The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828

Pivotal Moments in American History

by Lynn Hudson Parsons

The 1828 presidential election, which pitted Major General Andrew Jackson against incumbent John Quincy Adams, has long been hailed as a watershed moment in American political history. It was the contest in which an unlettered, hot-tempered southwestern frontiersman, trumpeted by his supporters as a genuine man of the people, soundly defeated a New England "aristocrat" whose education and political résumé were as impressive as any ever seen in American public life. It was, many historians have argued, the country's first truly democratic presidential election. It was also the election that opened a Pandora's box of campaign tactics, including coordinated media, get-out-the-vote efforts, fund-raising, organized rallies, opinion polling, campaign paraphernalia, ethnic voting blocs, "opposition research," and smear tactics.

In The Birth of Modern Politics , Parsons shows that the Adams-Jackson contest also began a national debate that is eerily contemporary, pitting those whose cultural, social, and economic values were rooted in community action for the common good against those who believed the common good was best served by giving individuals as much freedom as possible to promote their own interests. The book offers fresh and illuminating portraits of both Adams and Jackson and reveals how, despite their vastly different backgrounds, they had started out with many of the same values, admired one another, and had often been allies in common causes. But by 1828, caught up in a shifting political landscape, they were plunged into a competition that separated them decisively from the Founding Fathers' era and ushered in a style of politics that is still with us today.

Genres: History, American History, Politics, Nonfiction, American, Political Science, Biography

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Lynn Hudson Parsons is Professor of History Emeritus at the State University of New York College at Brockport.

Reviews

[Porter Broyles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was really looking forward to this book. The 1828 election was literally one for the record book.

It was the first wherein almost all states cast their electoral vote based upon the states popular vote. It was the dividing line between the founding fathers and a new age of president. Yes, JQA wasn't officially a founding father, but he's been called "the forgotten founding father" because he grew up as part of the Revolutionary War insiders.

It was a battle between probably the most qualified person to occupy the White House and (til then) the least qualified man to occupy the White House. Educated, sophisticated, experienced, and temperamental JQA vs an uneducated brute. A battle between a man who aspired to be good and moral versus a the only man to kill a person in a duel to become president. A man epitomized for his morality versus a man who (alledgedly) married a woman before she was divorced from her first wite.

Two men ho had equal rights to expect the nations respect due to the end of the War of 1812. JQA was one of the lead negotiators at the Treaty of Ghent. The Treaty of Ghent officially ended the War of 1812. Jackson was the general who repulsed the British at New Orleans. Jackson's battle occured after the ink was dry on the Treaty, but due to the vulgarities of communications in the early 1800s, news of the Jackson victory spread literally days before the arrival of the news of the Treaty of Ghent. As a result, in American Mythos, Jackon's victory paved the way for the Treaty. In reality, it threatened the treaty! JQA and Adams would forever develop an animosity over credit for ending the War.

The 1828 presidential election made the name calling and mockery of all other elections pale in comparison. The rules of the game were changed. Gone was the era wherein platforms and ideas served as the basis for presidential elections, in came the era where catchy phrases, quick insults, and jingles ruled.

The 1828 election was what everybody feared the 2020 election would become before COVID struck---a bitter, petty, dispute between two men who couldn't stand one another---and weren't afraid to let the country know it.

Do I have your attention? The 1828 election had mine.

Unfortunately, the first 3 chapters of this book didn't live up to my hopes. Don't get me wrong, they were probably necessary chapters to lay the ground work the typical reader. But most people who pick up this book are probably familiar with JQA and Jackson. The first 3 chapters lost me because they simply regurgitated the facts and history of the two men that I already knew. They were tedious. 40% of the way through the book I was dubious.

The last 60% of the book were exactly what I was looking for---if only it had been better written. The strength of the book is that it pfovided a great coverage of the 1824 and 1828 elections from the perspective of the election---rather than from the candidates or how they are usually covered. The book really started to shine as it covered other facets of the election.

I honestly think that had I started reading the book on Chapter 4, I would have given the book a solid 4 stars. Unfortunately, by that point, I had lost interest.

While the last 60% saved this book from a 2 star rating, it did not pull it out of the muck.

