APUSH Chapter 13, Rise of Mass Democracy

The Rise of Mass Democracy covers the Age of Jackson, including the formation and rise of Jacksonian Democracy. This era includes the Nullification Crisis, the Trail of Tears, and the rise of modern political parties.

The Age of Andrew Jackson and Jacksonian Democracy

The Era of Good Feelings ended with the “Corrupt Bargain” that led to John Quincy Adams being elected President in 1824, over Andrew Jackson. This set in motion events that led to a massive shift in American politics, as Jackson and his supporters spent the next four years campaigning against their political opponents and establishing the modern Democratic Party.

Jackson’s eight years as President were characterized by political and social conflicts that increased democracy in America, but also widened the sectional divide between the North and South.

The divide nearly exploded into civil war as a result of the Tariff of 1828 — the “Tariff of Abominations.” In response to the bill, South Carolina threatened to secede in 1832, triggering the Nullification Crisis. President Jackson responded by threatening to use military force, which would have likely led to violence. However, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun brokered the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which ended the threat. The ongoing issue of protective tariffs ultimately played a significant part in causing the Civil War.

As the nation continued to expand westward, pockets of Native American Indians that remained in the American Southwest were viewed as impediments. In 1930, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which eventually led to the forced removal of Indians from their ancestral lands — one of the saddest, most horrific events in American history — the Trail of Tears.

Unlike his predecessors, Jackson used his Presidential authority to veto laws, including a bill to continue the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson felt the Bank was detrimental to the nation, and used his office to take steps to successfully end its existence.

In Jackson’s last year as President, Americans living in the Mexican State of Texas rebelled, declared independence, and established a new republic. This set in motion events that would eventually lead to the Annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War.

The aging Jackson decided to step aside and supported Martin Van Buren, his prodégé, who won the Presidential Election of 1836. Unfortunately, Van Buren was faced with the Financial Panic of 1837, a crisis linked to Jackson’s fiscal policies and war on the Bank of the United States. Many banks were forced to close, contributing to the spread of bankruptcies and foreclosures.

By 1840, a new Two-Party System emerged — Jackson’s Democratic Party and his opponents, who called themselves “Whigs.” The economic troubles the nation suffered while Van Buren was President were his undoing, and he lost the Presidential Election of 1840 to William Henry Harrison.

The next 20 years in American History would see the Democrats increase their support for States’ Rights, which opposed protective tariffs and supported slavery. Meanwhile, as Abolition became a central issue in American politics and social circles, the Whigs gave way to Abolitionist parties that opposed the Democrats. Only one would be of any significance — the Republican Party.

Aftermath of the Era of Good Feelings

The Shifting Political Landscape of the Early 19th Century

The Era of Good Feelings was not completely peaceful.
The Panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 disrupted national unity.
Afterward, political conflict became seen as vital for democracy.
New political parties and campaigning styles developed.
The political scene in 1824 resembled that of 1796.
By 1840, the political landscape had drastically changed.

The Transformation of Political Practices in the Jacksonian Era

The Era of Good Feelings had little party organization and a passive political climate.
The Jacksonian Era saw a shift to more energetic and active political parties.
There was a change from viewing political parties as disruptive to accepting their role in democracy.
The Democrats won the White House in 1828.
The Whigs emerged as a strong opposition party in the 1830s.
The Two-Party System became a key element in the nation’s political checks and balances.
New campaign methods included banners, badges, parades, barbecues, free drinks, and baby kissing.
Voter turnout increased significantly: from about 25% in 1824 to 78% in 1840.

The “Corrupt Bargain” of 1824

The Presidential Election of 1824 divided the Democratic-Republican Party because four members — Adams, Andrew Jackson, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay — all ran for President. The election went to the House of Representatives, where Clay supported Adams over Jackson. The supporters of Jackson accused Clay and Adams of making a “Corrupt Bargain,” and split from the party.

The Election of 1824 and the “Corrupt Bargain”

The election of 1824 was marred by the “corrupt bargain” controversy.
James Monroe, the last President of the Virginia Dynasty, ended his second term.
Four main candidates were prominent in the election:
- John Quincy Adams from Massachusetts — intelligent, experienced, and distant.
- Henry Clay from Kentucky — known as “Harry of the West” — was charismatic and bold.
- William H. Crawford from Georgia — capable but in poor health.
- Andrew Jackson from Tennessee — celebrated hero of the Battle of New Orleans.

Political Identity and Party Organization in the 1824 Election

All four candidates claimed to be “Republicans.”
Well-organized political parties had not yet developed.
The political identities of the candidates were unclear.
John C. Calhoun appeared as the Vice-Presidential candidate on both the Adams and Jackson tickets.

The House of Representatives Resolves the 1824 Election

The 1824 campaign results were both interesting and confusing.
Andrew Jackson had strong personal appeal, especially in the West.
Jackson received nearly as many popular votes as his next two rivals combined.
Jackson did not win a majority of the Electoral Votes.
According to the 12th Amendment, the House of Representatives had to choose from the top three candidates.
Henry Clay was eliminated, however, as Speaker of the House, he oversaw the selection process.

AHC Note — Terms of the Twelfth Amendment specified that the House must elect a president only “from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as president;” thus Henry Clay was eliminated.

Clay’s Influence in the 1824 Election Decision

Henry Clay had a significant influence in deciding the election outcome.
Clay decided who he would supply through a process of elimination:
- Crawford was incapacitated by a stroke.
- Clay disliked Jackson, his rival for Western support, and Jackson resented Clay for criticizing his actions in Florida.
- The remaining candidate was John Quincy Adams, with whom Clay had no strong personal ties.
Despite their personal differences, Clay and Adams shared political views — both were nationalists and supporters of the American System.
Clay met privately with Adams and promised his support before the final House vote.

The Election Outcome and the Role of the Secretary of State

On the decision day in early 1825, the House of Representatives was highly charged with excitement.
Sick members were carried into the chamber on stretchers, so they could cast their votes.
Adams was elected president on the first ballot, largely due to Clay’s influence.
Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State shortly after his victory.
The Secretary of State position was highly prestigious, often seen as a stepping stone to the Presidency.
Three of the four previous Secretaries of State had become President.
The appointment of Clay as Secretary of State was seen by some as a possible bribe to secure Clay’s support, which helped Adams win over Jackson, the popular choice.

AHC Note — As deliberations started, Clay, who wielded considerable influence because he was Speaker of the House, swung his support to Adams. On February 9, 1825, the House elected Adams as President of the United States. Soon after, Adams appointed Clay as his successor as Secretary of State. Clay wanted the position because Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe had all used the office as a springboard to the Presidency. Jackson’s supporters objected, but officials never investigated what critics labeled the “Corrupt Bargain.”

