Let's say that Henry Clay decided not to run in 1824 and instead threw his support behind John Quincy Adams at the beginning of the campaign, they had similar platforms. If we assume that Adams received all of Clay's electoral votes, he'd have a total of 121 electoral votes (this isn't taking into a count that they'd be able to swing by working together). This puts John Quincy Adams in the lead, but he doesn't have enough to win (he'd need at least 131). The election still goes into the House of Representatives and Adams would still win, but in this timeline Jackson can't accuse him of making a corrupt bargain. Jackson would still be mad and might make another presidential bid, but he'd lose a lot of political ammunition. Does that seem plausible?
 
I disagree that Adams would get all of Clay's electoral votes. KY and MO would go for their fellow Westerner Jackson if the Westerner Clay were not available, regardless of whom Clay endorsed--as indeed both states did in 1828, despite Clay's support of Adams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1828_United_States_presidential_election I am less certain of Ohio, but believe it too would have gone (though narrowly) for Jackson as it did in 1828. If Jackson carries all three states, he will have 132 electoral votes--enough to win outright. Even if I am wrong about Ohio, Jackson will still have the most electoral votes and will still claim that Adams thwarted the will of the people through a corrupt bargain--even though this time the "bargain" (support me and I'll appoint you Secretary of State) will have been made before the election...
 
Top