[Elaine Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating stuff...once again I find myself musing that perhaps we should've just let the South go.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams have always been two of the more interesting historical figures in american history. Jackson is a man that should be celebrated on one hand, and villanized on the other. John Q. is also fascinating as he was a brilliant man who really accomplished nothing of any value during his four years as President. Parsons does a very unique job weaving the seams of this story together and creating a cohesive and fun read on these candidates. This election of 1828 was one that really fired up the engines of bipartisanship in politics and help to shape the process that is so visible even today.

First, I will start with the positive attributes of the book before discussing the negative. This book is obviously not a biography of either man. The role of this book is to break into the story behind the story which led to a ferocious election in 1828. However, Parsons paints a unique picture of both men. She traces the origins and stories of both in a very clear and linear path. While I have learned about Jackson in history class this gave me some more information about his background. His life as a youth is not one that anyone should envy. He was the son of immigrants who endured the loss of literally everyone in his family. His climb to success was of course perilous as everyone knows that Jackson had a volatile temper. Parsons also laid a nice introduction for John Q. He is one that in some ways had a sad life. While he was born into privilege and well-loved, it seems that his life was not really his own and he was being trained for his future during his entire lifetime.

She also did a nice job developing the storyline as it was neither rushed nor drawn out. She traces the steps and the burgeoning friendship of two unlikely friends. The chasm of differences between Jackson and Adams could not be more pronounced and their mutual admiration is an unusual story. The alliance between them was not merely political and it seems that they had developed a genuine respect for one another. It was in fact the election of 1824 that caused a breach between the two of them. Henry Clay throwing his weight to gets Adams elected enraged Jackson and brought about the accusation that the process had been corrupted, hence the name "corrupt bargaining." Of course, Adam's presidency was able to accomplish very little. His educated manner and polished style really made Americans more disconnected from Adams and his policies as well as ideals widened the rift between he and Jackson. The media and the election process severed their friendship and introduced a more pronounced ugliness in politics.

Parsons makes the argument that this was the election that really shaped modern electioneering with the mudslinging, cheap shots and party bases. To a certain extent she has a valid point. However, she failed to elaborate that the election 1800 with Jefferson was charged with political fire and had its own divisive factions. She did bring up but it seems that she played it down a little. While Adam's father stated that parties were negative for America it does not seem that he meant it and while she gives much of the rhetoric of the early fathers she does not always discuss the ways in which they contradicted their own ideas. It is true however that Martin Van Buren "the little magician" really fired up a base for Jackson and helped institute a set of practices that helped foster strong political partisanship.

Overall, the book was well done. It is a short book in comparison but I think it accomplishes the mission that it sets out to do. All things in the book lead up to the year of 1828. The implications of that year do have long lasting effects on the modern process. I agree that political parties create a situation that is good for the party but not always for the community. Communities are often the victims of the political process and this was one the reasons the fathers were against them.... at least in theory. Unfortunately, it is a fact of human nature that people always find reasons to divide and the story of our nations history is no exception.

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

The election of 1828 is historically significant for several reasons. It is the first election in the republic in which the idea of the "mute tribune" and the virtue of presidential candidates feigning disinterest in the position disappeared. It is the first election in which the Popular vote truly mattered (and only the second in which it was even recorded.) Third, and finally, it was the first election in American history where a 'populist' candidate took the executive office.

This book does an excellent job condensing the information and telling the story of the election, beginning with John Quincy Adams and Jackson's careers and the issues which would drive the public debate of 1828. It is difficult for me to buy the idea that it is truly unique for the slanders thrown in the press. the 1790s and the election of Thomas Jefferson were rife with the 'low brow' attacks that were paramount in 1828. Where the book itself struggles a bit is in the readability of its prose and its organization. Essentially organized chronologically, the author doesn't manage to defend the thesis well, of the 1828 election being "the birth of modern politics". There is certainly an argument for why it is, and much of that argument is illuminated in this book, but as an argumentative piece the book comes off too didactic to be particularly convincing.

The other issue with the book is that in its attempt to be 'objective' it sometimes fails to give the issues the weight they deserve. The political fight in 1828 was a mud slinging mess, but Parson keeps us high enough above the fray to feel somewhat untouched by it. The author fails to a significant extent to really let the story live as the riveting tale it is, and comes off, instead, a little too 'scholarly'. That seems perhaps an odd criticism to throw at a book that was written by a scholar, but I firmly believe that history is an interesting subject, and that it can avoid being dull. This book doesn't, quite.