The Aftermath of the 1824 Election and Public Reaction

Jacksonians, mostly common people, protested against the “Corrupt Bargain” for nearly four years.
Jackson called Clay the “Judas of the West.”
John Randolph criticized the alliance between Adams and Clay and insulted both.
Clay challenged Randolph to a duel, but it ended without bloodshed due to poor marksmanship and nerves.
No definitive evidence exists for a formal agreement between Adams and Clay.
Clay was a logical choice for Secretary of State, and Adams was known for his honesty and lack of patronage.
Even if a deal had occurred, it may not have been inherently corrupt.
The strong public reaction indicated a shift in attitudes, with such political deals now seen as secretive and undemocratic.
Future presidential selections would be more transparent and less behind closed doors.

A Yankee Misfit in the White House

John Quincy Adams took the oath of office as President of the United States on March 4, 1825. During his four years in office, Adams proposed constructing a federally financed network of canals and highways to remedy the increasing sectionalism that was slowly dividing the nation. His political opponents found his ideas too similar to those of the old Federalist Party. A coalition of Andrew Jackson’s supporters in Congress, and members of Adams’ own party, organized against him.

John Quincy Adams: A Study in Contrasts

Adams was notably austere and less personable than his father, John Adams.
He was short, thickset, and bald.
Adams preferred solitude and often swam alone in the Potomac River early in the morning.
He was more of a thinker than a politician, known for being irritable, sarcastic, and tactless.
Despite his lack of political charm, he had an outstanding record in politics and foreign affairs.
He is recognized as one of the most successful Secretaries of State but one of the least successful Presidents.

John Quincy Adams’s Presidency and Challenges

Adams faced accusations of “bargain,” “corruption,” and “usurpation” as he started his Presidency.
He was elected with fewer than one-third of the votes.
As the first “minority President,” he struggled to gain popular support.
Adams lacked many of the typical political skills and disdained those who practiced them.
Unlike his father, John Adams, who won support through ability, John Quincy Adams struggled in the era of more personal and charismatic politics.
His distant and formal approach made it difficult for him to succeed in the changing political climate.

Adams’s Political Approach and Its Consequences

His political allies wished he would engage in more political deals.
Adams refused to remove efficient officeholders to make room for his supporters.
Throughout his presidency, Adams only removed 12 federal employees.
His refusal to reward party loyalists led to frustration among his supporters.
Many party followers questioned the value of working for him if they were not rewarded with political positions.

Adams’s Nationalism and Policy Proposals

His strong nationalism caused problems as the nation shifted toward States’ Rights and Sectionalism.
Adams supported the construction of roads and canals in his first annual message to Congress.
He supported the creation of a national university, continuing George Washington’s proposal.
Adams also proposed federal funding for an astronomical observatory.

Public Reaction to Adams’s Proposals

Adams’s proposals faced immediate and negative public reaction.
Many ordinary Americans saw funding for the observatory as a misuse of public money.
The South was particularly opposed to these ideas.
There was concern that if the Federal Government took on such expenses, it would need to maintain unpopular tariff duties.
Additionally, there was fear that federal involvement in local matters like education and infrastructure might lead to interference with slavery.

Adams’s Land Policy and Relations with Westerners

Adams’s land policy angered Westerners who wanted unrestricted expansion.
The President’s attempts to limit speculation in public lands were not well-received.
The situation with the Cherokee Indians, who faced eviction from Georgia, added to the discontent.
White Georgians wanted the Cherokees removed, while Adams wanted to treat them fairly.
The Georgia Governor threatened military action, successfully resisting federal intervention on behalf of the Cherokees.

Going “Whole Hog’’ for Jackson in 1828

By 1828, many Americans viewed Adams as an ineffective, elitist, and unpopular president. Jackson and his followers had not forgotten how the “Corrupt Bargain” had deprived the Hero of New Orleans of the White House in 1824. In addition, Adams’s support of the Tariff of 1828 — derisively known as the Tariff of Abominations — earned Adams the wrath of Southern and New England voters. As the Presidential Election of 1828 approached, the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe split into two factions, Jacksonian Democrats and the group who supported Adams — later known as National Republicans.

The Presidential Campaign of Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson’s Presidential Campaign started on February 9, 1825, the day John Quincy Adams was chosen President.
The campaign lasted nearly four years and was highly active.
By the time of the 1828 election, the Democratic-Republicans of the Era of Good Feelings had divided into two factions:
- National Republicans supported Adams.
- Democratic-Republicans supported Jackson.
Jackson supporters used slogans like “Bargain and Corruption,” “Huzza for Jackson,” and “All Hail Old Hickory.”
Jackson’s supporters used hickory poles as their symbol, while Adams’s supporters used the oak to represent their candidate.

Jackson’s Campaign Image vs. Reality

Jackson’s supporters portrayed him as a rugged frontiersman and a defender of the common man.
They criticized Adams as a corrupt aristocrat and claimed that Adams and Clay’s “bargain” had unjustly blocked the will of the people.
The Jackson campaign promised to correct this perceived wrong and reform the administration by removing the “dishonest” Adams faction.
Much of this portrayal was exaggerated:
- Jackson was a wealthy planter, not a simple frontier farmer.
- He lived in a luxurious home and employed many slaves.
- Adams, although an aristocrat, was not corrupt and had overly high moral standards.

The 1828 Campaign and Personal Attacks

The 1828 election saw unprecedented levels of mudslinging and aggressive politics.
Adams refused to engage in dirty tactics, but some of his supporters did:
- They accused Jackson’s mother of being a prostitute and his wife of adultery.
- They distributed black-bordered handbills, portraying Jackson’s violent past and executions.
Jackson’s supporters also launched personal attacks:
- Adams’s billiard table and chess set were labeled as “gaming tables” and “gambling furniture” for the “presidential palace.”
- Adams’s substantial federal salary was criticized, and he was falsely accused of procuring a servant girl for the Russian Tsar.

AHC Note — The contest between the two groups became markedly personal and nasty by the standards of the time. Jackson’s supporters painted Adams as an aristocrat and a corrupt politician, as evidenced by his deal with Clay in 1824. Adams’s followers vilified Jackson as a hothead who had engaged in several duels, as a heartless slaveholder, and accused him of being an adulterer and bigamist. These accusations caused his wife, Rachel, to fall into depression, and she died of a heart attack on December 22, 1828. Jackson vowed revenge on his political enemies. At her funeral, he declared, “May God Almighty forgive her murderers, I never can.”

“Old Hickory’’ as President

The Age of Jackson ushered in a new era of political corruption and special privilege, along with the ascension of the common man. In reality, Jackson’s authoritarian personality contrasted with his professed belief in democracy. Unlike Presidents before him, Jackson was not reluctant to use his veto power to promote his policies over the will of Congress.

Jackson’s Physical Appearance and Health

The new President, Andrew Jackson, was tall and lean with bushy iron-gray hair and a prominent forehead.
He had craggy eyebrows and blue eyes.
His irritability and emaciated look were due to chronic health issues, including dysentery, malaria, tuberculosis, and lead poisoning from bullets lodged in his body from past duels.
His physical appearance reflected his difficult life experiences.

