WI: Jackson wins in 1824?

What if Henry Clay had been slightly less influential in the 1825 contingent election and Andrew Jackson had won, what would a 1825-1829 Jackson presidency look like and would he be reelected in 1828?
 
Jackson would have approached the issues of the time in his own way. He might not have accomplished as much actually did in OTL because the outrage over the "corrupt bargain" allowed the Jacksonians to win control of the House of Representatives in the next election.
 
What if Henry Clay had been slightly less influential in the 1825 contingent election and Andrew Jackson had won, what would a 1825-1829 Jackson presidency look like and would he be reelected in 1828?

Except that Clay did not have the votes to deliver the election to Jackson. Both together would win only ten HoR delegations - three short of a majority.

If Clay sides with Jackson, one of two things happens. Either the Crawford delegations - DE,GA,NC and VA - break the impasse by switching their votes to another candidate, or else the House remains deadlocked through March 4 and Calhoun becomes POTUS.
 
An interesting thing is that in 1824, Jackson was still somewhat protectionist. Here is what he wrote:

"You ask my opinion on the Tariff. I answer, that I am in favor of a judicious examination and revision of it; and so far as the Tariff before us embraces the design of fostering, protecting and preserving within ourselves the means of national defense and independence, particularly in a state of war, I would advocate and support it. The experience of the late war ought to teach us a lesson; and one never to be forgotten. If our liberty and republican form of government, procured for us by our revolutionary fathers, are worth the blood and treasure at which they were obtained, it is surely our duty to protect and defend them...

"This Tariff--I mean a judicious one--possesses more fanciful than real dangers. I will ask what is the real situation of the agriculturist? Where has the American farmer a market for his surplus products? Except for cotton he has neither a foreign nor a home market. Does not this clearly prove, when there is no market either at home or abroad, that there is too much labor employed in agriculture? and that the channels for labor should be multiplied? Common sense points out at once the remedy. Draw from agriculture the superabundant labor, employ it in mechanism and manufactures, thereby creating a home market for your breadstuffs, and distributing labor to a most profitable account, and benefits to the country will result. Take from agriculture in the United States six hundred thousand men, women and children, and you will at once give a home market for more breadstuffs than all Europe now furnishes us. In short, sir, we have been too long subject to the policy of British
merchants. It is time, that we should become a little more *Americanized*, and instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England, feed our own, or else, in a short time, by continuing our present policy, we should be rendered paupers ourselves."
http://books.google.com/books?id=yNkRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA35

Critics of Jackson poked fun of his use of the word "judicious"--Clay supposedly remarked, "Well, by ___, I am in favor of an *in*judicious tariff!"--but as Robert Remini points out, the letter was not really ambiguous: "Jackson called for a revision of the tariff in terms of strengthening the country from foreign danger, protecting labor, and reducing the debt." *Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom 1822-1832*, p. 70. James Parton was to ask rhetorically in his 1860 biography of Jackson, "Did Henry Clay ever deliver a speech, or Horace Greeley write an editorial article, more completely pervaded with the spirit of the protective policy, than this letter of General Jackson? The General really exhausted the subject. Not an argument escaped him." http://books.google.com/books?id=yNkRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA36

It is of course possible that southern pressure would move him in a less protectionist direction as president in 1824-8 as it would eventually do in OTL after 1828. Yet there would be countervailing pressures from states like Pennsylvania, one of his strongholds in 1824... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not an expert on Jackson, but I think with his wife still alive he'll go into his term without such a massive axe to grind.
 
Except that Clay did not have the votes to deliver the election to Jackson. Both together would win only ten HoR delegations - three short of a majority.

If Clay sides with Jackson, one of two things happens. Either the Crawford delegations - DE,GA,NC and VA - break the impasse by switching their votes to another candidate, or else the House remains deadlocked through March 4 and Calhoun becomes POTUS.
I was referring to the vote in the House of Representatives. Because Clay's views were closer to Adams he did all that he could to make sure that Adams won the presidency despite losing both the popular vote and the electoral college vote.
 
I was referring to the vote in the House of Representatives.

So was I.


Because Clay's views were closer to Adams he did all that he could to make sure that Adams won the presidency despite losing both the popular vote and the electoral college vote.

No doubt, but as I noted his only alternative was to deadlock the House - and he might not even achieve that.

He had not enough state delegations to elect Jackson even had he wanted to.
 
So was I.




No doubt, but as I noted his only alternative was to deadlock the House - and he might not even achieve that.

He had not enough state delegations to elect Jackson even had he wanted to.
I am not saying he elects Jackson but fail to elect Adams. It sounds like he was never going to choose Jackson.
 
Top