What do you think?
Rate this book
American Presidential Elections
The One-Party Presidential Contest: Adams, Jackson, and 1824's Five-Horse Race
American Politics Group Richard E Neustadt Prize
Sally and Morris Lasky Prize
The election of 1824 is commonly viewed as a mildly interesting contest involving several colorful personalities—John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and William H. Crawford—that established Old Hickory as the people's choice and yet, through "bargain and corruption," deprived him of the presidency. In The One-Party Presidential Contest , Donald Ratcliffe reveals that Jackson was not the most popular candidate and the corrupt bargaining was a myth. The election saw the final disruption of both the dominant Democratic Republican Party and the dying Federalist Party, and the creation of new political formations that would slowly evolve into the Democratic and National Republicans (later Whig) Parties—thus bringing about arguably the greatest voter realignment in US history.
Bringing to bear over 35 years of research, Ratcliffe describes how loyal Democratic Republicans tried to control the election but failed, as five of their party colleagues persisted in competing, in novel ways, until the contest had to be decided in the House of Representatives. Initially a struggle between personalities, the election evolved into a fight to control future policy, with large consequences for future presidential politics. The One-Party Presidential Contest offers a nuanced account of the proceedings, one that balances the undisciplined conflict of personal ambitions with the issues, principles, and prejudices that swirled around the election. In this book we clearly see, perhaps for the first time, how the election of 1824 revealed fracture lines within the young republic—and created others that would forever change the course of American politics.
Sally and Morris Lasky Prize
The election of 1824 is commonly viewed as a mildly interesting contest involving several colorful personalities—John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and William H. Crawford—that established Old Hickory as the people's choice and yet, through "bargain and corruption," deprived him of the presidency. In The One-Party Presidential Contest , Donald Ratcliffe reveals that Jackson was not the most popular candidate and the corrupt bargaining was a myth. The election saw the final disruption of both the dominant Democratic Republican Party and the dying Federalist Party, and the creation of new political formations that would slowly evolve into the Democratic and National Republicans (later Whig) Parties—thus bringing about arguably the greatest voter realignment in US history.
Bringing to bear over 35 years of research, Ratcliffe describes how loyal Democratic Republicans tried to control the election but failed, as five of their party colleagues persisted in competing, in novel ways, until the contest had to be decided in the House of Representatives. Initially a struggle between personalities, the election evolved into a fight to control future policy, with large consequences for future presidential politics. The One-Party Presidential Contest offers a nuanced account of the proceedings, one that balances the undisciplined conflict of personal ambitions with the issues, principles, and prejudices that swirled around the election. In this book we clearly see, perhaps for the first time, how the election of 1824 revealed fracture lines within the young republic—and created others that would forever change the course of American politics.
- GenresAmerican History
368 pages, Paperback
First published October 16, 2015
6 people are currently reading
79 people want to read
About the author
Donald J. Ratcliffe
6 books2 followersDonald Ratcliffe (MA, BPhil, PhD, FRHistS) taught United States history for many years at the University of Durham. Between 2004 and 2007 he held a departmental lectureship at Oxford while attached to the Modern History Research Unit. Now in active retirement, he is Supernumerary Research and Teaching Fellow at the RAI, Emeritus Reader in History at Durham, and an elected Member of the American Antiquarian Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 6, 2025
If someone was seeking to identify the most boring presidential contest in American history, they would be hard pressed to find one more deserving of the title than the election that took place in 1820. Despite belated attempts to organize a campaign around New York governor DeWitt Clinton, with the collapse of the Federalist Party as a national organization the incumbent president, James Monroe, ran unopposed in his bid for reelection. So uneventful was the contest that barely a quarter of the Democratic-Republican congressmen even bothered to show up for the caucus that nominated him for another term. When the electoral college met to tally their votes, the only thing that kept Monroe from winning all of them was a faithless elector from New Hampshire who cast his vote for someone else, supposedly to ensure that only George Washington would maintain the distinction of being the only president to receive a unanimous result.
