Here it is, the final lesson plan for my Election of 1824 project for the Massachusetts Historical Society. I feel like I could probably do two or three more based on the various interesting items I came across, but ultimately five is more than adequate. My philosophy is that few teachers will ever use an intact lesson plan (certainly few good ones will), but instead pull out useful ideas or materials they can adapt for their own purposes. And certainly no one is going to do all five of these (I think two of them somewhat conflict with each other and share a document or two). The idea is curation and sparking ideas. If anyone does use them, please give me a heads up to let me know what worked, what didn’t work, and how you adapted them.
Essential Questions
- What ethical standards should politicians and journalists have during political campaigns?
- How do we protect against propaganda and misinformation?
Introduction
The Election of 1824 is one of the most interesting presidential elections in history. During a time of one-party rule, and prior to the modern primary process, four candidates from the Democratic-Republican Party ran in the general election, resulting in the race going to the House of Representatives when no candidate won a majority of the electors. Second place John Quincy Adams won the election in the House after fourth-place finisher Henry Clay endorsed him. Shortly after his election, Adams appointed Clay Secretary of State. An anonymous letter in a Philadelphia newspaper alleged Clay had offered a deal to Andrew Jackson (the first-place finisher in the initial vote), but when he was rejected, Clay took his “corrupt bargain” to Adams. History teachers typically teach the corrupt bargain as a matter of fact. These lessons will do several things: examine how different campaigns were run and elections decided in this time period; evaluate the evidence of the so-called corrupt bargain; and ask students to determine whether the presidency of John Quincy Adams was doomed based on public perception of what happened in early 1825.
The intent here is not to create a massive unit on this subject, but rather to give teachers an array of choices to utilize the election as a means of getting across a particular theme or concept.
Objectives
Student will be able to:
- Assess the decisions of politicians running for office as well as those of their surrogates.
- Evaluate the use of the media during elections.
Standards
Massachusetts:
GOV.T4.1
Trace the evolution of political parties in the U.S. governmental system, analyze their organization, functions in elections and government at national and state levels, and evaluate examples of current methods used to promote candidates and issues.
GOV.T4.5
Analyze current research on the impact of media on civic discourse and the importance of an informed citizenry that determines the credibility of sources and claims and exercises other sound media literacy skills.
Common Core:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of a text.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.9-10.1.B
Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying data and evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both claim(s) and counterclaims in a discipline-appropriate form and in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.9-10.2.B
Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.
Materials
- Death of Andrew Jackson newspaper article
- “Private Information” newspaper article
- Anonymous letter to the Philadelphia Columbian Observer
- Journal of the House
- Henry Clay letter
- Letter from George Kremer to Congress
Activities
Bellringer:
Distribute The Death of Andrew Jackson document. Read aloud to the class or have a student volunteer read it. Ask:
- What questions should a skeptical reader ask about the information in the first paragraph (even if they don’t know that Andrew Jackson lived until 1845)?
- What do you think the authors of the first paragraph hoped to accomplish by printing this entirely false report?
Group activities:
Distribute the “Private Information” document. Have them answer:
- Who is the source of the information within this article?
- What does the newspaper conclude from this information?
- Of New York’s 36 electors, Adams only won 26 (Crawford won 5, Clay won 4, and Jackson won 1). Knowing the facts, what conclusions can we draw from this report?
- What do the two sources have in common?
Instruct the class that the electoral vote would not be counted until February 9 (to be immediately followed by the contingent election), creating quite a bit of drama and behind the scenes efforts by supporters of each candidate. Publicly, it was seen as unseemly for a candidate to actively campaign for office. As a result, most of the efforts to garner victory in the contingent election would be carried out by surrogates. Whether this was done with the knowledge and consent of the candidates is largely unknown.
Distribute Anonymous Letter. After students read and answer the questions, debrief as a class, and ask:
- How might supporters of Jackson — or Crawford — have reacted to these allegations?
- Why do people sometimes believe unsubstantiated rumors?
Distribute Journal of the House. Note the date: the election is six days away. After students answer questions, ask them to imagine they were adult citizens in 1825. How interested would they be in the circumstances of this election? How would they want Congress to deal with the situation?