This book does not serve well as a biography of either man. It does, however, make a decent argument for how the election of 1828 was socially pivotal, changing as it did the rules of how presidential campaigns (and indeed, that there even would be 'campaigns') were undertaken in the American Republic. It was an unexpectedly appropriate read in 2016, too, in which the public watches an election where a poorly spoken, populist, sectional candidate without a firm platform takes on a comparably unapproachable, intellectual, and experienced candidate.

I would recommend this admittedly quick read only to people who really want to read about this stuff. There's not a lot of reason why the election of 1828 would be interesting to the average reader (or indeed, the average voter). But for those who truly find the details of history fascinating, it's worth the time.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s difficult while reading “The Birth of Modern Politics” just how true that title is.
The Presidential contest of 1828 between incumbent John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson was, and perhaps remains, one of the most acrimonious and ugly campaigns America has ever seen.
It is also in hindsight however, one of the most innovative campaigns as well.
It was one of the first to feature on a national level, large scale campaign events, presidential theme songs, coordinated field operations across the country, aggressive use of popular media such as handbills and newspapers, self promotion by the candidates, and perhaps most significantly, mudslinging.
To be fair, most of these things were introduced and used to devastating effect by the Jackson campaign against Adams.
Say what you will about Jackson as a duel loving, Native American killing, tempestuous human being but the man knew how to campaign. In one of the first elections with an expanded electorate, Jackson understood how to play to the poor, the illiterate, the disenfranchised. He not only depicted himself as a hardscrabble man of the people (his own self image, derived from him being an obscenely wealthy plantation owner with hundreds of slaves, was quite different) he more importantly depicted Adams as an effeminate lover of all things European and well….a snob.
JQA unfortunately did him self no favors. He was even in his own estimation a remote and cold man who was difficult to like despite being a brilliant man who had served his country faithfully over a forty year career both at home and abroad. Yet he was always someone who felt more at home with his books than around people. As Parsons writes, Adams cared deeply about the American people, he just couldn’t relate to them. Take this rare public appearance for Adams during the campaign:

“Relaxing for once his inhibitions about public appearances, he accepted an invitation in December 1827 to participate in the commemoration of the defense of Baltimore thirteen years earlier. In accordance with custom, he proposed a toast. ‘Ebony and Topaz’, he offered. ‘General Ross’s posthumous coat of arms, and the republican militiamen who gave it’. The audience scratched their heads. What was the meaning? Realizing that he had puzzled the group, Adams hastily explained that the allusion was taken from the French writer Voltaire’s Le Blanc et Le Noir, in which Blanc (white) stood for the good Americans, and Noir (black) for the evil British invaders.”

It’s hard not to cringe a bit here right? The bookish Adams assumed everyone would be familiar with Voltaire but ultimately references like this just reinforced the image that Jackson and his minions tried to present of him.
Adams would try to hammer back at Jackson at times but usually would fail miserably. When he criticized Jackson’s spelling for example, (Jackson was a horrible speller) he failed to take into account that a good number of the electorate was also semi literate. Jackson’s shaky grasp of written English was to many something they too had perhaps been criticized by ‘intellectuals’ for at some point in their lives. Far from something that disqualified Jackson to them, it only created a siege mentality around Jackson and endeared him to them more.
The path Jackson blazed to the presidency in 1828, would of course have lasting consequences well into the present day. It would become a playbook where the ‘intellectual’ (think John Kerry speaking French, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton with their long policy heavy speeches) is seen as someone foreign from the voters own experience. Who wants to elect a “ smart guy/woman” when you can elect a guy you want to have a beer with like George W. Bush? Or someone who indulges your ugly insecurities about gays, minorities, women, or immigrants?
Jackson also was a pioneer in running a campaign based almost entirely on the character assassination of his opponent:

“What was missing from the Jackson movement was any clear enunciation of principles that could distinguish it from the administration other than righteous indignation at the outcome of the previous election.”

A Presidential campaign without principles and based on purely petty grievances from a fever dream of a ‘stolen’ election? Not like anyone ever copied that playbook again.

So for all the things we can hate Andrew Jackson for like the Trail of Tears, the summary executions of men when he was a soldier, his alleged treason against America with Aaron Burr, among other things, we can add him breaking the entire way we choose Presidents. We haven’t ever quite fixed it since.

[Suzanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

At times very interesting and at times very dry, The Birth of Modern Politics provides an accounting the 1828 election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, and it's impact on future Presidential elections.  Prior to this election Presidents feigned disinterest in the office and reluctantly accepted the nomination out of duty.  But this election, in which party politics emerged for the first time, was a mudslinging battle between an experienced political veteran and a populist favorite representing middle America.  Sound familiar?  The similarities between the 1828 and 2016 elections are striking, and give rise to the idea that things haven't changed that much in nearly two centuries.

[Ilana · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are better books on this topic I am sure. I remained unconvinced on whether this was birth of modern politics, but it does make clear how crazy the electoral colleague is

[Allie Pae · Rating 5 out of 5]

i read this for the class but tbh thoroughly enjoyed it and would have probably read it for fun. fuck andrew jackson tho he sucks

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a compelling enough read because the history of our current political system is fairly interesting and relevant. Many historians point to this election in 1928 between incumbent, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson as the first to employ the modern political machine we know of today--from organized political parties/factions to the use to polls, campaign propaganda and a mobilized group of activists to get the voters to the polls. The author did his research and has an impressive amount of research and footnotes. Unfortunately the author tends to let other people's work drive the story and it almost seemed like I was reading excerpts from one source to the next on several pages (minus a star for that--for difficulty in finding the author's own voice).

One thing that did impress me with this was the author's attempt create a relevant relationship between an election almost 190 years ago and today--finding common themes in HOW campaigns employ ethnic-baiting, personal attacks on family, use of organized media editorials, and religious overtones (while accusing your opponent of being ANTI-religious) to the campaigns. Tactics we see today. I also had several of those "hmmmm..." moments while reading when I realized that there really is not too much that has changed between the partisanship of long ago and today. The tactics and even some of the language is almost the same. We tend to think our politics today has "gone downhill" and the hyper-partisan atmosphere is new or even "too ugly" anymore today. A book like this does remind us that we actually are "cleaner" today that probably ever. The only difference is the technology.

The other reason I subtracted a star is simply that the author had a tough time keeping me sympathetic to these historical characters. I wanted to KNOW them more...feel for them and understand them. Sometimes they seemed very one-dimensional and unfeeling. These were important figures in our history and should lend themselves to some further feeling and empathy. But many of the sections just seemed like unrelated panels in a cartoon strip--the figures are presented in a situation but given very little depth and context. I found myself simply being confused because some of the situations didn't always follow a chronological order which I feel is important in telling history as a "story!"

But all in all it was a brief and educating read. I read more than half of it on 2 legs of a flight from Texas to Florida. The facts and stories had some interesting tid-bits of political trivia I found interesting enough. But I think this book could have had so much more for it.

[Robert Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lynn Parson’s “The Birth of Modern Politics” is a succinct telling of Andrew Jackson’s presidency and the fundamental changes in American politics that it produced. Although in the modern imagination the original founding fathers are seen as visionary rebels dedicated to the ideal of a republic governed by “the people”, the reality is that as a group they were patrician “gentlemen” who took their qualifications to rule a nation for granted….and fully expected everyone else to as well. The first six presidents, from George Washington to John Quincy Adams, were all members of this elite patrician class. Andrew Jackson, the orphan son of Scottish immigrants who’d settled in the backwoods of Virginia, was anything but a member of the club, and his ascent to the Presidency represented the nation’s transition from one inspired by republican ideals to one actually governed by republican realities. His humble origins and successful military career made Jackson America’s first “man of the people” candidate and his 1828 campaign against incumbent John Quincy Adams saw the introduction of the “mass marketing techniques” that have become staples of American politics ever since. Jackson’s campaign saw the introduction of campaign slogans, songs, buttons, national conventions and, above all, focused media support coordinated through a network of favorable news outlets.

In addition to the details surrounding Jackson’s populist victory, Parson’s also provides excellent coverage of the principal political issues that occupied Washington during Jackson’s two terms in office. She provides a cogent, comprehensible summary of the issues surrounding the Tariff of Abominations and the nullification movement (led by Jackson’s first term Vice President, John C. Calhoun) that it precipitated, the issues surrounding the renewal of the Bank of the United States charter and national infrastructure expenditures. Essentially, Jackson was what we would today call a Tea Party Republican who revered the constitution only to the extent that he agreed with it. She also provides compelling summaries of the Petticoat Affair, Jackson’s betrayal of Native Americans, his relationship with his nephew and aide, Andrew Donaldson, and Donaldson’s wife, Emile.