Four years later, the nation experienced a very different competition for its highest office. With none of the five candidates for the presidency able to win a majority of votes, the election was decided by the House of Representatives for only the second (and, to date, last) time in the nation’s history. Given the choice between the top three vote-getters in the electoral college, the representatives elected John Quincy Adams over his rivals, William Crawford and Andrew Jackson. Two days later, the president-elect nominated the speaker of the House, Henry Clay, as his successor as secretary of state, prompting charges of a “corrupt bargain” that have colored the perceptions of the result both then and since. Among the challenges facing Donald Ratcliffe in recounting the complex history of the election is to dispel the myths it has fostered, which obligates him to look past the traditional narrative of the race and take an extended look at the diverse political environment of America in the early 1820s.
Ratcliffe traces the start of the 1824 election to the events surrounding the torpid contest four years earlier. The ease with which Monroe won reelection was an odd contrast with the unhappy state of the nation at that time. The collapse of the economy that started in 1818 immiserated tens of thousands of Americans and embittered them towards the existing social and political establishment. To this was added the Missouri crisis, an event that convinced many Northerners that slaveholders had too powerful a grip on the republic. The combination of the two issues undermined the candidacy of Georgian William Crawford, secretary of the treasury and the man generally regarded as the frontrunner in the contest. This offered an opening to several other ambitious politicians, notably John Calhoun, John Quincy Adams, and Henry Clay. Each of them sought to consolidate their support in their respective regions in the run-up to the election, in order to provide a foundation for their national candidacies.
Nor were they the only ones. One of the more novel parts of Ratcliffe’s story is his inclusion of the overlooked role DeWitt Clinton played in the election. As a commanding figure in New York politics, the ex-governor’s continuing presidential aspirations threatened to upend the political calculations of the other candidates. To thwart his efforts, Martin Van Buren, a rising star on the state's political scene and a Crawford supporter, labored to ensure that the election remained in the hands of the state’s legislature, thus effectively ending Clinton’s prospective candidacy. This cleared the way for Andrew Jackson, the other “outsider” candidate, to disrupt the other campaigns’ calculations. While the war hero enjoyed considerable support in the Old Southwest for his role in crushing Native American resistance and Spanish power in the region, it was his supporters’ success in winning Pennsylvania’ s electoral votes that transformed him into a serious contender. Though New England proved resistant to the general’s political charms, backers of the candidates from the western and southern states soon found themselves coping with a groundswell of support for him.
The election that followed was one waged not at the national level, but in each of the states. While the national trends influenced these events, Ratcliffe demonstrates with his extensive coverage of these state contests that local circumstances were often more important. New York was far from alone in leaving the choice of president in the hands of the state legislature, though with two exceptions Ratcliffe argues that their choices generally reflected popular preferences in those states. Those two exceptions, Delaware and Louisiana, proved decisive in shaping the outcome. Their awarding of electoral votes to Crawford and Jackson, in spite of Clay’s pluralities in the popular vote in both of those states, ensured that the House speaker would not be among the three options presented to the representatives when they met in February 1825 to choose the president.
While Clay decided the month before to throw his considerable influence behind Adams, Ratcliffe argues that the House vote that awarded the presidency to the secretary of state was based largely on the representatives’ assessment of his support in their respective communities. Adams’s subsequent offer to Clay, however, fueled the grievances of Jackson and his supporters, earning their undying opposition to new administration. This contributed to the demise of the old party system, fostering the emergence of the two parties that would dominate American politics for the next generation. Though some readers may disagree with his downplaying of the role Jacksonian populism played in the election, there is no denying the excellent work he has done in providing the most detailed account yet of the presidential election of 1824. In successfully challenging many of the claims that have long been associated with it, he offers his readers a valuable look at the evolution of American politics at a critical juncture in the nation’s history.