Jackson’s Upbringing and Education

Jackson was born in the Carolinas and was orphaned early.
He grew up with minimal parental guidance and had a strong interest in brawling and cockfighting.
His education was limited, with little focus on reading and spelling.
Although he later developed strong writing skills, his grammar remained unrefined and his spelling unconventional.
He occasionally misspelled a word in different ways within the same letter.

AHC Note — Jackson grew up in the Waxhaws Region of the South Carolina Backcountry. He was 13 years old when the Battle of Waxhaws (May 29, 1780) took place. After the battle, he joined the American war effort.

The 1828 Election Results and Regional Support

On Election Day, the vote was largely sectional:
Jackson received strong support from the West and South.
The middle states and the Old Northwest were divided.
Adams garnered support from New England and the propertied classes in the Northeast.
Jackson won decisively in the electoral vote, 178 to 83.
Despite some of Jackson’s support being organized by machine politicians in eastern cities like New York and Pennsylvania, the political focus had shifted from the conservative eastern seaboard to the expanding states beyond the mountains.

Thomas Jefferson’s Assessment of Andrew Jackson

In 1824, Thomas Jefferson shared his views on Jackson:
- He noted that Jackson had difficulty speaking due to his passionate nature and would often become enraged.
- Jefferson observed Jackson choking with rage during attempts to speak.
- He believed Jackson’s passions might cool with time but still considered him a dangerous man.

Jackson’s Early Career and Temperament

The young man moved to Tennessee, where combat skills were valued more than literary abilities.
In Tennessee, he rose to prominence as a judge and a member of Congress through his intelligence, personality, and leadership.
Jackson had a violent temper, leading to numerous duels, stabbings, and violent conflicts.
His intense emotions sometimes rendered him speechless when attempting to speak.

Andrew Jackson’s Uniqueness and Background

Jackson was the first President from the West and the first to be nominated at a formal party convention in 1832.
He was only the second President without a college education, following George Washington.
His “university” was his experience with adversity.
Although he rose from humble origins, he was not entirely one of the common people, though he shared many of their prejudices.
Jackson was essentially a frontier aristocrat:
He owned many slaves, managed large estates, and lived in the fine mansion known as The Hermitage near Nashville, Tennessee.
He was more of a Westerner than an Easterner, more a country gentleman than a commoner, and more courtly than crude, making him difficult to categorize.

Jackson’s Inauguration and the “Inaugural Brawl”

Jackson’s inauguration symbolized the rise of the masses.
Supporters, called “Hickoryites,” traveled from afar, staying in hotels and hallways to witness Jackson’s swearing-in.
Many attendees hoped to secure government positions for themselves.
The White House was opened to the public for the first time, leading to a chaotic scene with clerks, shopkeepers, artisans, and laborers.
The crowd caused damage to china and furniture and posed a physical threat to Jackson.
Jackson was quickly escorted out through a side door, and the crowd dispersed when they learned of large quantities of punch available on the lawns.
This event was known as the “Inaugural Brawl.”

Conservative Reaction to Jackson’s Inauguration

Conservatives viewed the chaotic inauguration as a sign of societal collapse.
The event was seen as the triumph of “King Mob,” with Jacksonian vulgarity replacing Jeffersonian simplicity.
Traditionalists felt alarmed, comparing the scene to the early stages of the French Revolution.

The Spoils System

Andrew Jackson’s policy evolved into the extension of the practice of rewarding political supporters with federal jobs. Although the custom was not new, its expansion under Jackson led to the development of the Spoils System and powerful Political Machines such as Tammany Hall in New York City.

Introduction of the Spoils System under Jackson

The Democrats, known for their distrust of Federal Government power, engaged in their own political bargains once in office.
Under Jackson, the Spoils System was implemented on a large scale:
This system involved rewarding political supporters with public offices.
The concept of the Spoils System was old, but the term originated from Senator William Marcy’s remark in 1832: “To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.”
The Spoils System was already well-established in New York and Pennsylvania, where Political Machines distributed government jobs as rewards.

AHC Note — What Marcy meant was that Jackson, who had been elected President, was the victor and he had the right to appoint key political supporters if he chose to do so.

Jackson’s Defense of the Spoils System

Jackson defended the Spoils System by arguing it was democratic.
He believed that “every man is as good as his neighbor” — and perhaps “equally better.”
Jackson argued that since office duties were simple enough for any upstanding American to learn, there was no need for an aristocratic, bureaucratic officeholding class.
He contended that it was better to bring in new people regularly, giving each generation a chance at public service.

Criticism of the Spoils System

Washington, D.C., was due for a change, as no party turnover had occurred since the defeat of the Federalists in 1800, and even then, there were no major evictions.
Some officeholders, appointed by President George Washington, were still in position into their 80s, collecting salaries without performing much work.
The Spoils System was more about rewarding political allies than introducing new talent.
The approach was essentially “throw their rascals out and put our rascals in.”
Appointments were based on loyalty to Jackson and party service rather than merit or ability to perform the duties of the office or to serve the country.

Impact of the Spoils System

Scandal followed the Spoils System:
- People who had bought their positions with campaign contributions were appointed to high offices.
- Positions were filled by illiterates, incompetents, and crooks.
- Scoundrels sought office for personal gain rather than public service.
- Samuel Swartwout, despite warnings about his reliability, was appointed Collector of Customs in New York and ran off to England, leaving a deficit of over one million dollars — marking the first major theft from the government.
Despite its abuses, the Spoils System was crucial in establishing the two-party system:
It reinforced party loyalty over economic or regional divisions.
The promise of patronage encouraged Americans to align with a party and remain loyal.

The Tricky “Tariff of Abominations’’

The Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, prompted John C. Calhoun to anonymously author the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which invoked the Doctrine of Nullification in challenging the Constitutionality of the Tariff of 1828. The “Tariff of Abominations,” increased sectional tensions by favoring Northern manufacturers and Western farmers at the expense of the South, leading to Southern opposition and the Nullification Crisis, a direct cause of the Civil War.

The Tariff Issue and Its Impact

Tariffs were a significant problem for John Quincy Adams and continued to trouble Andrew Jackson.
Tariffs were designed to protect American industry from European competition but raised prices for Americans and led to retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports.
The middle states had long supported protectionist tariffs.
In the 1820s, New Englanders like Daniel Webster shifted from defending free trade to supporting higher tariffs due to the success of the wool and textile industries.
Many in New England believed their future prosperity would come from manufacturing rather than maritime trade.

The Tariff of 1828 — the Tariff of Abominations

In 1824, Congress had already raised the general tariff, but wool manufacturers continued to demand higher protection.
Jackson’s supporters strategically promoted a high-tariff bill to undermine President Adams, expecting it to fail.
Unexpectedly, the bill passed in 1828, leaving Andrew Jackson to deal with the contentious issue.

Southern Reaction to the Tariff of 1828

Southerners, who consumed many manufactured goods but had little industry of their own, opposed tariffs.
The Tariff of 1828 was perceived by them as excessively high, earning it the nicknames “Black Tariff” and “Tariff of Abominations.”
The Southern States issued formal protests against the tariff.
In South Carolina, flags were lowered to half-mast as a symbol of protest.

