• The election of 1824 was the last single-party presidential election.
• In 1828, Andrew Jackson pioneered rallies and other community-building campaigning techniques.
• Jackson ran as a “celebrity” presidential candidate claiming to fight for everyday people against the corrupt elites.
• The controversial outcome of the 1824 election allowed Andrew Jackson to present himself as a martyr of a stolen election in his campaign for 1828.
• The election and the force of Jackson’s personality led to a major political realignment.

​Political parties aren’t what they used to be. In 1991, according to Gallup, independents for the first time exceeded both Democrats and Republicans. Since then, the gap has generally grown, primarily at the expense of Democrats, who as of 2023 held a record low for the party at 27% of the electorate – the same as Republicans. Independents reached a high of 43%. The reasons for all of this are open to conjecture. But the turn away from parties might seem to be a positive in the eyes of George Washington, who deplored “faction.”

But what would a presidential election look like without interparty competition? What if all the candidates were members of the same party?

Well, as it happens, we don’t have to speculate. It happened in the two elections of Washington himself – although by the time his eight years were up, two parties had emerged under Adams (the Federalists) and Jefferson (the Democratic Republicans). But let’s leave aside the sui generis Washington.

The election of 1824 was the last time America saw a presidential election in which all candidates were members of the same party. And far from being a pacific affair, it went down in history as one of the nation’s most controversial. Ultimately, it launched the Democratic Party and the first “populist” presidential candidate. It ended the “Era of Good Feelings,” replacing it with an era of bomb-throwing rhetoric and insults that would make Don Rickles blush.

Indeed, despite the uni-party framework of 1824, there are remarkable parallels in the election and its aftermath to the high-strung state of affairs 200 years later. These include: a celebrity outsider candidate who positioned himself as the voice of the unheard but was perceived as a threat to the establishment; accusations of backroom dealings to install a preferred candidate; claims of the previous election having been “stolen”; and, in the end, a redefinition and realignment of the political order itself.

The election of 1824 saw four major candidates: the ambitious Georgia politician and Treasury Secretary William Harris Crawford, who saw himself as the heir apparent to the Jefferson-Madison-Monroe line; the even more ambitious Kentucky legislator Henry Clay in his first of five attempts at the presidency; the famous Gen. Andrew Jackson; and the buttoned-up, intellectual Secretary of State John Quincy Adams.

Although the political differences may have been greatest between Clay and Jackson, the contrast in persona was greatest between Adams and Jackson. Adams himself noted that “the language of General Jackson was sometimes too impassioned and violent” – although “his conduct had always appeared to me calm and deliberate.” The Adams men, father and son, both suffered from a perception of being aloof, aristocratic, elitist – in contrast to more “democratic” opponents like Jefferson and Jackson.

In fact, Jackson’s campaign was something new altogether. As Adams discussed policy and political philosophy, Jackson traveled the country, where crowds greeted him with patriotic fireworks displays.

Jackson in particular came to be regarded as “the people’s friend” and “Old Hickory,” a tough guy who would be tough on behalf of regular folk. He may have been the most popular public figure of his day, with a celebrity-candidate status perhaps beyond that of Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump. His blowout victory over the feared British army at the Battle of New Orleans had been a rallying point for national pride and unity. Though Jackson was no fool, he was seen as a fighter, in contrast to the egghead image of John Quincy Adams. One campaign slogan summed it up: “John Quincy Adams who can write / and Andrew Jackson who can fight.”

Adams knew what he was up against: “If the election went before the people, no man could stand in competition with General Jackson. The 8th of January and the battle of New Orleans was a thing that every man would understand.”

His words would prove prophetic, as voting rights were rapidly expanding with a wave of democratic changes at the state level. But in 1824, the system didn’t yet favor Jackson. Though Jackson won 99 electoral votes and a strong plurality in the popular vote, Adams’ 84 electoral votes made it a contest. With no candidate receiving a majority, the decision of Adams versus Jackson went to the House of Representatives. And that’s where the trouble started.

As speaker of the House, Clay held the power to move votes sufficient to choose the next president. The obvious choice might have been Jackson, based on his large margin in the popular vote – more than Adams and Crawford combined. But Clay saw Jackson as unqualified and dangerous, and he orchestrated an Adams win. It would be the first and last time that the candidate with the most electoral votes lost the presidency.

That Clay honestly felt disdain for Jackson and his followers is clear. But what he did next would haunt him for the rest of his life: He accepted appointment as secretary of state from the newly elected Adams.

Jackson raged: “So you see the Judas of the West has closed the contract and will receive the thirty pieces of silver.”  This “corrupt bargain” in which the presidency was ostensibly stolen from Jackson – and the voters – became Jackson’s rallying cry for 1828.

Forming what came to be known as the Democratic Party, Jackson unleashed a fighting machine. He whipped up patriotic fervor on the campaign trail, returning to New Orleans to celebrate his own heroism and taking electioneering to new heights with rallies, parades and picnics.

And the invective began. Adams’ “National Republicans” accused Jackson of adultery, murder, theft and treason. They even attacked the chastity of his wife and his mother.

Jackson’s Democrats returned fire, accusing Adams of serving as pimp to the czar back when he was U.S. minister to Russia. Jacksonista Sen. John Randolph called Clay a “blackleg” – the equivalent of a cheater at cards – and Clay challenged Randolph to a duel. (After an errant volley, Clay shot again at Randolph and missed. Randolph responded by firing into the air.)

Regardless, as Adams had foreseen years earlier, Jackson was unbeatable in an election “before the people.” In 1828, over a million Americans voted, more than triple the number in 1824. Jackson won in a landslide.

America’s experiment in single-party governance was gone for good. Party warfare was on, as the American electorate divided over tariffs, the national bank, federal power, internal improvements, and the footprint of slavery in the territories. Jackson would be the last two-term president for a quarter century, and a period of presidential instability (nine different presidents in 24 years) ensued. It culminated in a momentous schism in Jackson’s Democratic Party – and in the nation.

This article is the second in a series on past presidential elections.