Four years later, the nation experienced a very different competition for its highest office. With none of the five candidates for the presidency able to win a majority of votes, the election was decided by the House of Representatives for only the second (and, to date, last) time in the nation’s history. Given the choice between the top three vote-getters in the electoral college, the representatives elected John Quincy Adams over his rivals, William Crawford and Andrew Jackson. Two days later, the president-elect nominated the speaker of the House, Henry Clay, as his successor as secretary of state, prompting charges of a “corrupt bargain” that have colored the perceptions of the result both then and since. Among the challenges facing Donald Ratcliffe in recounting the complex history of the election is to dispel the myths it has fostered, which obligates him to look past the traditional narrative of the race and take an extended look at the diverse political environment of America in the early 1820s.
Ratcliffe traces the start of the 1824 election to the events surrounding the torpid contest four years earlier. The ease with which Monroe won reelection was an odd contrast with the unhappy state of the nation at that time. The collapse of the economy that started in 1818 immiserated tens of thousands of Americans and embittered them towards the existing social and political establishment. To this was added the Missouri crisis, an event that convinced many Northerners that slaveholders had too powerful a grip on the republic. The combination of the two issues undermined the candidacy of Georgian William Crawford, secretary of the treasury and the man generally regarded as the frontrunner in the contest. This offered an opening to several other ambitious politicians, notably John Calhoun, John Quincy Adams, and Henry Clay. Each of them sought to consolidate their support in their respective regions in the run-up to the election, in order to provide a foundation for their national candidacies.
Nor were they the only ones. One of the more novel parts of Ratcliffe’s story is his inclusion of the overlooked role DeWitt Clinton played in the election. As a commanding figure in New York politics, the ex-governor’s continuing presidential aspirations threatened to upend the political calculations of the other candidates. To thwart his efforts, Martin Van Buren, a rising star on the state's political scene and a Crawford supporter, labored to ensure that the election remained in the hands of the state’s legislature, thus effectively ending Clinton’s prospective candidacy. This cleared the way for Andrew Jackson, the other “outsider” candidate, to disrupt the other campaigns’ calculations. While the war hero enjoyed considerable support in the Old Southwest for his role in crushing Native American resistance and Spanish power in the region, it was his supporters’ success in winning Pennsylvania’ s electoral votes that transformed him into a serious contender. Though New England proved resistant to the general’s political charms, backers of the candidates from the western and southern states soon found themselves coping with a groundswell of support for him.
The election that followed was one waged not at the national level, but in each of the states. While the national trends influenced these events, Ratcliffe demonstrates with his extensive coverage of these state contests that local circumstances were often more important. New York was far from alone in leaving the choice of president in the hands of the state legislature, though with two exceptions Ratcliffe argues that their choices generally reflected popular preferences in those states. Those two exceptions, Delaware and Louisiana, proved decisive in shaping the outcome. Their awarding of electoral votes to Crawford and Jackson, in spite of Clay’s pluralities in the popular vote in both of those states, ensured that the House speaker would not be among the three options presented to the representatives when they met in February 1825 to choose the president.
While Clay decided the month before to throw his considerable influence behind Adams, Ratcliffe argues that the House vote that awarded the presidency to the secretary of state was based largely on the representatives’ assessment of his support in their respective communities. Adams’s subsequent offer to Clay, however, fueled the grievances of Jackson and his supporters, earning their undying opposition to new administration. This contributed to the demise of the old party system, fostering the emergence of the two parties that would dominate American politics for the next generation. Though some readers may disagree with his downplaying of the role Jacksonian populism played in the election, there is no denying the excellent work he has done in providing the most detailed account yet of the presidential election of 1824. In successfully challenging many of the claims that have long been associated with it, he offers his readers a valuable look at the evolution of American politics at a critical juncture in the nation’s history.
August 16, 2018
The author Don Ratcliffe was my mentor at Ohio State, and I took a few graduate classes from him. I admit that political history, especially of the Jacksonian Era is not a big interest to me, but I knew that any work Don does would be excellent. This book proves it. Don has taken an extremely difficult, complex, and in a way obscure election process (as far as research and understanding goes) and made sense out of it. That alone deserves 5 stars.
