - not the Whigs. But I'm suspecting that the platforms would be roudley similar, so it doesn't matter that much :)
 
I think, if Jackson won in 24, the opposition party would likely be the National Republicans - not the Whigs. But I'm suspecting that the platforms would be roudley similar, so it doesn't matter that much :)

Good point. I'm sure eventually it would become one word, either Republicans or Nationals-probably Republicans.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't understand this scenario that keeps him from 2 terms.

Yeah - wasn't it a rule among the early Presidents that they got reelected unless their surname was "Adams"? Of course after Jackson, the rest of the century was almost all one-termers.
 
Well, JQA platform was that of the Whig or more accurately, the later Republican, not the Democrats. He agreed with American System, and was an abolitionist. Jackson was the opposite of him.
Right you are.


Although JQA briefly courted Jackson as a possible running mate in 24 and seems to not have had that initial gut-level disdain which Clay developed for Jackson
Ahh there you see: Winston and Josef, Johannes and Baiju, John and Andrew. And if those devils come back and try any rough stuff, we'll fight 'em together, boy, like we did just now, on the floor, eh? You with the old gun, and me with the belt and the ammo, feeding you Dan! Feed me, you said, and I was feeding you, Dan.


Silliness aside, I can’t find a source for this claim, would you provide one?

Adams wanted internal improvements to help facilitate communication and travel, a national university system and museum to help educate American citizens, a bloody national astronomical observatory(!!!).
Oh well see that was the deal breaker, no one wants a blood covered national observatory, no wonder people didn't reelect him. He should have just settled for a regular paint covered observatory, and if he had proffered wood shake siding he would have cut Van Buren straight out of the game because it is so much more esthetic than dutch siding. Bloody observatory indeed, bloody Khorn worship is what it sounds like to me -- I digress.


I really can't even begin to think where you get the idea of Adams as a "political creature who meandered his way through the system to the detriment of his good character" unless its taken from too much Jacksonian propaganda from '28.
JQ Adams began his political career in 1793 and didn't finish it until he died in office more than half a century later in 1848. He obtained and sought many different appointed, legislative, and executive positions in his career while he drifted from party to party as expedient. None of this is bad but considering that his father had been the President as well it lacks a sense of republican propriety. Including that with the "Corrupt Bargain" that was exactly what was used against him and what was used to tarnish his good image (which you partially cataloged).


I can't see Jackson and Adams ever working together successfully. Their personalities were far too divergent and, even more important, their views of the country were radically different. Adams could work together with Clay because they both envisioned something similar to the American Plan. . . . He was staunchly opposed to slavery and became a more vocal abolitionist as he got older.
John and Andrew were both true in their devotion to the republic, which could not be said of Calhoun, Clay, and Crawford. There were legitimate grievances with the Second Bank, though some problems had begun to be addressed. I think Adams could have brought Jackson on board with an idea of reform and a program to better the lot of those west of the Appalachians. Here he would have to swallow his pride and surrender the presidency to Jackson (leave it to a son or grandson to run for the chief executive). I suppose JQ Adams could have begun a correspondence with Jackson after the invasion of Florida to accomplish this persuasion. This duo could have assembled an interesting group of supporters such as Webster, Crocket, and Harrison. It wouldn’t be sunshine and roses, they would have their disagreements, but prior to the thick of the 1824 election I don’t see them as irreconcilable.


Jackson enjoyed getting into duels and shooting people in his spare time.
You say that as if it's a ba... I feel that you and I may have very different pastimes.

:p
 
So here's a thought -- OTL, the Nat Turner Rebellion was followed by the Virginia State Assembly seriously considering a manumissionist abolition program, which iirc was defeated by a slim margin; if said rebellion and state debate still happen, but under a National Republican President who's disposed toward federal funding for stare development programs (possibly, but not necessarily, including aid for manumission and/or "resettlement"), does this maybe help the supporters of abolition, pushing this bill over the line?

Might be not, in which case no major changes here; but if so, that would be a pretty massive change in its own right.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
John and Andrew were both true in their devotion to the republic, which could not be said of Calhoun, Clay, and Crawford. There were legitimate grievances with the Second Bank, though some problems had begun to be addressed. I think Adams could have brought Jackson on board with an idea of reform and a program to better the lot of those west of the Appalachians. Here he would have to swallow his pride and surrender the presidency to Jackson (leave it to a son or grandson to run for the chief executive). I suppose JQ Adams could have begun a correspondence with Jackson after the invasion of Florida to accomplish this persuasion. This duo could have assembled an interesting group of supporters such as Webster, Crocket, and Harrison. It wouldn’t be sunshine and roses, they would have their disagreements, but prior to the thick of the 1824 election I don’t see them as irreconcilable.
The problem was that they differed in most aspects. Adams supported strong federal government and national development, while Jackson was the opposite. Jackson was a populist while Adam was not. Finally, Adam was a known abolitionist.
 