I picked up the book wanting to understand the pivotal transition of America the theoretic republic to America the actual republic…..with all of its glories as well as its dangers, warts and reactionary dumbness. “The Birth of Modern Politics” more than fulfilled my expectations, and reading it contributed significantly to my understanding of American history.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-researched, interesting book on how presidential campaigning arrived. Very entertaining in parts (Andrew Jackson was mostly just crazy, John Quincy Adams was mostly a cardboard cutout), but the strange part is that much of it sounds like it could have been written about today's campaigning ... which is pretty sad.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Solid, If Bare-Bones Summary

This work provides a solid summary of the events and personalities surrounding the 1828 Presidential election. It's certainly well-written, though I'm not sure that it adds much that wouldn't be found in biographies of either General Jackson or JQ Adams.

[John Jenkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Parsons supports his thesis that the United States presidential election of 1828 definitively marked a transition in American politics. Prior to this election, men became presidents by playing the role of the Mute Tribune. The 1828 election was the first with organized campaigns that featured exaggerated claims about both the favored candidates and their opponents, and this transition has continued for almost two centuries. There are several reasons why this happened at this time:
* Rise of political parties
* Transition from candidates being selected by caucus to popular vote
* Western expansion of the nation

Both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were born in 1767 and, by most measures, had very impressive resumes before they ran against each other in 1824 and 1828. Which of these two men was the better president? That is slightly outside the scope of the book, but Mr. Parsons points out the strengths and weaknesses of both. Unfortunately, he seems to argue that the steps that each man took to expand the role of the executive branch were beneficial. Mr. Parsons suggests that Abraham Lincoln took the best from Adams and Jackson, but refrains from saying that Lincoln also took the worst. Jackson suspended habeas corpus in New Orleans as Lincoln did during the Civil War.

Mr. Parsons also makes sound arguments that the "Era of Good Feelings" was not so good and the "Corrupt Bargain" was not so corrupt. In the first year of his administration, Republican President Monroe made efforts to reconcile with Federalists, and a Federalist newspaper prematurely gave the positive label to the era thinking that political bickering would be minimized. This rapprochement was very short-lived, and partisan bickering quickly resumed over tariffs, slavery, infrastructure building, and other issues. The presidential election of 1828 featured the two frontrunners from the 1824 election, which was tainted by what contemporaries called a "corrupt bargain." The office of Secretary of State might have been even more prestigious in the early nineteenth century than it is today, as the previous four presidents had used the Secretary of State position as a stepping-stone to the presidency. But Mr. Parsons argues that this label was unwarranted. John Quincy Adams might have been naïve, but not corrupt. Clay approached him to offer his help; Adams did not solicit it. Appointing Clay as Secretary of State might have been naïve, not a quid pro quo issue. So, even though Jacksonians and other opponents denounced Adams for using this appointment to accomplish a political goal, Mr. Parsons argues persuasively that, other than this appointment, Adams avoided offering positions to supporters and terminating opponents to a fault.

One example of negative campaigning was the Jacksonians accusing Adams of putting a billiards table in the White House at taxpayer expense. This was due to an error in reporting such expenses to Congress that was made by Adams' son. The reporting error was quickly corrected (the president had paid for the table out of his own funds), but the Adams campaign did not realize that the correction needed to be publicized. The opponents capitalized on this oversight.

This book contains several surprising revelations. First, history and this book treat Thomas Jefferson with such reverence that it is shocking to read his expression of anti-Semitism on page 171. Another unusual revelation is the exercise habits of Adams, including nude swimming in the Potomac. Also notable is the question of political party labels. If the election of 1828 marks the birth of political parties, one would expect the party names to be better defined. But many sources refer to both candidates as Democratic-Republicans. Some call Adams a National Republican, and Jackson's party is referred to as Democratic or Jacksonian. Mr. Parsons simply refers to both candidates as Republicans.

[Andy Wiesendanger]

Reviewed before 2012:

"The author claims that politics as we know it in 21st century began during 1820s, specifically 1828, altho going back to '24 for context. Both elections were mainly b/w Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. When you start to understand how Presidential elections took place prior to this time, you begin to see how the claim makes sense.