Reasons for Southern Anger Towards the Tariff

Southerners felt the “Yankee Tariff” unfairly discriminated against them.
The Northeast was booming in manufacturing, the West was benefiting from rising property values and population growth, and the Southwest was expanding into cotton lands.
The Old South was struggling economically, and the tariff became a convenient scapegoat.
Southerners sold their cotton and other produce in an unprotected global market but had to buy manufactured goods in a heavily protected American market.
They believed protectionism favored Northern and middle-state manufacturers, leaving them to bear the economic burden.

Deeper Issues Behind Southern Opposition to the Tariff

There was growing anxiety about potential federal interference with slavery.
Congressional debates on the Missouri Compromise heightened these fears.
An aborted slave rebellion in Charleston in 1822, led by Denmark Vesey, intensified concerns.
The South was aware of British Abolitionist pressure on the West Indies and feared similar actions from the U.S. government.
The tariff issue became a rallying point for defending States’ Rights against perceived federal encroachments.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest

South Carolina led the opposition to the “Tariff of Abominations.”
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest was published in 1828, it was a critical pamphlet denouncing the tariff.
Anonymously written by Vice President John C. Calhoun.
He declared the tariff unjust and unconstitutional.
Jackson proposed that states should nullify the tariff, declaring it void within their own borders.

AHC Note — Calhoun relied on principles introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1799 as part of the “Kentucky Resolutions”, which protested the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. In the Resolutions, Jefferson argued that the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to those specifically enumerated in the document. He further stated that “the several states who formed” the Constitution, “being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” To paraphrase, within their sovereign borders, each state may nullify federal laws they deem unconstitutional. The South Carolina legislature did not adopt Calhoun’s document until December 1828.

“Nullies” in South Carolina

By 1832, the American economy was stronger and the need for protectionism declined, Congress became more open to Southern complaints regarding the Tariff of Abominations. On July 14, 1832, Congress enacted, and President Jackson approved, the Tariff of 1832. It reduced or eliminated some protective measures adopted in 1828. The debate over the bill continued, and was at the center of a famous debate between Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne that took place in January 1830, known as the “Webster-Hayne Debate.” More than a year later, Calhoun issued the “Fort Hill Adress” and said “nullification” was a “fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political, or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.”

The Nullification Crisis and the Tariff of 1832

“Nullifiers,” or “nullies,” sought to get a two-thirds vote for Nullification in the South Carolina legislature.
They were opposed by Unionists, called “Submission Men.”
Congress passed the Tariff of 1832.
The new tariff reduced some of the 1828 tariff burdens but still protected industries.
Many Southerners felt the tariff was still too protective and might be permanent.

South Carolina’s Response to the Tariff of 1832

South Carolina prepared for drastic measures against the tariff.
In the 1832 state election, “nullifiers” won a two-thirds majority.
Nullifiers wore palmetto ribbons to show loyalty to South Carolina.
The state legislature called a special convention.
The convention declared the tariff null and void within South Carolina.
The convention threatened to secede from the Union if the Federal Government tried to enforce the tariff by force.

AHC Note — The Tariff of 1832 did not ease tensions with the South. At the urging of U.S. Vice-president John C. Calhoun and U.S. Senator Robert Hayne, South Carolina Governor James Hamilton, Jr. called a special session of the state legislature. On October 25, 1832, the legislature enacted a measure authorizing a statewide convention to consider a response to the enactment of the Tariff of 1832. The convention convened in Columbia on November 19 and produced the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification. It declared that both the Tariff of 1828 and the Tariff of 1832 were unconstitutional and that the citizens of South Carolina considered to “be held utterly null and void” and threatened to “…forthwith proceed to organize a separate government.”

Andrew Jackson’s Response to South Carolina’s Defiance

Jackson was determined to confront South Carolina’s defiance.
He privately threatened to invade South Carolina and hang the Nullifiers.
Jackson dispatched naval and military reinforcements to South Carolina.
Jackson issued a strong proclamation against nullification.
South Carolina’s governor, Robert Y. Hayne, issued a counter-proclamation.

The Compromise Tariff of 1833

Henry Clay sought to prevent Jackson from gaining more fame by defeating South Carolinians and John C. Calhoun.
Although Clay supported tariffs, he backed a compromise bill to reduce the Tariff of 1832.
The compromise aimed to lower the tariff by about 10 percent over eight years.
By 1842, the tariff rates would return to the less protective level of 1816.
The Tariff of 1833, a compromise, was approved by Congress.
The debate was intense, with most opposition from protectionist New England and the middle states.
Calhoun and the South supported the compromise.

The Force Bill

The Force Bill, nicknamed the “Bloody Bill” by Carolinians, was also passed.
The Force Bill authorized the president to use the military to collect federal tariff duties if needed.

South Carolina’s Reaction to the Compromise

South Carolinians used the compromise to escape a difficult situation without losing dignity.
No other Southern States strongly supported South Carolina, though Georgia and Virginia considered it.
An influential Unionist group in South Carolina was preparing for potential conflict, including organizing militias and displaying American flags.
The convention reconvened and repealed the Nullification Ordinance.
As a final, symbolic act, the convention nullified the Force Bill before adjourning.

Resolution of the Nullification Crisis

Neither Jackson nor the Nullifiers achieved a decisive victory in 1833.
Henry Clay was recognized as the true hero for resolving the conflict and was praised in both Charleston and Boston.
Although armed conflict was avoided, the underlying issues remained unresolved.
Future clashes between Nullifiers and Union forces would find compromise more difficult to achieve.

AHC Note — Once the Nullification Crisis was resolved, President Jackson ignored South Carolina’s nullification of the Force Bill. However, the Nullification Crisis helped cause the Civil War by increasing tension between the North and South. It also set precedents for a President to use force against a state in the Union, and for a state to threaten secession.

The Trail of Tears

Indian Removal was a policy implemented by the United States government after the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830. Although many small tribes negotiated treaties with the government and agreed to relocate to Indian Territory, roughly 60,000 members of five nations — Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw — were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands by the Federal Government. Although the removal of all the nations is collectively referred to as the “Trail of Tears,” the removal of the Cherokee to Indian Country in 1838 was especially brutal.

Federal Policy and Native American Confrontations

Democrats were focused on Westward Expansion, leading to conflicts with Native American Indians.
Over 125,000 Indians lived east of the Mississippi River in the 1820s.
Federal policy recognized tribes as separate nations and required land acquisition through formal treaties.
Despite their skillful negotiations, Indians faced challenges as Americans frequently violated treaties.
Treaty boundaries were often altered as American settlements expanded westward.

Efforts to Assimilate and Educate Native Americans

Many white Americans respected and admired Indians, believing they could be integrated into society.
Efforts were made to “civilize” and Christianize the Indians.
The Society for Propagating the Gospel Among Indians was established in 1787.
Various denominations sent missionaries to Indian villages.
In 1793, Congress allocated $20,000 to promote literacy and provide agricultural and vocational training to Indians.