And what an election it was: Adams, Calhoun, Clay, Jackson, and Crawford (throw in DeWitt Clinton for fun). Add to that changing demographics, ethnic "disputes," slavery. nationalism v American System, and the growing dissatisfaction with partisan politics and the various party rules in each state on the nomination of presidential candidates I am still a little confused with the Democrats and Democrat Republicans, but this really isn't my field. Bottom line, "Jacksonian Democracy" predates 1828. All I can say is what a mess. Kudos to Don for tackling this.
The consequences of the 1824 election, especially as election nomination practices and procedures goes, reverberates today. Yes, One Party Presidential Contest is relevant to our current mess. Unfortunately the US today has no giants to turn to for relief.
And what an election it was: Adams, Calhoun, Clay, Jackson, and Crawford (throw in DeWitt Clinton for fun). Add to that changing demographics, ethnic "disputes," slavery. nationalism v American System, and the growing dissatisfaction with partisan politics and the various party rules in each state on the nomination of presidential candidates I am still a little confused with the Democrats and Democrat Republicans, but this really isn't my field. Bottom line, "Jacksonian Democracy" predates 1828. All I can say is what a mess. Kudos to Don for tackling this.
The consequences of the 1824 election, especially as election nomination practices and procedures goes, reverberates today. Yes, One Party Presidential Contest is relevant to our current mess. Unfortunately the US today has no giants to turn to for relief.
February 20, 2022
Begins very promisingly, featuring as it does a challenge to the traditional view of the 1824-8 period, that 1824 was an election purely about personalities while by 1828 political parties had somehow magically arisen. Also, it points out the fallacy in the argument that Jackson won the popular vote in '24. He can hardly have won it when several states did not even conduct popular elections that year. Moreover, if one postulates what the popular vote would have been in those mostly northern states, John Q. Adams has at least a rough parity with Jackson, and more likely, a win. Consider the "Corrupt Bargain" theory exploded, and it as an early, successful use of propaganda in the US.
The book is actually going into internal state politics, state by state, which is really interesting. It could have been a little better organized at times, but there is so much interesting research that it really enables pondering and synthesizing conclusions.
One critical region for this election was the Old Northwest, lying between Adams' northern bailiwick and Jackson's Old Southwest. This regionchad two main issues: unhappiness with government handling of the economy which had foundered in the Panic of 1819 and affected the West particularly perniciously and unhappiness with the Missouri Compromise, which had legalized slavery north of Mason-Dixon line. But which issue was going to be more important and who would win this region?
Ostensibly this would have been Henry Clay, but while his American system of infrastructure improvements was attractive to the west who needed highways and canals reaching the east, they disliked that he was a slaveholder, had engineered the Missouri Compromise and was pro-Bank. Adams, as a member of the cabinet, was too much a part of the establishment for many of them. This left Jackson, popular as a war hero and about whose policy beliefs almost nothing was known, apart from being anti-Indian. He thus became the great hope of all the disgruntled in this region and this permitted him to escape being merely a regional candidate of the Southwest.
One slight error I think. Mentions that Albert Gallatin was chosen by the Congressional nominating caucus for vice presidential nominee as a way of signaling that the presidential nominee wanted to govern in the old, Jeffersonian style. However, I believe another reason was that people knew that Crawford had had a likely stroke and might not be able to serve, or might be partly incapacitated. For that reason an experienced and capable VP was a wise plan.
The book makes another mistake wrt. Gallatin, stating that he could not become president due to his foreign birth. In fact, just as it would have been with Hamilton, a special clause in the constitution grandfathered in anyone who had been a citizen at the time of the founding.
It does offer an alternative to the usual interpretation of why Gallatin was dropped from the Crawford ticket. Not due to his foreign birth, apparently, but because the hope had been to attract Pennsylvania voters, who, however, had fully gone over to Jackson. Thus, Van Buren, acting as campaign manager, preferred to tell states to select whomever they wished for VP.
It's also incorrect regarding electoral votes in Maine, stating that Adams won every district whereas actually Jackson won one.