In 1824, there were no official parties. In previous elections, it had been Federalists and Republicans, but the Federalists were on the decline by '24, which left Republicans to fight amongst themselves. Parsons quotes some political propaganda during '24 election, and it sounds pretty much like today. A major difference was a lack of negativity against opponents, b/c it was believed the election would be decided by House of Reps, and you didn't want to alienate anyone who might be determining the winner. But, ideas like ignoring candidate's political career and highlighting aspects that appeal to the mass, suspicion of elitism, and even anti-intellectual as a good trait in a candidate were all prevalent (especially from Jackson supporters).

Parsons says Adams was the last President to believe the office was above politics. He refused to help his friends w/appointments, and did not fire his political opponents. This would no longer work in America.

The 1828 election ramped up the partisanship. It also brought the media much more into the process, altho it certainly wasn't left out in prior elections. In fact, Parsons asserts most papers believe being partisan was a part of the job. Pretty much like today, but the claim is that's not the case. Much like today, Jackson's supporters pushed his heroic image, and ignored his stance on any issues of the day, b/c that could only get a man in trouble. The more people knew where you stood on issues, the more reason they had to vote against you. Jackson's wife was even attacked, being call a prostitute and adulteress.

It's quite interesting to see the difference b/w the Jackson presidency and John Quincy Adams. Really, Jackson was the first of a new generation of Americans. Though Adams was about the same age, having his father such an integral part of the Revolution, and being involved in the govt since his teen years, he really was in much the same vein as the previous line of Presidents. But not so w/Jackson, especially coming from the frontier (Tennessee at the time). After recently reading Jackson's biography, I've realized how interesting this era was, the 1820s through 30s. I guess most of 19th century is overshadowed by Civil War. I think the Presidency is vastly different now than 1700s, and I think Jackson was the first major sea change in making it what its become today.

In any case, if you think anything about politics is new today, read this book and you'll have a different opinion. Claims of corruption, of fighting special interests, ""stretching"" the truth, personal attacks, debate over value of political parties, how much the federal govt is involved in daily life, so many things. One of the reasons I find history so fascinating, we think today is so unique. "

[Christopher G · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lynn Hudson Parsons is professor emeritus at the State University of New York. Parsons earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Grinnell College and his Master of Arts degree and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Johns Hopkins University. He taught history at various universities and has written several books about John Quincy Adams and the Early Republic. These books include John Quincy Adams in 1998 and John Quincy Adams: A Bibliography in 1993. Parsons is more than qualified to write on all topics John Quincy Adams.

Parsons accomplishes his goal of tying the birth of America's two-party system to the election of 1828 in Modern Politics. Hee begins by contrasting the eventual development of the two-party system with the opposition by the founding fathers of political "factions." The quote from James Monroe about political parties as "the curse of the country" seems profound in comparison with the pendulum swinging seen in the ebb and flow of the two-party system today. Parsons essentially "blames" Martin Van Buren for creating this duality with his democratic republican party. Parsons asserts that the election of 1828 was a "watershed moment" in that it was the first truly democratic election outside of elite control. This is evident in Jackson's win over the elite failure of John Quincy Adams. Parsons also takes the time to provide much insight into the persons of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.

Parsons does a great job contrasting the lives of these two American "heroes" and displays how each contributed in their own unique ways. Their lives and contributions seem to represent a duality of early American politics. Jackson was a hands-on participant in war that changed the country while Adams largely schmoozed with elites in Europe in acts of diplomacy that changed the country. I think Parsons fairly describes Jackson's legacy as outshining that of Adams because his contributions were exciting while many might find Adams contributions boring. Both were extremely important and, as Parsons so successfully argues, contributed to our modern system of politics.

Parsons also gives a fair amount of space to the contributions of Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, and other politicians that helped birth modern politics. He includes many images and propaganda pieces to great effect in the insert. He employs many primary sources including autobiographies, journals, public records, speeches, amongst others. For secondary sources he quotes from his own work as well as others. He owes a lot to Robert V. Remini as the notes are filled with his secondary source materials.

I found Parson’s The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828 most enlightening. Previously I had thought of the mudslinging two party system as a much more recent phenomenon. This book debunks that idea in spades. It is obviously a book that was written for scholarly purposes but can be enjoyed by anyone that appreciates history or is interested in politics. The deep dive into the characters of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson was my absolute favorite part of the book. I recommend it for students and the general public.