Cherokee Accommodation and Assimilation

Many tribes resisted encroachment with violence, but some, like the Cherokees, sought accommodation.
The Cherokees abandoned their semi-nomadic lifestyle for settled agriculture and private property.
Missionaries established schools among the Cherokees, and Sequoyah created a Cherokee alphabet.
In 1808, the Cherokee National Council created a written legal code.
In 1827, the Cherokees adopted a written constitution with executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Some Cherokees became successful cotton planters and slaveholders.
In the 1820s, about 1,300 black slaves worked for Cherokee masters.
The Cherokees, along with the Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles, were referred to as the “Five Civilized Tribes.”.

White Resistance and Jackson’s Defiance

In 1828, Georgia declared the Cherokee Tribal Council illegal and claimed control over Cherokee lands.
The Cherokees appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld their rights three times.
President Jackson wanted to open their lands to settlement and ignored the Court’s decisions.
Jackson reportedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Henry Clay, reflecting the views of the time, said the disappearance of Indians would be “no great loss to the world.”

Jackson’s Indian Removal Policy

Jackson proposed removing eastern tribes (Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles) to lands west of the Mississippi.
He claimed removal would be voluntary, to avoid “cruel and unjust” compulsion.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the relocating of all tribes east of the Mississippi.
Over 100,000 Indians were uprooted; the Five Civilized Tribes suffered significantly.
Many Indians died on forced marches to the Indian Territory.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs was established in 1836 to manage relations with Indians.
The promised “permanent” frontier lasted only about 15 years.
The Sauk and Fox tribes, led by Black Hawk, resisted removal but were defeated in 1832 by U.S. troops and volunteers, including Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln.

Jackson Reflects on Indian Removal and the “Trail of Tears”

In 1829, Andrew Jackson reflected on the impact of expansion on Indians.
He noted that tribes had been pushed from their lands, with some becoming extinct and others reduced to remnants.
Jackson argued that the fate of tribes like the Choctaw, Cherokee, and Creek would be similar if they stayed in the States.
He believed that relocating tribes was a way to preserve their existence and honor national character.
The “Trail of Tears” (1838–1839) was a forced march to Indian Territory, during which many Indians died.
Survivors described the hardship, loss, and sadness experienced during the march.

The Seminole War and Its Aftermath

The Seminole Indians, with runaway black slaves, retreated to the Everglades.
They fought a guerrilla war against the U.S. from 1835 to 1842.
About 1,500 American soldiers died during the conflict.
In 1837, U.S. forces captured Seminole leader Osceola under a flag of truce.
The war continued for five more years but ended with the defeat of the Seminole.
Some Seminoles fled further into the Everglades, while about 80% were relocated to Oklahoma.
Today, several thousand Seminoles remain in Oklahoma.

AHC Note — Most of the Indians were removed during the Presidency of Martin Van Buren. At the time he took office, only about 2,000 of the 16,000 Cherokees impacted by the Treaty of New Echota had moved to Indian Territory. Van Buren ordered a force of 7,000 U.S. soldiers, led by General Winfield Scott, to round up the resisters and force them to leave. Required to march over 1,000 miles without adequate food or clothing during the winter, many of the Indians contracted deadly diseases or starved to death along the Trail of Tears

The Bank War

The Bank of the United States was a bank with government oversight and a key part of Alexander Hamilton’s Financial Plan. The First Bank of the United States was the only bank that took payments for federal taxes and payments had to be made with notes from the First Bank of the United States. After the charter expired, it was not renewed by Congress due to concerns about foreign influence. Following the War of 1812, the Second Bank of the United States was established to help deal with government financial issues.

Jackson’s Distrust of Banking and the Bank of the United States

President Jackson distrusted monopolistic banking and large businesses.
He shared the prejudices of his West against the Bank of the United States.
Jackson viewed the Bank as a “moneyed monster.”
In the mid-19th Century, the national government minted gold and silver coins but did not issue paper money.
Private banks printed paper money, and its value fluctuated with the bank’s health.
This gave private bankers significant control over the nation’s economy.

The Bank of the United States

The Bank of the United States was the most powerful in America.
It acted like a branch of government, holding government funds and controlling much of the nation’s gold and silver.
The bank’s notes were stable in value compared to those of smaller banks.
It was an important part of the expanding economy, providing credit and stability.
The Bank was a private institution accountable to its elite investors, not the people.
Its president, Nicholas Biddle, was seen as having excessive and potentially unconstitutional power.
Critics of the bank called Biddle “Czar Nicolas I” and the bank a “hydra of corruption.”

Jackson’s Opposition to the Bank of the United States

Some viewed the bank as contrary to America’s democratic values.
Jackson’s opposition was rooted in the belief that the bank undermined egalitarian principles.
The Bank was disliked in the West for foreclosing on many Western farms.
It was perceived as draining money from the West to the East.
The Bank was accused of prioritizing profit over public service.

The Bank War Erupts

The Bank War started in 1832.
Daniel Webster and Henry Clay introduced a bill to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States.
The charter was not set to expire until 1836.
Clay sought early renewal to make it an election issue in 1832.
Clay intended to run for President and thought the controversy over the Bank would be an advantage for him.

Clay’s Strategy and Miscalculation

Clay misjudged the Bank issue.
The bill was designed to reach Jackson’s desk, forcing him to sign or veto it.
If Jackson signed the bill, he would alienate his Western supporters.
If Jackson vetoed the bill, he would likely lose support from wealthy Eastern groups.
Clay underestimated the diminished influence of the “best people” and their general fear of Jackson.

Jackson’s Veto and Reaction to the Bank Recharter Bill

The recharter bill for the Bank of the United States passed Congress.
Jackson vetoed the bill, not because he thought the Bank was unconstitutional, but because he thought it was harmful to the nation.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled the bank constitutional in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Jackson treated the Executive Branch as superior to the Judicial Branch.
Jackson privately said, “The Bank…is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.”

Impact of Jackson’s Veto on Presidential Power

Jackson’s veto message had significant constitutional implications.
The veto not only blocked the bill but also greatly increased presidential power.
Previous vetoes focused mainly on constitutional issues.
Jackson argued against the bill based on personal judgment rather than solely on constitutionality.
Jackson’s veto implied that the President could hold power equivalent to two-thirds of Congress’s votes.
This stance suggested the president was the senior partner in government, above the Legislative Branch.

Clay’s Miscalculation and the Bank Issue in the 1832 Election

Henry Clay was misguided in his response to Jackson’s veto message.
Clay was pleased with Jackson’s financial inaccuracies but failed to see its political appeal.
He distributed thousands of copies of Jackson’s veto message as a campaign document.
Jackson’s resonated with ordinary people.
The bank issue became a central topic in the 1832 Presidential Election.

“Old Hickory’’ Wallops Clay in 1832

1832 Presidential Election

Jackson and Clay were the main contenders in the 1832 election.
Jackson, who had previously supported term limits, decided to seek re-election.
The campaign was loud and contentious.
Jackson’s supporters used slogans like “Jackson Forever: Go the Whole Hog.”
Clay’s supporters promoted “Freedom and Clay.”
Jackson’s opponents criticized his personal habits, including dueling, gambling, and cockfighting.

Emergence of the Anti-Masonic Party

The 1832 Election saw the introduction of a new third party — the Anti-Masonic Party.
The party emerged in response to the mysterious disappearance and likely murder of a man who planned to expose Freemason secrets in 1826.
The Anti-Masonic Party gained traction in New York and spread through the Middle Atlantic and New England states.
They criticized secret societies, viewing them as privileged and monopolistic, aligning with democratic ideals against elite control.
Jackson, a Freemason himself, was a target of the Anti-Masonic Party.
The Anti-Masons attracted evangelical Protestant support, advocating for moral reforms such as banning mail deliveries on Sundays.
Jacksonians, who opposed government intervention in personal and economic matters, clashed with the Anti-Masons’ reformist agenda.

Innovations in the 1832 Presidential Election

The 1832 Presidential Election featured national nominating conventions, a new approach in American politics.
Three conventions were held to nominate candidates.
The Anti-Masons and National Republicans introduced formal platforms.
These platforms outlined and publicized the parties’ positions on key issues.

Jackson’s Resounding Victory in the 1832 Election

Henry Clay and the National Republicans had substantial campaign funds, including $50,000 from the Bank of the United States.
Many newspaper editors, influenced by bank loans, were critical of Jackson.
Despite these advantages, Jackson, popular among the masses, won decisively.
Jackson received 687,502 popular votes compared to Clay’s 530,189.
The electoral vote count was 219 for Jackson and 49 for Clay.

Burying Biddle’s Bank

Jackson’s Strategy to Dismantle the Bank of the United States

Jackson believed he had a mandate from voters to eliminate the Bank of the United States.
He feared Nicholas Biddle might manipulate the Bank to force its recharter.
In 1833, Jackson decided to end the Bank by removing federal deposits.
He planned to stop depositing new funds and reduce existing deposits by using them for government expenses.
This strategy aimed to deplete the Bank’s funds and ensure its closure.

Challenges in Removing Deposits from the Bank of the United States

Removing deposits from the Bank caused significant complications.
Jackson’s closest advisers opposed the policy, viewing it as unnecessary, possibly unconstitutional, and vindictive.
Jackson had to reshuffle his cabinet twice to find a Secretary of the Treasury who would comply with his orders.
Nicholas Biddle responded by calling in the Bank’s loans, creating a minor financial crisis known as “Biddle’s Panic.”
The crisis led to the collapse of some weaker banks, but Jackson continued to attack the Bank.
The aggressive actions of the Bank reinforced the accusations of its critics.

Financial Instability Follows the Bank’s Demise

The end of the Bank of the United States created a financial void and led to cycles of economic booms and busts.
Federal funds were placed in state banks known as “Pet Banks,” chosen for their support of Jackson.
The absence of a central bank led to an overabundance of paper money from Pet Banks and “Wildcat Banks,” which were often unreliable.
In 1836, Jackson attempted to stabilize the economy by issuing the Specie Circular, which required public lands to be bought with hard money.
This measure led to a sharp halt in the speculative boom and contributed to the Financial Panic of 1837.
Jackson retired to his home in Nashville, leaving his successor to address the ensuing economic problems.

AHC Note — The Specie Circular required nearly all buyers of public land from the Federal Government to pay with gold or silver. Jackson’s order slowed the circulation of money in the U.S., forcing businesses and individuals to default on the loans that Jackson’s war on the national bank created. By late 1836, the U.S. economy began to falter. Soon after Van Buren took office, Jackson’s policies generated a full-blown financial disaster known as the Panic of 1837.

The Birth of the Whigs

The Emergence of New Political Parties in the 1830s

By 1828, Jackson’s Democratic-Republicans started calling themselves “Democrats.”
Jackson’s opponents, critical of his authoritarian style, labeled him “King Andrew I.”
These opponents formed a new political party called the Whigs.
The name “Whigs” was chosen to evoke the historical opposition to monarchical power from 18th-century Britain and Revolutionary America.

Formation and Development of the Whig Party

The Whig Party was initially mocked as “an organized incompatibility” due to its diverse elements.
Its primary unifying factor was opposition to Jackson and his “executive usurpation.”
The Whigs first gained prominence in the Senate, where Clay, Webster, and Calhoun censured Jackson in 1834 for removing federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.
The party quickly grew by attracting groups dissatisfied with Jackson, including:
- Supporters of Clay’s American System.
- Southern States’ Rights advocates who were disillusioned by Jackson’s stance on nullification.
- Northern industrialists and merchants.
- Evangelical Protestants who were previously associated with the Anti-Masonic Party.

Ideology and Strategy of the Whig Party

Conservative Yet Progressive:
- The Whigs considered themselves conservatives but supported active government involvement in various reforms.
Focus on Internal Improvements:
- Advocated for infrastructure projects such as canals, railroads, and telegraph lines.
- Supported the development of public institutions like prisons, asylums, and public schools.
Market Economy Support:
- Drew backing from diverse economic sectors, including manufacturers in the North, planters in the South, and merchants and bankers across the country.
Not Just Wealthy Elites:
- Despite Democratic attempts to portray them as a party of the wealthy, the Whigs aimed to represent a broader constituency.
- By incorporating the Anti-Masonic Party, they mitigated the Democrats’ appeal to the common man.
Reversal of Jacksonian Rhetoric:
- The Whigs positioned themselves as defenders of the common man, contrasting with Jackson’s image.
- Accused Democrats, particularly Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, of cronyism and corruption.

The Election of 1836

Jackson’s Succession Plan

Martin Van Buren was Jackson’s choice for President in 1836.
Jackson, nearing 70, was too old and ill for a third term.
Jackson aimed to serve a third term through Van Buren, who was seen as a “yes man.”
Jackson controlled the nominating convention to ensure Van Buren’s nomination.
Van Buren intended to continue Jackson’s policies.

Whig Strategy and Election Outcome

The Whigs could not agree on a candidate.
They ran several prominent “favorite sons” to appeal to different regions.
The goal was to split the vote and force the decision to the House of Representatives.
Henry Clay was pushed to the side, and General William Henry Harrison of Ohio became a leading Whig candidate.
Van Buren won with a close popular vote of 765,483 to 739,795.
In the Electoral College, Van Buren won by 170 to 124 votes (all Whigs combined).

Big Woes for the “Little Magician”

Martin Van Buren’s Background

Martin Van Buren was the 8th President of the United States.
He was the first President born under the American flag.
Van Buren was described as “a first-class second-rate man.”
He was known as “the wizard of Albany” and was skilled in strategy and spoilsmanship.
He had significant experience in legislative and administrative roles.
Despite his abilities, he faced misfortunes that led to perceptions of mediocrity.

Martin Van Buren’s Challenges as President

Van Buren was a “machine-made” candidate and resented by some Democrats.
He was seen as a “bastard politician” who rose to power through Jackson’s influence.
Jackson was a dynamic and confrontational leader, while Van Buren was mild-mannered and less forceful.
Van Buren lacked Jackson’s popularity and had numerous enemies from Jackson’s administration.