"Our federal Union: It must be preserved!"
On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."
This happens to me a lot, and it's funny really, where I think I fully address a point, and then people bring up the same point again. :)
Brands, H. W. (2005). Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
Jackson wouldn’t have admitted it, and might not even have recognized it, but his devotion to the Union was at least as much emotional as it was political, at least as reflexive as considered. Sometime in his early life—perhaps when the blood from that British saber wound streaked his face, perhaps when his mother and brothers died and he found himself alone, perhaps when he crossed the mountains to the frontier West—he became peculiarly attached to the cause of his country. Lacking a family, he identified with the American people. Jackson’s enemies weren’t wrong to describe him a military chieftain, but they misunderstood what this meant. His deepest loyalties were not to friends and relations, except for Rachel, or even to his Tennessee neighbors. The clan of Old Hickory, the tribe of Sharp Knife was the American people. Whatever endangered them—the designs of the British, the weakness of the Spanish, the resistance of the Indians, the disloyalty of the Hartford Federalists, the machinations of the nullifiers, the corruption of the Whigs—elicited an immediate response, and sometimes and an intemperate one. He could no more control his devotion to the Union than he could measure his attachment to Rachel.


Alright Thomas, enough literary exhibition from me
PuffyClouds said:
John and Andrew were both true in their devotion to the republic, which could not be said of Calhoun, Clay, and Crawford. There were legitimate grievances with the Second Bank, though some problems had begun to be addressed. I think Adams could have brought Jackson on board with an idea of reform and a program to better the lot of those west of the Appalachians. Here he would have to swallow his pride and surrender the presidency to Jackson (leave it to a son or grandson to run for the chief executive). I suppose JQ Adams could have begun a correspondence with Jackson after the invasion of Florida to accomplish this persuasion. This duo could have assembled an interesting group of supporters such as Webster, Crocket, and Harrison. It wouldn’t be sunshine and roses, they would have their disagreements, but prior to the thick of the 1824 election I don’t see them as irreconcilable.
The problem was that they differed in most aspects. Adams supported strong federal government and national development, while Jackson was the opposite. Jackson was a populist while Adam was not. Finally, Adam was a known abolitionist.
The federales seemed pretty strong to me when Jackson marched into Spanish Florida, or when Jackson ethnically cleansed the Civilized Tribes, or when Jackson sent the Navy to Charleston to say ~"you will pay this tariff and I'll hang any sorry son-of-a-gun that talks nullification."

I read once that John Quincey Adams is speculated to have had the highest IQ of all American presidents. I think he had the intellectual capacity to find common ground, and I doubt that in this 1820-1832 period of his career that he refused to work with someone who wasn't an abolitionist. I don't think Jackson was interested in the expansion of slavery other than the inclusion of the eastern portion of modern day Texas (which was once considered part of the Louisiana Territory so could fall under the Missouri Compromise).

The republic was in grave threat from sectionalism, corruption, and loss of confidence in the establishment. The republic needed to expand its foreign trade, and deftly manage European relations. The republic needed to expand its borders while also dealing with a the start of immigration of people outside of America's ethnic composition (Catholic Irish).

I think Adams could have struck up a correspondence with Jackson after defending the Florida invasion in Monroe's cabinet. The two could hammer out a national coalition of reform and growth in a time of polite dialogue exchanged between cordial servants of the republic. A 1824-1832 Jackson won't get a chance to kill the Bank's recharter but he could nominate presidents of the Bank or withdraw the Fed's funding. I think a friendly Adams could persuade Jackson to pursue a reform of the Bank. That Biddle character they had running it had done an alright job but totally lost the plot when dealing with President Jackson.




by the way:
I left off the last "t" from Crockett... I am so ashamed.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
A 1824-1832 Jackson won't get a chance to kill the Bank's recharter but he could nominate presidents of the Bank or withdraw the Fed's funding. I think a friendly Adams could persuade Jackson to pursue a reform of the Bank. That Biddle character they had running it had done an alright job but totally lost the plot when dealing with President Jackson.
Reform the Bank would be good.

But I think the American System, which Jackson totally opposed and which was adopted by the Republican Party during the later decades, would be good for the US in the long run.
 
Looking back at this, I'm still not convinced that, had they decided to work together to unseat Jackson in 1828, that Adams would have stood aside for Clay and not vice-versa; putting aside the whole issue of Adams actually winning significantly more votes, states, and ECVs than his would be partner, there's a crucial detail that keeps getting overlooked, namely that Adams was nearly a decade older than Clay.

That means that had JQA waited another eight years to run for President, he'd be nearly 70, and quite possibly too old to give the job his all. By contrast, Clay can make supporting Adams in the short term into a win win scenario for him -- if Adams loses, he's the nominee in 1832; if Adams wins, he has a powerful position in the administration; if Adams serves two full terms, he'll be the chosen successor (and still up to be elected at a younger age than his predecessor); and bonus if they become running mates, he might get to be president even sooner if Adams falls ill or dies sooner. So it wouldn't be unreasonably, I'd think, for Adams to insist on being the nominee first, nor for Clay, despite his ego, to accept.

I will admit though, that part of what draws me to this might be that we have all kinds of scenarios where Henry Clay gets to be president, but not as many scenarios where John Qunicy Adams is a successful two termer.

CONSOLIDATE: Speaking of Jackson's family, butterflies mean he likely suffers way less personal tragedy TTL -- I expect Rachel is at least somewhat less likely to have a heart attack in 1828, and Lyncoya might not die that year either.

Now that I think about it, Jackson's legacy change is interesting here -- as a one termer, he's likely not regarded as much a "great" president, but he's far less hated as well.
 
Last edited:
Top