[Peter Talbot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, concise and remarkably readable history of the Presidential politics of Jackson, Van Buren and John Quincy Adams and the social and policy changes that took place in the 1820's. A necessary background to understanding the ascendancy of the slave-owning South and the development of political party machines in ante-bellum America. Mixes anecdotal biographical structure deftly with extensive source notes and solid data to illustrate how far Jackson enlarged the imperial Presidency contrary to the Founder's intent, resulting in the subjugation of both legislative and judicial branches to the executive and the executive subordinate to party politics. As elections became more free and more (white men) were allowed to vote effectively, the US became more populist with less pretense of being a "meritocracy".

A great "tonic" for Founding Father hero worship that clouds political discourse in 21st century America. Recommend highly.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Parsons does a fine job of reminding his readers that the political battle between those who believe government exists to improve the lot of its citizens and those who believe government exists to protect individual liberty from the powerful is not a recent phenomenon. This was the fault line that defined the Presidential election of 1828, as it has every Presidential election since then. With the end of the line of Revolutionary War Presidents, the expansion of the electorate, and the growing sway of the Western states, the election campaign of 1828 was as ugly as those of today. The campaigns of the "elitist" John Quincy Adams and the "common man's hero", Andrew Jackson, left a legacy of electoral politics that we still suffer with today. This book is essential for those who would like to know more about how party factionalism, attack ads, and "fake news" became such an essential part of American elections.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Historian Lynn Hudson Parson published The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828 in 2009. The book is part of the Pivotal Moments in American History series. The book contains black-and-white illustrations. I read the book on my Kindle. The book also contains a section of Notes on sources. Similar to John Ferling’s book on the election of 1800 of the Pivotal Moments in American History series, I agree that most of the book is spent setting up the presidential election of 1828, in the case of Parson’s book, The Birth of Modern Politics is spent giving a short political biography of both Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both complex men, and I think Parson tries to capture their complexity in relativity short book. I believe Parsons is successful in capturing the complex character of Jackson and John Quincy Adams in this relatively short book. Parsons does a good job of laying out how different historians have viewed the meaning of the presidential election of 1828 (Parsons 183-187). While I think Parson has opinions on the historical meaning of 1828, Lynn nicely lays out different arguments so the reader can view the different opinions. I thought Lynn Hudson Parson’s book, The Birth of Modern Politics, was an excellent summary or an excellent introduction to the politics of the presidential election of 1828.
Works Cited:
Ferling, John. 2004. Adams vs Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800. New York: Oxford University Press

[John Deardurff · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that belongs the bookshelf of anyone interested in American History. The author takes his time to build up to the Election of 1828. Giving us a fascinating biography of the early life and foundation of the two candidates. Spoiler Alert: They both end up being President. To be honest, there was very little about how this election gave birth to modern politics. However, when the author sticks to the story line of Jackson vs Adams, an excellent book is found. It would be hard to make up two protagonists that were more opposite of each other. John Adams was American royalty, a college-educated man from the northeast who served as both ambassador and diplomat. Andrew Jackson was American mythology in the role of Davy Crocket. A southwestern frontiersman and war hero general. A very enjoyable, thought-provoking read.

[Randy Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Well-Researched & Well-Written Account

In this fascinating history of the 1828 Presidential election, Parsons makes a convincing argument that the modern way of choosing a Commander in Chief (both the good and bad aspects) began with that contest between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. The author tells each politician’s story leading up to the election, then gives a comprehensive overview of the campaign for the Presidency and what made it the first true campaign (as we know them) in our history. Backed up with voluminous footnotes and written in a clear and concise tone, it’s an excellent introduction to Adams and Jackson as well as an informative and entertaining tale of a key Presidential campaign.

[Daniel Silliman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was hoping for something a bit more ambitious. The Birth of Modern Politics offers brief biographical accounts of John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson and a fairly straightforward narrative of the elections of 1824 and 1828. Which is fine. But it doesn't ask the question of whether there were larger forces at work pushing America towards party politics, if that was inevitable, what impact it had on people at the time and the way they thought of things, or how party politics (as opposed to other kinds) sent America in a particular direction. It just ended up a bit narrow.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

In reading this book, published in 2009, I was struck by how relevant it was to the contemporary political environment. Of course, the author wanted to mark 2008 as a decisive election, a bit prematurely, but this book is far more useful as a precursor of the 2016 election in terms of its themes and course. The 1828 election marked the beginning of the second party system and for that reason the author makes marks it as the period where modern politics was born, and manages to make a strong case for her claim. Of course, this book will be most enjoyable if you are fond of reading books about American political history [1]. If you are, this book offers a lot of context and quite a bit of detail of how it was that John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson turned from nationalist allies to bitter enemies who could not even stand to be around each other after the bitter election of 1828. And as our day and age is no stranger to bitter elections, this book is important in reminding of us of what sort of stakes elections get tied up into, and what sort of myths become enshrined in historical memory as a result of their repetition, despite the fact that those who make the lies know them to be false. This book will show that Democrats have lied about their opposition for a long, long time, as if that needed to be told.