Book points out that another hole in the Corrupt Bargain theory is that Jackson, who got most of his electoral votes in the South, benefited from the 3/5 clause. Were it not for that, Adams would have had electoral superiority, 83-77.
States that in four years the J.Q. Adams administration spent as much on internal improvements - roads, canals, and so on - has the federal government had spent in the previous twenty-four. At least on this basis it was hardly a failed administration.
One question the book implicitly raises, but does not answer is, what was the composition of the 1824 House of Representatives like? Not because that Congress would decide the presidential election, but because the composition of Congress often reflects the national mood. In fact, it was very close, containing 106 Jackson men, but 107 anti-Jackson men.
The book is actually going into internal state politics, state by state, which is really interesting. It could have been a little better organized at times, but there is so much interesting research that it really enables pondering and synthesizing conclusions.
One critical region for this election was the Old Northwest, lying between Adams' northern bailiwick and Jackson's Old Southwest. This regionchad two main issues: unhappiness with government handling of the economy which had foundered in the Panic of 1819 and affected the West particularly perniciously and unhappiness with the Missouri Compromise, which had legalized slavery north of Mason-Dixon line. But which issue was going to be more important and who would win this region?
Ostensibly this would have been Henry Clay, but while his American system of infrastructure improvements was attractive to the west who needed highways and canals reaching the east, they disliked that he was a slaveholder, had engineered the Missouri Compromise and was pro-Bank. Adams, as a member of the cabinet, was too much a part of the establishment for many of them. This left Jackson, popular as a war hero and about whose policy beliefs almost nothing was known, apart from being anti-Indian. He thus became the great hope of all the disgruntled in this region and this permitted him to escape being merely a regional candidate of the Southwest.
One slight error I think. Mentions that Albert Gallatin was chosen by the Congressional nominating caucus for vice presidential nominee as a way of signaling that the presidential nominee wanted to govern in the old, Jeffersonian style. However, I believe another reason was that people knew that Crawford had had a likely stroke and might not be able to serve, or might be partly incapacitated. For that reason an experienced and capable VP was a wise plan.
The book makes another mistake wrt. Gallatin, stating that he could not become president due to his foreign birth. In fact, just as it would have been with Hamilton, a special clause in the constitution grandfathered in anyone who had been a citizen at the time of the founding.
It does offer an alternative to the usual interpretation of why Gallatin was dropped from the Crawford ticket. Not due to his foreign birth, apparently, but because the hope had been to attract Pennsylvania voters, who, however, had fully gone over to Jackson. Thus, Van Buren, acting as campaign manager, preferred to tell states to select whomever they wished for VP.
It's also incorrect regarding electoral votes in Maine, stating that Adams won every district whereas actually Jackson won one.
Book points out that another hole in the Corrupt Bargain theory is that Jackson, who got most of his electoral votes in the South, benefited from the 3/5 clause. Were it not for that, Adams would have had electoral superiority, 83-77.
States that in four years the J.Q. Adams administration spent as much on internal improvements - roads, canals, and so on - has the federal government had spent in the previous twenty-four. At least on this basis it was hardly a failed administration.
One question the book implicitly raises, but does not answer is, what was the composition of the 1824 House of Representatives like? Not because that Congress would decide the presidential election, but because the composition of Congress often reflects the national mood. In fact, it was very close, containing 106 Jackson men, but 107 anti-Jackson men.
March 26, 2022
This is a very insightful book on the contested election of 1824 written by a master historian of the time period. Despite the appearance of being a freak election, the multi-candidate contest of 1824 and its inconclusive result was much more along the lines of what the framers of the U.S. Constitution expected than was the binary choice of two candidates chosen by parties that emerged. Donald Ratcliffe debunks several myths around the election and presents a clear narrative and analysis of the outcome.
November 6, 2023
This book is a very interesting analysis of the election of 1824. At the beginning of the book, Donald Ratcliffe sets out a clear goal of debunking several myths around the election, and I think he is overall convincing. I was quite happy with the argumentation presented for Jackson's NOT being the "people's choice" in the election and there being no corrupt bargain. I also enjoyed the section detailing DeWitt Clinton's failed bid for the presidency and how it collapsed. Clinton's role is a part of the election that I don't think there are many works on.
