We just came out of the War of 1812, which we noted the nickname for that war was the "Second War for Independence." It's a great moment of pride in the United States. It brought a great deal of nationalism in the United States. Brought forth, to a degree, a sense of unity that maybe we haven't seen in a while in the U.S. It brings about what we label as the "Era of Good Feelings" in the United States. Now arguably, some of these good feelings and optimism kind of cover up the fact that there are still problems within the United States. Problems that we've had since day one. So even though we come into this very prideful, this moment of good feelings and nationalism, this very optimistic time, those problems are still sitting right beneath the surface, right? These problems don't go away. They're sitting there beneath the surface and there are simmering problems that will ultimately erode out this "Era of Good Feelings." So as maybe we come in with a bang of nationalism and unity, we leave out with moments of sectionalism, fissures, divisions. We leave out on a moment called the "Corrupt Bargain of 1824." So we're going to talk about this kickoff of nationalism and we're going to talk about what erodes that nationalism out. This Era of Good Feelings is often associated with the man that you see pictured at the top right. It's associated with James Monroe. The election of 1816 is a national election following the War of 1812 and in this election of 1816, remember, we only see a one-party system. I mean, by technicality you do have remnants of a Federalist Party in 1816, but the Democratic- Republicans are going to sweep house in 1816. Democratic-Republicans, this is kind of a new name but it's not a new party. The Democratic-Republicans stem from the Republicans. Stem from the Republicans of Thomas Jefferson. They are supposed to favor a decentralized, small federal government. They are supposed to favor the states' rights over anything else, right? Just like the times of Thomas Jefferson. We merely call them Democratic- Republicans because they are to be more encompassing now that we're a one-party system. Open to all of this democracy in the United States. And here the Democratic-Republican nominee is in 1816 is James Monroe who wins this election by a landslide. Now when he wins, some people will question this victory because they're questioning what will be labeled as the "Virginia Dynasty." We've had, at this point in time in our history, five presidents. Okay, and of our five presidents four of them have all been from Virginia. So four out of our five presidents being from Virginia made some people question: is their potential corruption at play? I mean, George Washington was from Virginia, Jefferson was from Virginia, Madison was from Virginia, and now Monroe is from Virginia. Adams is the only one who wasn't. Adams was from Massachusetts. Okay, so how could this be? Is somehow Virginia more powerful than other states? How could this be? Is there something attributed to southern power within our presidential elections? Right, people were just kind of questioning this concept that maybe there's a passing down of our presidency, our power, through this state of Virginia. Okay, so they kind of mock at this Virginia dynasty, kind of like a succession of Kings maybe. Maybe now it's a requirement-- you have to be from Virginia to be president. Despite some of those criticisms, James Monroe will be an extremely popular president during his time. In fact, when he runs for reelection, and he wins his re-election, he wins with almost a unanimous vote. He was only missing one electoral vote. He was one vote away from getting a unanimous reelection. The only time we've seen unanimous election in our history was George Washington. Okay, so that says a lot about James Monroe. Okay, and a lot of popularity does come from this idea that he is bringing forth this Era of Good Feelings. He is bringing forth this optimism and nationalism. He is really unifying this country. One of the ways that he does this is what will... with... is what (excuse me) will be labeled the goodwill tour. The goodwill tour was essentially James Monroe traveling the United States. Traveling the United States for weeks. Traveling the United States meeting with the people, talking with the people, extending his hand to former Federalists [and] welcoming them to this new Democratic-Republican Party. I mean, he's going to do this for 15 weeks across the United States. So a lot of people [sought] thought that was great. I mean, they saw that as really positive that you had this president who's reaching out to everybody and this president who's willing to actually go out and show face with the public. Some will criticize this. Some will say that he HAD to tour the nation for 15 weeks. They'll say that he was homeless for 15 weeks, which is slightly true. Remember in the War of 1812, our British will be successful at getting to Washington D.C. They will be successful in burning the Executive Mansion. So following the War of 1812, this Executive Mansion is being rebuilt and repainted giving us the starts of our modern-day White House after the War of 1812. So, true, Monroe couldn't live in that mansion. He couldn't live in what will be the White House in about the 15 weeks it was taking to rebuild and repaint it. Either way, James Monroe is fostering new spirits. He's fostering out that nationalism from the War of 1812. People are proud to be Americans right now. Proud that yet again we challenged, we took on, Britain we show that nation, that Empire, what we were made of. Proud because under Monroe we see a great deal of industrial growth. Industry is starting to pick up in the United States. We'll talk about the Industrial Revolution going forward in this course, but right now you need to note that in our North manufacturing and production-- it's rising. Okay? Factories [and] mills they're rising. Now, they're not going to outpace agriculture yet. Eventually they will, but not yet. But these areas are areas of great wealth. Great profit to be made, especially in trade. So this industrial growth is showing an incline, an increase in our economy in the United States. This industrial growth is bringing new infrastructure to us, new means of transportation for us, it's bringing to us new ideas about power-- steam power-- during this time. Steam power, which can operate our factories, our machines. Steam power which can move our goods at faster rates. We'll also see under Monroe a great deal of expansion. More and more of Americans are moving in to that Louisiana Purchase. More and more Americans are moving west of that Mississippi River. Under Monroe we're going to see territories now applying for statehood. We'll also see a great deal of expansion under Monroe in terms of acquiring new territory. Under Monroe we're going to see the acquisition of Florida. Okay, so what's not to be proud of here? Victorious