The book is organized in a very nondescript way, with an editor's note talking about various elections recognized afterward as decisive, like 1800, 1860, 1932, to which the author somewhat prematurely puts 2008 (which, in retrospect, looks more like the election of 1912 than 1932), and then six chapters and an epilogue that take up the rest of the book's 200 pages. This book has a long buildup, in that it spends a great deal of time talking about the political education of both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, the former a long set of duties as an undiplomatic diplomat with a passion for furthering American political interests in far off posts like St. Petersburg and Ghent (where he helped negotiate the treaty that ended the War of 1812), and the latter a somewhat corrupt land speculator and autocratic military man who rose to political power on the strength of his populist appeal and his railing against out-of-touch Eastern elites. It is hard not to see the echoes of this particular campaign in the course of the 2016 election, in retrospect, considering that John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson had once been friends before becoming serious enemies.

This book, although it is short, manages to become relevant in the way it describes the growing importance of ambition and the decline of caucuses, where politicians had to appeal to the common person with their anti-intellectual prejudices and their tendency to see their progress thwarted by elites and those who considered themselves their betters. In light of the contemporary political climate, this book gives an indirect but strong warning to those who seek to win high office without being able to show an ability to connect with ordinary people and their concerns, and that the image of being relatable is often more important than the reality of living the same sort of life as one's partisans and constituents. Thus a slaveowning autocrat was able to appeal to populist desires to throw out an elite that was threatening to dominate the American republic with its intelligencia and its snobbery and its high culture. Whether we like it or lament it, there has long been a tendency within American politics where those who were flamboyantly intelligent had to to show the more friendly side of their personalities to counteract the perceived coldness of their approach, and that trend was decisive as early as 1828, showing just how slowly a culture changes its fundamental approaches to authority and legitimacy.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

[David Lubin · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are a number of similarities between the presidential election of 1828 (John Q. Adams vs Andrew Jackson) and the presidential election of 2016. These include the rise of the press, the expanded participation of the electorate, the contasts of a highly educated candidate against that of a raw boned frontiersman and the turbulence that was going on in the country at the time. The book is well written, easy to follow and worth the time to read.

[Victor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting primer on how we ended up with the current political practices. Fascinating to learn that we owe much of the current polarization, mischaracterization of opponents, party-above-country, and populist messaging to the legacy of Martin van Buren rather than to the people we view as founding fathers. Left me with a what-could-have been feeling about John Quincy Adams and his visionary plans for moving America into the 20th and 21st centuries.

[Glenn Short · Rating 4 out of 5]

Prior to 1828 the electorate was relatively small. By 1828 there was a grassroots effort to encourage participation and many of the mechanisms of modern campaigning were in place. Jackson embraced the new way of interacting with the populace, Adams did not. I enjoyed the narrative, but the chapters were too long. Still, I recommend this book. Lots of interesting insights.

[Kelly Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really well researched and unbiased look at JQA and Jackson!! My only note is that it seemed the first two chapters could have been condensed into one and maybe the author could have spent a bit more time on the subject matter of the book (1828) rather than designating the last ~60 pages for it. Overall very enjoyable

[Paige · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book! Really shows the crazy reality that is the election of 1828! This book is written amazingly, and is sectioned very well. Definitely an election that doesn’t get talked about enough in comparison to the election of 1800, 1860, etc. Recommend to anyone interested in historic or modern politics!

[Gerry Connolly · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Birth of Modern Politics Jackson and Adams and the 1828 election is Lynn Hudson Parsons' account of the rise of partisanship in one of our most fevered presidential contests. A transformative event.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good narrative of the events, people, issues, and political cultural changes leading up to elections of 1824 and 1828. The book also does well in presenting a consistent theme about these issues and their consequences.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed and lucid history of the elections of 1824 and 1828 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. It shows how the Jacksonians learned from the defeat in 1824 and in the 1828 election invented many of the aspects of modern party politics.