However, like with Callaghan's book, there are a few ideas that Ratcliffe leaves out. First, Smith Thompson's run for the presidency is entirely missing; while not a SUPER important part of the election, if one is writing a book analyzing the election, it should probably be there. Second, in his haste to dispel the Corrupt Bargain myth, I think Ratcliffe leaves out the corrupt dealings that Adams WAS actually involved with with Missouri's John Scott, which makes his analysis... incomplete. Finally, while Ratcliffe does a direct response to Ernest R. May's work on the Monroe Doctrine, I feel he doesn't give May's arguments enough air and doesn't include some very important takeaways from May's analysis.
However, like with Callaghan's book, there are a few ideas that Ratcliffe leaves out. First, Smith Thompson's run for the presidency is entirely missing; while not a SUPER important part of the election, if one is writing a book analyzing the election, it should probably be there. Second, in his haste to dispel the Corrupt Bargain myth, I think Ratcliffe leaves out the corrupt dealings that Adams WAS actually involved with with Missouri's John Scott, which makes his analysis... incomplete. Finally, while Ratcliffe does a direct response to Ernest R. May's work on the Monroe Doctrine, I feel he doesn't give May's arguments enough air and doesn't include some very important takeaways from May's analysis.
November 29, 2021
This is probably the most detailed summary of the Election of 1824 currently in print. Ratcliffe has been researching this election for years and now has found the time to put his findings in print. Five major candidates sought the Presidency. Three of them were in James Monroe's Cabinet. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Secretary of the treasury William Crawford, and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun. Two others, a military hero, Andrew Jackson, and the Speaker of the House Henry Clay rounded out this number. Because so many notables were involved, everyone guessed that no candidate would receive a majority of electoral votes and the decision would fall to the US House of Representatives which it inevitably did. Yet, so many issues were alive in this campaign and Ratcliffe explores them all. A great book to learn about the early election process in this country which also makes one think of the 2020 election as well.
March 15, 2024
Interesting but lacking cohesion
I feel this book was filled with a plethora of fascinating information regarding this election. Unfortunately it was lacking in structure and background on the issues influencing the election. The author did discuss the issues but he assumed the reader was familiar with the issues as he was which tended to leave some of us confused as to why these were important or even what they really meant to America. Also, the structure he chose for the book resulted in much chronological jumping around resulting in confusion. I feel he could have chosen a more logical chronological narrative for this book which would have made for easier and and accessible reading. Finally, the election in the House of Representatives was given such little space in the book that one is left wondering why he didn’t feel the need to develop the subject further. Was he just getting bored with writing or was he simply past his deadline?
I feel this book was filled with a plethora of fascinating information regarding this election. Unfortunately it was lacking in structure and background on the issues influencing the election. The author did discuss the issues but he assumed the reader was familiar with the issues as he was which tended to leave some of us confused as to why these were important or even what they really meant to America. Also, the structure he chose for the book resulted in much chronological jumping around resulting in confusion. I feel he could have chosen a more logical chronological narrative for this book which would have made for easier and and accessible reading. Finally, the election in the House of Representatives was given such little space in the book that one is left wondering why he didn’t feel the need to develop the subject further. Was he just getting bored with writing or was he simply past his deadline?
June 4, 2021
demystifying the election of 1824 for all to read Ratcliffe lays out the happenings in rich detail and minces no words. "Corrupt Bargain!" say you? "a contest of personalities" you surmise? The election was a watershed in American politics, and Ratcliffe's well-researched book gives a thorough explenation of this paramount moment of the Jacksonian era.
January 30, 2023
I learned a lot about a very confusing time in America history, but I think I still have more questions. But if anyone tells you that the two party system is bad, I can tell them about 1824. I fear to think how much of a mess a contingent election for president in the House would be. It would be so bad that we could not contemplate the horror.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews