I Wish I’d been there
Question 2: Corrupt Bargain
The Americans attributed the 1824 election to be a ‘Corrupt Bargain’ taking to fact the happenings at the time. The election that was done in 1824 manifested the ultimate fall of the Republican-Federalist political model. Since that time there never lacked a Federalist candidate, the other five were Democratic-Republicans. It was definite that there existed no party structure at the time. The most notable candidate who came in for Candidate-Republicans Monroe was William Crawford, the secretary to treasury. Part of Republicans opted for him for the top sit, conversely his backing was a liability as no other person desired a better method for getting a candidate to represent them.
The result of the tight election took many political heavy weights by surprise. The candidate that led in the elections was Andrew Jackson, a conqueror in the 1812 war, garnering 99 votes. The one that was closest to Andrew Jackson was John Quincy, a son to the second leader of the US who garnered 84 votes. Conversely, Crawford trailed with 41 votes (Hollinshead). Considering that Jackson had been on the fore front, he was not in a position to become the president of the US as he did not get the needed number; his was 43% while Adams got 30% for Adams. Taking to fact that the two leading candidate did get the needed numbers, focus was on what to do next. Considering that no one had acquired the majority votes electoral center, the House of Representatives was forced to select from the two leading candidates.
Henry Clay, the speaker of the parliament, was to play a major role in what took place next. Clay was one of the candidates aiming to be the leader of the US, he however trailed in numbers. He had a bad view of a section of the candidates that were on the fore front and would do anything so as to prevent them from leading the country. He then had to do something to give leadership to the person he wanted. He later came together with Ohio Valley-New England that would offer John Quincy the chance to lead the country. On the other hand, Adams chose Clay as his secretary of state, a spot that had been initially for propelling one to presidency.
This model of coming together on the other hand was of no use to Adams and Clay. The coalition that was formed between them was what was termed to as a “Corrupt Bargain” by the ones backing Jackson, the fierce presidential race started prior to Adams becoming the president (Hollinshead). With regard to the supporters of Jackson, the coalition that emerged from the two candidates was a form of a corrupt regime which just top individuals who were only keen on meeting their own goals and had no interest on other people.
Those that backed Jackson sincerely were pushing the truth further from what it really was; Jackson had not acquired the number required for leader of the country to be gotten. However, when Adams took up the presidency, he gave credence to a strong federal duty in economic resurgence; the ones backing Jackson looked down upon the leadership. They claimed that the leadership was using state resources so as to offer presents to their friends. Contrastingly, Jackson presented himself as a true leader to a section of the country’s citizen; he fought for what he knew was right and bring back democracy to the US.
Question 7: Western Expansion
The northerners and southerners took strong stance against the matter of inclusion of slavery to the west of the region this was due to a number of reasons. From the beginning of the 19th century, several white Northerners and Southerners settled that the Western area of the country should be owned by white Americans, while the choice of shifting Indians to reservations and using their land to settle the white settlers was God’s strategy or the country’s call (Hollinshead). This step portrayed the trust that Americans from North and South had; they went to the west with a desire to search for better lives. However, stiff contrasts shown with regard to the rising society that was formed to the west if it would be free from slavery.
The time which the US acquired several sections in the Mexico War, the predicament that came up was the handling of slavery in them lands, which was a vital factor. This resulted to the formation of anti-slavery politics: “free soil” which individuals, most of them arising from the north, did not agree with the advancement of slavery in that area. As for the Southerners, they saw “free soil” as a dangerous aspect with regard to the Free states that had part to the association; this led to limited number of slave states’ that took up the congress. The Southerners opted that with the small size in the legislature, laws would be made that would terminate slavery to the south of the US, however soilers put across statements that was against this point of view
A good number of Southerners were similarly not in agreement with the choice of policy of popular autonomy, where the individuals that settled in the lands to the west would be given consent to choose for themselves if their new region could allow slavery or turn it down. Congress on the other hand aimed to set up the common sovereignty as the law that would be followed in line with the compromise of 1850, structured and allowed with the help of senators. The creation of the sculpture of Daniel Webster by Thomas Ball was a sign of the popularity due to the high number of sales that it acquired from the northerners. This was similar to the sculpture of Stephen Douglas as was done by Louis.
Experiments with popular sovereignty undertaken in Kansas proved to a good number of people in the South that the farmers that do not have slaves would develop quite fast and grow in the new regions (Hollinshead). As a result, southerner started to impress upon the congress to allow laws to safeguard slavery to the west of the country.
A good number of northerners similarly were not in consensus with the popular sovereignty since it was part of what they attribute to as being “slave power conspiracy”. They were of the opinion that the persons with slaves were given a due advantage over Free states politicians to safeguard the slaveholders, though it did not accord the white settlers respect. Surely, rejection to the popular sovereignty managed free soil Northerners to acquire the Republican Party in 1854 so as to complain on the addition of slavery into the west.
Work Cited
Hollinshead, Byron. I Wish I’d been there. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2007 Print.
