Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Corrupt Bargain
In class, on Friday we talked about the Election of 1824 and its notoriety in being called the Corrupt Bargain of 1824. It all started with a standard election between four candidates who since we are still in the era of good feeling are part of the same party. These four candidates were John Quincy Adams son of former President John Adams. Andrew Jackson a military general from Tennessee known as old hickory and William Crawford and Henry Clay two candidates who were unlikely to win. As the election was occurring Andrew Jackson looked strong as a lead candidate. He received a majority in the electoral votes and in the popular vote it almost seemed as if he was going to win. Then something occurred that would shake the ideas of modern history. When Henry Clay realized he would not win he put all his support under John Quincy Adams. Through this Adams won the election although it was almost obvious that Jackson was more favored by many. This was called the corrupt bargain and it caused a lot of tension between the Jacksonian's and the those who supported Adams which ultimately lead to the separation of parties again into a new party called the Democratic party. Though this is an important historical point was it really a "corrupt" bargain. Is this specific act an act of corruption or is it an action that to many standards could be considered unethical. The question I ask you is was what Clay did truly wrong and can it be considered an act of corruption?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
@Ryan Adibi
ReplyDeleteThis is a great summary of the Corrupt Bargain which cleared up a lot of ambiguity from the video we watched in class. In regards to your question, "Is what Clay did truly wrong?" I'd have to respond by asserting that Clay probably conceived himself as a martyr by sacrificing himself to endorse Adams. At the time, I could see how people would have thought this was an obstruction of justice and unconstitutional, but looking back at the situation as a whole, I think his actions were legitimate because he thought Jackson's ideals would infringe on American liberties. Also, every person is entitled to his or her opinion, if Clay wanted to support Adams, it was his choice.
Thanks for the summary, Ryan. It really helps explain the bargain as well as what happened during this election in general. I think that the "corruptness" of the bargain was just hyped up by the Jacksonians, who were angered that Old Hickory lost. Yes, the bargain probably wasn't the most fair deal, but it wasn't an unusual thing for something like this to happen in politics. In the long run, the anger that the corrupt bargain caused probably helped rally people up and get them excited about electing Jackson in four years, which may have helped bring people to the ballot boxes.
ReplyDelete