Distribute Henry Clay letter. (If pressed for time, this can be omitted.)
Distribute the George Kremer letter. Explain that Kremer had publicly admitted he was the author of the anonymous letter.
Full class:
Straw Poll of students: On the count of three, everyone is going to raise their hand and signify the degree which they are convinced there was a secret deal between Clay and Adams. A fist signifies a zero or the idea that you are absolutely convinced there was no deal. A five means you are absolutely convinced there was a corrupt bargain. Raising 1, 2, 3, or 4 fingers measures somewhere in between.
If these events happened today, what do you think public reaction would be? What would the media coverage be like?
Assessment:
Using references to the documents provided in your lessons on the Election of 1824, assess the validity of the following statement:
Andrew Jackson would have won the election of 1824 but a corrupt bargain between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay stole the election from him.
[Note: students can focus on the electoral process, pointing out that falling short of the majority of electors meant that Jackson did not win and could not have the election “stolen” from him. Different people would be making the decisions about who won the contingent election and no votes were guaranteed. They can also talk about the lack of evidence and shaky credibility of allegations made. Or they can provide evidence and argue that logical deductions can be made. Ideally, their conclusions will be somewhere in the middle, demonstrating the shades of grey historians often contend with.]
Louisville Public Advertiser (Louisville, Kentucky), 4 December, 1824.
The Adams Papers, Letters Received and Other Loose Papers, Reel 46, Degrand’s Feuilleton, 16 September 1824.
Anonymous letter to the Philadelphia Columbian Observer, 25 January 1825
http://elektratig.blogspot.com/2010/05/corrupt-bargain-opening-volley.html
DEAR SIR:
I take up my pen to inform you of one of the most disgraceful transactions that ever covered with infamy the Republican ranks. Would you believe that men professing Democracy could be found base enough to lay the axe at the very root of the tree of Liberty? Yet, strange as it is, it is not less true. To give you a full history of the transaction would far exceed the limits of a letter. I shall, therefore, at once proceed to give you a brief account of such a bargain as can only be equalled by the famous Burr Conspiracy of 1801.
For some time past, the friends of Clay have hinted that they, like the Swiss, would fight for those who would pay best. Overtures were said to have been made by the friends of Adams to the friends of Clay, offering him the appointment of Secretary of State for his aid to elect Adams. And the friends of Clay gave this information to the friends of Jackson, and hinted that if the friends of Jackson would offer the same price, they would close with them. But none of the friends of Jackson would descend to such mean barter and sale. It was not believed by any of the friends of Jackson that this contract would be ratified by the members from the States who had voted for Mr. Clay.
I was of opinion, when I first heard of this transaction, that men, professing any honorable principles, could not, nor would not, be transferred like the planter does his negroes, or the farmer his team and horses. No alarm was excited – we believed the Republic was safe. The nation, having delivered Jackson into the hands of Congress, backed by a large majority of their votes, there was on my mind no doubt that Congress would respond to the will of the nation, by electing the individual they had declared to be their choice.
Contrary to this expectation, it is now ascertained to a certainty that Henry Clay has transferred his interest to John Quincy Adams. As a consideration for this abandonment of duty to his constituents, it is said and believed, should this unholy coalition prevail, Clay is to be appointed Secretary of State. I have no fears on my mind – I am clearly of opinion we shall defeat every combination. The force of public opinion must prevail, or there is an end of liberty.
- What evidence does the author provide of his allegations?
- Considering that Clay eventually endorsed Adams publicly, and Adams later nominated Clay for the Secretary of State position, does that validate the accusations?
- Does the anonymous nature of the letter hurt its credibility?
Journal of the House (of Representatives), 3 February 1825
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj01844))
The SPEAKER [of the House of Representatives, Henry Clay] rose, and observed, that he requested the indulgence of the House for a few moments, while he asked its attention to a subject in which he himself deeply concerned. A note had appeared this morning in the National Intelligencer, under the name, and with the authority, as he presumed, of a member of the House from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kremer), which adopted as his own, a previous letter published in another print, containing serious and injurious imputations against him, and which the author avowed his readiness to substantiate by proof. These charges implicated his conduct in regard to the pending Presidential election; and the respectability of the station which the member holds, who thus openly refers them, and that of the people whom he represents, entitled them to grave attention. It might be, indeed, worthy of consideration, whether the character and dignity of the House itself, did not require a full investigation of them, and an impartial decision on their truth. For, if they were true; if he were capable and base enough, to betray the solemn trust which the constitution had confided in him; if, yielding to personal views and considerations, he could compromise the highest interests of this country, and the House would be scandalized by his continuance to occupy the chair with which he had been so long honored in presiding at its deliberations, and he merited instantaneous expulsion. Without, however, presuming to indicate what the House might conceive it out to do, on account of its own purity and honor, he hoped that he should be allowed, respectfully, to solicit, in behalf of himself, an inquiry into the truth of the charges to which he referred. Standing in the relations to the House, which both the member from Pennsylvania and himself did, it appeared to him, that here was the proper place to institute the inquiry, in order that, if guilty, here the proper punishment might be applied, and if innocent, that here his character and conduct may be vindicated. He anxiously hoped, therefore, that the House would be pleased to direct an investigation to be made into the truth of the charges. Emanating from the source which they did, this was the only notice which he could take of them. If the House should think proper to raise a committee, he trusted that some other than the ordinary mode pursued by the practice and rules of the House would be adopted to appoint the committee.
- What did Henry Clay call for when he spoke to the House of Representatives?
- Do his actions add weight to his credibility or do you think he had to take such action?
Henry Clay letter to Francis Brooke, 4 February 1825
Colton, Calvin, The works of Henry Clay: comprising his life, correspondence and speeches (1904), p. 113-114.
…I observe what you kindly tell me about the future cabinet. My dear sir, I want no office. When have I shown an avidity for office? In rejecting the mission to Russia, and the department of war under one administration? In rejecting the same department, the mission to England, or any other foreign mission under the succeeding administration? If Mr. Adams is elected, I know not who will be in his cabinet; I know not whether I shall be offered a place in it or not. If there should be an offer, I shall decide upon it, when it may be made according to my sense of duty. But do you not perceive that this denunciation of me, by anticipation, is a part of the common system between the discordant confederates which I have above described? Most certainly, if an office should be offered to me under the new administration, and I should be induced to think that I ought to accept it, I shall not be deterred from accepting it, either by the denunciations of open or secret enemies, or the hypocrisy of pretended friends.”
Questions
- By this point in time Clay has endorsed Adams for the presidency. Does his denial about being offered a position at this point seem credible?
- Clay says he hasn’t been offered a position, but still might be. Supposing that he is being truthful: should he still reject Adams’ offer when it comes because it looks bad?
Letter From George Kremer to Congress, 8 February 1825
Colton, Calvin, The life and times of Henry Clay (1846), p. 307-309.
I have received your note of yesterday, in which you inform me, that you will meet at 10 o’clock this morning, and will there be ready to receive any evidence, or explanation, I may have to offer, touching the charges referred to in the communication of the speaker of the 3rd inst. Placed under circumstances unprecedented, and which I believe not only interesting to myself, but important as connected with the fundamental principles of our government, I have reflected with much deliberation, on the course, which duty to myself and my constituents require me to adopt. The result of this reflection is, that I cannot, consistently with a proper regard to these duties assent to place myself before your committee…
I cannot perceive any principle of power in the constitution, which can give the house of representatives, and consequently a committee created by it, jurisdiction over me as the writer of that letter. It neither involves a question of contempt of the house, nor an impeachment of an officer of the government under the constitution; and I can discover no authority, by which the house can assume jurisdiction in the case…
Questions
- After Congressman Kremer admitted his authorship of the anonymous article, Clay called for a House committee to investigate. Kremer originally indicated he would be happy to testify before Congress, but then wrote this letter. What is his argument for not testifying?
- How does his argument impact his credibility the day before the House is to vote?
Fenster on Education 