Van Buren’s Troubles and Challenges

A rebellion in Canada in 1837 caused incidents along the northern frontier and threatened to lead to war with Britain.
His opponents used the slogan “Woe to Martin Van Buren!’’
Van Buren’s neutral stance on the Canadian rebellion was criticized.
Antislavery activists in the North were vocal against the possible annexation of Texas.
Van Buren inherited an economic depression from Jackson, consuming much of his attention and efforts.
Economic difficulties negatively affected Van Buren’s reputation.

Financial Panic of 1837

The Panic of 1837 was caused by financial instability and rampant speculation.
Speculators used borrowed money and unreliable currency from Wildcat Banks.
Speculation extended to various investments including land, canals, railroads, and slaves.
The Bank War and the Specie Circular worsened the situation.
Crop failures, particularly of wheat, worsened the crisis.
Grain prices soared, leading to riots in New York City.
The panic started before Jackson left office but intensified under Van Buren.

Impact of Foreign Financial Troubles on the U.S.

The failure of British banks in late 1836 caused financial instability.
British investors calling in foreign loans affected the U.S. economy.
European economic problems often impact American financial situations.
The panic started with a combination of domestic and international issues.

Effects of the Panic of 1837 on American Economy

Hundreds of American banks collapsed, including some Pet Banks.
Government funds were lost when these banks failed.
Commodity prices dropped and sales of public lands decreased.
Customs revenues significantly fell.
Factories shut down, creating widespread unemployment.

Whig Proposals vs. Van Buren’s Policies

The Whigs proposed expanding bank credit, higher tariffs, and subsidies for internal improvements.
Van Buren rejected these proposals.
Van Buren adhered to Jackson’s policies, which opposed government intervention in the economy.

Van Buren’s Divorce Bill and the Independent Treasury

Van Buren proposed the “Divorce Bill” to separate the government from banking.
He believed federal funds contributed to financial instability.
The bill aimed to create an independent treasury, keeping government funds in vaults.
This would make funds secure but reduce available credit by not providing reserves to banks.

Popularity and Legacy of the Divorce Bill

Van Buren’s Divorce Bill was not very popular.
Many Democrats were not enthusiastic, preferring the Pet Banks.
The Whigs opposed it because it ended their hopes for a new Bank of the United States.
The Independent Treasury Bill passed Congress in 1840 but was repealed by the Whigs in 1841.
It was re-enacted by the Democrats in 1846 and continued until it was merged with the Federal Reserve System.

Gone to Texas

The Texas Revolution — also known as the Texian War of Independence — was an armed conflict between settlers living in the Mexican province of Texas and the Mexican government. The settlers were primarily Texians — Americans who had settled in Texas — who were joined by Tejanos — Hispanic Texans, who were protesting Mexican policies that levied taxes and restricted rights.

American Interest in Texas and Mexican Land Grant

The U.S. had abandoned Texas to Spain in 1819 when it acquired Florida.
Mexico gained independence from Spain before Spain could settle in Texas.
In 1823, Mexico granted a large land tract in Texas to Stephen Austin.
Austin’s responsibility was to bring 300 American families to Texas.

Ignoring Stipulations and Discontent in Texas

Texas pioneers maintained their American identity and resisted Mexican control.
They were particularly frustrated by the presence of poorly dressed Mexican soldiers, many of whom were former convicts.

Texan-American Population and Notable Figures

By 1835, there were about 30,000 Texan-Americans.
Many were law-abiding, but some were fleeing legal troubles, leading to the slang “G.T.T.” (Gone to Texas).
Notable figures included:
- Davy Crockett, a famous rifleman.
- Jim Bowie, known for the “Arkansas toothpick” knife.
- Sam Houston, a former governor of Tennessee, who had lived with Arkansas Indians and later took a pledge of temperance.

Conflict Between Mexicans and Texans

Tensions grew over issues like slavery, immigration, and local rights.
Mexico abolished slavery in 1830 and banned further slave imports and American colonization in Texas.
Stephen Austin was jailed for 8 months in Mexico City in 1833 for trying to resolve these issues.
In 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna abolished local rights and started raising an army to subdue the Texans.

AHC Note — In 1824, the new Mexican government implemented the Constitution of 1824. It was based on elements of the United States Constitution and the Spanish Constitution of 1812. It set up a federal government, similar to the United States, but did not separate church and state. In 1835, Santa Anna replaced the 1824 Mexican Constitution with a new constitution, known as “The Seven Laws.” He abolished the federal structure of the government, established a centralist government, and essentially became a dictator over the new Centralist Republic of Mexico.

The Lone Star Rebellion

Texan Declaration of Independence and Early Conflicts

In early 1836, Texans declared their independence and chose Sam Houston as Commander-in-Chief of its army.
Santa Anna led about 6,000 Mexican troops into Texas.
At the Alamo in San Antonio, Santa Anna besieged and defeated nearly 200 Texans after a 13-day siege.
Colonel W. B. Travis declared, “I shall never surrender nor retreat… Victory or Death.”
A band of about 400 American volunteers at Goliad, who had surrendered, were executed as “pirates.”
These events delayed the Mexican advance and intensified American resistance.

AHC Note — On February 23, 1836, Mexican forces arrived at San Antonio and demanded the surrender of the Texas garrison at the Alamo. The Texans responded by firing their cannons, signaling their refusal. The Mexican artillery returned fire, starting the Siege of the Alamo.

Legendary Heroes and American Response

Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett became legends after their deaths.
Texan war cries included “Remember the Alamo!” “Remember Goliad!” and “Death to Santa Anna!”
These cries stirred Americans, prompting many to take up arms and support the Texans.

Battle of San Jacinto and Treaty Negotiations

General Sam Houston’s army, about 900 men, faced Santa Anna’s 1,300 men.
On April 21, 1836, the Texans ambushed the Mexicans at San Jacinto.
The Texans captured Santa Anna.
Santa Anna was coerced into signing treaties recognizing Texas independence and the Rio Grande as the boundary between Texas and Mexico.
After his release, Santa Anna claimed the treaties were invalid due to coercion.

AHC Note — Despite his agreement, Santa Anna was unable to help secure the approval of the public treaty, because he was removed as the leader of Mexico. The Mexican government placed the blame for the fiasco on the United States, because so many of the volunteers came from America, including more than 200 members of the United States Army. Further, the United States recognized the Republic of Texas in 1837 but did not annex the territory. France recognized Texas in 1839, followed by Great Britain in 1840. However, Mexico still refused to recognize Texas.

U.S. Government’s Dilemma and Recognition of Texas

The U.S. government faced a difficult position due to American support for Texas.
Texans received significant help from Americans, both in men and supplies.
U.S. neutrality laws were undermined by public support for Texas.
President Jackson, on his last day in office in 1837, officially recognized the Lone Star Republic led by Sam Houston, as an independent nation.

