Election of 1824 (The Hearse at Monticello)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:10:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Election of 1824 (The Hearse at Monticello)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: For President and Vice President
#1
Secretary of State John Q. Adams (DR-MA)/ Senator Andrew Jackson (DR-TN)
 
#2
Secretary of War John C. Calhoun (DR-SC)/ Senator Andrew Jackson (DR-TN)
 
#3
Senator Henry Clay (DR-KY)/ Attorney General Nathan Sanford (DR-NY)
 
#4
Senator William H. Crawford (DR-GA)/ Senator Martin Van Buren (DR-NY)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 27

Author Topic: Election of 1824 (The Hearse at Monticello)  (Read 2115 times)
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 27, 2015, 04:53:17 PM »

Reelected by a hair in the election of 1820, President Clinton had very little political capital to expend throughout his second term. Though Congress agreed to continue funding his internal improvements and enacted a new tariff in 1824, as the end of the Clinton Administration approaches most of the country is more interested in the brewing presidential election than in the policy proposals of the incumbent.
Strained by the divisive election of 1820 and the dissolution of the Federalist Party, the partisan structure built by the likes of Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison has collapsed. With sectional loyalties having replaced the ideological divisions of old, four candidates have presented themselves as serious contenders for the presidency. The first and most famed is John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State under both Madison and Clinton and the driving force behind the newly-announced "Clinton Doctrine". By far the most experienced statesman in the United States, Adams has the backing of former Federalists and so-called "National Republicans" who was to see the Clintonian system of internal improvements continued. Closest to Adams ideologically is Senator (and former Vice President) Henry Clay, whose nationalistic outlook and western pedigree make him a strong candidate to unite the North and West. Then there is Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, candidate of the Southern states, who has tempered his nationalistic rhetoric to appeal to Southerners opposed to further tariffs which, they feel, unfairly discriminate against the South. "Old Guard" Republicans who supported John Randolph four years ago are backing William H. Crawford, but rumors of ill health have decreased his chances of winning the election outright.
The fate of the republic rests in your hands. Two days.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2015, 04:56:57 PM »

JQA
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2015, 05:52:27 PM »

Reluctantly Crawford, JQA is simply too elitist for my tastes...and the other two are just despicable.

Also Van Buren > Jackson
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2015, 06:08:32 PM »

The only man qualified for the job: John Quincy Adams.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2015, 06:10:41 PM »

Crawford/Buren
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2015, 06:24:38 PM »

The only man qualified for the job: John Quincy Adams.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2015, 06:30:33 PM »

Calhoun/Jackson (D)
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2015, 07:50:03 PM »

Clay/Sanford!
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 01:48:37 PM »

I really don't get why the Federalist Party would have dissolved in this timeline, having won the elections of 1812 and 1820.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 04:05:55 PM »
« Edited: January 28, 2015, 04:23:29 PM by Harry S Truman »

I really don't get why the Federalist Party would have dissolved in this timeline, having won the elections of 1812 and 1820.

The Federalists have been treading a path similar to that of the OTL Whigs for some time now: playing the role of the anti-Republicans rather than building up their base, failing to foster a new generation of leaders, relying on a handful of popular figures (one might call Marshall the Henry Clay of alternate history) to keep the party alive. Yes, they won in 1812, but that was against a remarkably weak Republican candidate running in the shadow of an unpopular administration (and I might add that, four years later, they were swept out of office by one of the biggest landslides to date). The fact that their nominee in the last election wasn't even a member of the party says it all: the Federalists have nothing more to contribute to American government. With their catastrophic defeats in the 1818 and 1822 Midterms, the few elected Federalists remaining in office slipped into the Republican fold, where they formed alliances with the "National" Republicans led by Adams and Clay.

List of Federalist Presidential Tickets
1796: John Adams/ Thomas Pinckney (F) 22% popular votes [LOST]
1800: Alexander Hamilton/ Charles C. Pinckney (F) 32% [LOST]
1804: John Marshall/ John Jay (F) 25% [LOST]
1808: John Marshall/ Rufus King (F) 48% [LOST]
1812: John Marshall/ DeWitt Clinton (F/DR) 74% [WON]
1816: John Marshall/ John E. Howard (F) 39% [LOST]
1820: Unpledged Electors (F) 13% [LOST]*
*Voted for DeWitt Clinton (I), who narrowly won.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 11:25:33 PM »
« Edited: January 28, 2015, 11:42:45 PM by Harry S Truman »

1824 Presidential Election


*New York (Adams 20; Crawford 14; Clay 2)  Maryland (Adams 9; Crawford 2)  Louisiana (Adams 2; Crawford 3)

Secretary of State John Q. Adams (Massachusetts)/ Senator Andrew Jackson (Tennessee): 93 Electoral Votes; 40.7% popular votes
Senator William H. Crawford (Georgia)/ Senator Martin Van Buren (New York): 91 Electoral Votes; 33.3% popular votes
Senator Henry Clay (Kentucky)/ Attorney General Nathan Sanford (New York): 40 Electoral Votes; 18.5% popular votes
Senator John C. Calhoun (South Carolina)/ Senator Andrew Jackson (Tennessee): 37 Electoral Votes; 7.4% popular votes

With four strong candidates vying for the presidency, few were surprised when the electoral college vote ended in a draw. Though Secretary of State John Q. Adams won a plurality of the popular vote, he fell short of the 131 electoral votes needed to win the election. The race was therefore thrown to the House of Representatives, where Adams, Crawford, and Clay would compete for the right to become the nation’s next president.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2015, 01:34:28 PM »

I really don't get why the Federalist Party would have dissolved in this timeline, having won the elections of 1812 and 1820.

The Federalists have been treading a path similar to that of the OTL Whigs for some time now: playing the role of the anti-Republicans rather than building up their base, failing to foster a new generation of leaders, relying on a handful of popular figures (one might call Marshall the Henry Clay of alternate history) to keep the party alive. Yes, they won in 1812, but that was against a remarkably weak Republican candidate running in the shadow of an unpopular administration (and I might add that, four years later, they were swept out of office by one of the biggest landslides to date). The fact that their nominee in the last election wasn't even a member of the party says it all: the Federalists have nothing more to contribute to American government. With their catastrophic defeats in the 1818 and 1822 Midterms, the few elected Federalists remaining in office slipped into the Republican fold, where they formed alliances with the "National" Republicans led by Adams and Clay.

List of Federalist Presidential Tickets
1796: John Adams/ Thomas Pinckney (F) 22% popular votes [LOST]
1800: Alexander Hamilton/ Charles C. Pinckney (F) 32% [LOST]
1804: John Marshall/ John Jay (F) 25% [LOST]
1808: John Marshall/ Rufus King (F) 48% [LOST]
1812: John Marshall/ DeWitt Clinton (F/DR) 74% [WON]
1816: John Marshall/ John E. Howard (F) 39% [LOST]
1820: Unpledged Electors (F) 13% [LOST]*
*Voted for DeWitt Clinton (I), who narrowly won.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 14 queries.