The Texas Petition for Annexation and Northern Opposition

Texans sought not only recognition but also union with the United States.
Texas officially petitioned for annexation in 1837.
The issue of slavery became a major obstacle.
Northern Abolitionists opposed annexation, believing it was a plot by southern slaveholders to expand slavery.

Log Cabins and Hard Cider of 1840

By 1840, Americans were ready for a new President. The Whigs united behind William Henry Harrison and organized the first modern political campaign. They coined the campaign slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” When the Democrats attempted to cast Harrison as a western bumpkin who lived in a log cabin and quaffed hard cider, the Whigs embraced the characterization. They launched a “Log Cabin and Hard Cider” campaign that featured mass rallies, complete with music, banners, lapel pins, souvenir dinnerware, and even log cabin-shaped whiskey bottles. They cast Harrison as a common man of the people, compared to his aloof and dispassionate opponent, who they derisively labeled “Martin Van Ruin.”

1840 Presidential Election

Democrats renominated Martin Van Buren in 1840.
The Democrats had no strong alternative to Van Buren, who was criticized as “Martin Van Ruin” by the Whigs.
The Whigs aw an opportunity for victory due to ongoing economic problems.
Voters blamed the Democrats for the economic downturn from the Panic of 1837.
The Whigs united behind a single candidate, William Henry Harrison of Ohio.
Harrison was not considered the Whigs’ most skilled statesman but was seen as the best choice for winning the election.

William Henry Harrison’s 1840 Campaign

William Henry Harrison, nearly 68 years old, was celebrated for victories at the Battles of Tippecanoe (1811) and the Thames (1813).
Harrison’s positions on current issues were not well known.
He was nominated mainly because he lacked strong political enemies and had no controversial issues, a strategy that proved successful in elections.
John Tyler of Virginia was selected as Harrison’s running mate.

Whig Campaign Strategy and Symbols

The Whigs avoided creating an official platform, aiming to win the election with a strong campaign for Harrison.
A Democratic editor’s insult about Harrison being a poor farmer with just a log cabin and hard cider backfired, boosting Whig campaign symbols.
The Whigs adopted the log cabin and hard cider as symbols, portraying Harrison as a humble “Farmer of North Bend” fighting corrupt politicians.
The Whigs criticized Martin Van Buren as an arrogant aristocrat who lived luxuriously, contrasting him with Harrison’s image.
The reality is that Harrison came from an aristocratic background and was a descendant of one of the First Families of Virginia.

AHC Note — William Henry Harrison was born on February 9, 1773, at his family’s Berkeley Plantation between Richmond and Yorktown in eastern Virginia. He was the youngest of seven children of Benjamin and Elizabeth (Bassett) Harrison. Harrison’s father was a wealthy planter who represented Virginia in the Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. He also served as Virginia’s governor between 1781 and 1784.

Whig Victory and Its Impact

The Whigs’ campaign strategy, emphasizing Harrison’s backwoods image, proved effective against Van Buren.
Harrison won the election with 1,274,624 to 1,127,781 in the popular vote and 234 to 60 in the Electoral College.
The victory was aided by dissatisfaction with Van Buren due to economic hardships.
The Whig campaign’s use of symbols resonated with voters and led to a dramatic shift in political power.

Politics for the People

Changes in American Politics Post-1840 Election

The Election of 1840 highlighted a shift towards a populist democratic style in American politics.
In contrast to the elitist Federalist Era, populist democracy became more inclusive and influential.
An example of this elitist attitude is shown by Martha Washington’s reaction to a “greasy smear” she found left on the wallpaper at a reception. Upon seeing it, she said it must have been left by a “filthy democrat.”

Shift from Aristocracy to Populism in the 1840s

By the 1840s, democracy was viewed as respectable, while aristocracy was seen as out of touch.
Politicians needed to connect with the common people, often boasting of humble origins like a log cabin.
Daniel Webster apologized for not having a log cabin birthplace, although he claimed his brothers did.
Candidates who appeared too refined, well-dressed, or intellectual faced disadvantages.
Despite this, high political offices were still often held by wealthy and prominent individuals who now had to adopt a more relatable and common touch to win elections.

Rise of the Common Man in American Politics

Critics mocked the new democratic trend, referring to politicians as “coonskin congressmen” and “bipeds of the forest.”
These critics viewed the power of the majority — “King Numbers” — as oppressive, similar to the tyranny of King George.
Despite criticism, the common man became central to American politics.
The new political figure was characterized by plain clothing and simple tastes, contrasting with the aristocratic styles of the past.
America shifted from valuing the divine right of kings to embracing the divine right of the people.

The Two-Party System

Emergence of a Durable Two-Party System

The 1840 election marked the beginning of a strong and lasting Two-Party System in American politics.
Early Democratic-Republicans had implemented Federalist policies, preventing a fully developed Two-Party System during the Era of Good Feelings.
There had been a belief that political parties were conspiratorial and harmful.
By 1840, political parties had matured and were a permanent feature of American politics.
The development of the Two-Party System is seen as a lasting impact of Jacksonian Democracy.

Jacksonian Philosophy on Political Principles

In 1835, Jackson suggested identifying political candidates based on specific principles.
These principles included opposition to the Bank of the United States and support for a strict interpretation of the Federal and State Constitutions.
Rotation in office was encouraged, and candidates should support the idea that people are the sovereign power and officials are their agents.
The public had the right to instruct and hold accountable their representatives on all national or local issues.
Candidates were expected to adhere to the “true Jeffersonian creed.”.

Origins and Ideologies of the Democrats and Whigs

Both national parties, the Democrats and Whigs, emerged from the Jeffersonian republican tradition.
Jacksonian Democrats emphasized individual liberty and opposed the encroachment of privilege into government.
Whigs highlighted the natural harmony of society and the importance of community, advocating for the use of government to achieve their goals.
Whigs criticized leaders like Jackson who, in their view, encouraged conflict among individuals, classes, or sections through appeals to self-interest.

Core Doctrines of the Democrats and Whigs

Democrats supported States’ Rights and minimal federal involvement in social and economic matters.
Whigs generally endorsed a national bank, protective tariffs, internal improvements, public schools, and moral reforms like liquor prohibition and, eventually, the Abolition of Slavery.

Commonalities and Differences Between the Two Parties

Both parties were mass-based and aimed to attract a broad range of voters.
Democrats were generally from more modest backgrounds, while Whigs were often more prosperous, but both parties included diverse supporters from various social classes and regions.
The diversity within each party led to compromises that prevented extreme or radical positions.
The geographical and social diversity helped delay the emergence of purely sectional parties and temporarily suppressed the divisive issue of slavery.
The stability of the Two-Party System started to weaken in the 1850s, threatening the Union.

Additional Resources for the Rise of Mass Democracy

The bullet points on this page are based on the 16th edition of The American Pageant. We have expanded on the source material with additional details, corrections, and links to Encyclopedia Entries that explain topics in more detail. For more information, including terms and definitions, see the following:

Content for this article has been compiled and edited by American History Central Staff.