out of warfare, economy on the incline-- on the rise, expansion to new territories--new potentials, new resources under Monroe. Some will notice something, though, about this [Democratic-]Republican Party at this time. They'll make the comment that the [Democratic-]Republicans have "out federalized the Federalists." Remember, these Democratic- Republicans they're supposed to be small government. They're not supposed to be overreaching, they're not supposed to go beyond what the Constitution says they can. And yet, to attain what Monroe does, to attain a lot of that infrastructure in industry and expansion, it might necessitate going beyond some original Republican values. For instance, Monroe is going to charter the second National Bank in the United States. If you remember, that was one of the initial causes of creating the Republican Party. I mean, that's when Jefferson and Madison went storming in mad. "You can't create a National Bank! It's not in the Constitution to create a National Bank. That grows the power of the federal government." That was one of the contention points, but now here's a supposed Republican, this Democratic- Republican who's going to charter the second National Bank. Now with good reason he does this. The First National Bank, remember, was only chartered for 20 years. So during the War of 1812 the bank charter actually expires. I mean, during the War of 1812 we started operating without a centralized place of collecting money, collecting revenue without a centralized place of funding out currency and controlling rates-- inflation versus deflation. What that caused was a lot of economic instability during wartime. So it showed to Monroe that there is great value in a National Bank. It showed to Monroe that you do need a place, a centralized place, of revenue. You do need a centralized place of currency, a centralized place of controlling out funding that that does make for a healthier, more sound United States. Okay, especially economically. So, despite maybe not being an original Republican value, Monroe charters the second National Bank, something that was once very Federalist in ideology. Monroe in order to maintain good economics and a healthy economy he is also going to promote infrastructure in our country. Infrastructure through building of canals. We're going to see a lot of promotion of canal building-- movement of transportation through water. Monroe will also advocate for infrastructure via road systems. Monroe is going to advocate for the National Road in the United States. The National Road initially was to run between Virginia and Maryland. It will eventually be carried out to Illinois. Okay, well this is great. I mean, because again this is going to improve efficiency for transportation which means efficiency of moving your products which will then also mean potentially cheaper products to market. Okay, so while there's a lot of positives, this National Road will be placed inside of states. The National Road, funded by the federal government, now inside of states. So, who decides where the road goes? Does the state get to decide or does the federal government get to decide? What this was calling into question, again, is the Republicans were supposed to give weight to the state OVER the federal government... but here in instances like these the federal government is now reaching into the state. Okay, so again calling in some questionable values for this Democratic- Republican Party. There will also be some questions as far as expansion under Monroe. Quite problematic under Monroe was this territory of Florida. Okay, remember Florida is owned by Spain. This is Spanish Florida. Now when we've talked about Spain and its North American colonies, we've noted that they've had weak holdings because majority of their population in these North American colonies were often Native Americans, not Spanish. So in Florida, you have a high population of Natives and what these Natives would do is they would cross out of Florida, cross out of Florida into U.S. territory, and they would start attacking the United States. They'd wreak havoc, chaos, in the United States and then after they were done attacking in they would rush back into Spanish Florida. Hop that border. The United States couldn't go after them. They couldn't cross into Spanish territory, so there was nothing they could do about these Native attacks and it was becoming a pretty pesky problem. So Monroe corresponded with Spain and Monroe told Spain either you control your Native populations or we [the U.S.] will. You know, either you regulate these Native Americans who are attacking our country or we'll do it for you. The Native Americans out of Spanish Florida continue to attack the United States. So correspondence is now sent from Monroe's administration to Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson, remember our war hero of the War of 1812. Andrew Jackson who had been taking those Native Americans out during the War of 1812. Jackson who we said loathes the Native Americans. So Jackson is informed to take troops into Spanish Florida and to stop the Native attacks. To go into Spanish Florida and to suppress the Native American population. Now this correspondence says nothing about attacking Spain itself. Nothing about seizing the Spanish territory. It is merely to stop these Native Americans from attacking the U.S. But it's been proposed that Jackson kind of reads this correspondence with kind of this "hint- hint, wink-wink" mentality. You know, "hint hint, wink-wink" "only" go in and "stop the Natives." But only going to "stop the Natives," "don't" take Spanish Florida. Oh yeah, hint-hint "don't" go after the Spanish government. Got it. Its proposed as if he almost read the correspondence to inform him not only go in and stop those Native Americans, but just go in and take Spanish Florida. Just go in and seize it. So Jackson takes the troops and he goes into Spanish Florida and he stops the Native attacks-- he suppresses the Native American population-- but he also then goes on to capture Pensacola, which was the capital of Spanish Florida. He goes in to seize Spanish Florida. He takes it. Takes it and he sends correspondence to the U.S. government. Sends correspondence basically saying I did it-- suppressed the Natives just like you wanted and I took Spanish Florida just like you wanted. Which was not what they wanted and it infuriated quite a few people in Monroe's administration. First and foremost, it infuriates the current Secretary of War and that Secretary of War was John C. Calhoun. It's important to know that name because we'll talk about him quite a bit throughout this course. John C. Calhoun would like to see Andrew Jackson severely punished under federal law. Right, Calhoun's reflecting that-- now we don't know what this is going to cause. I mean, Jackson just went in and took out territory from another empire. You know, what are the ramifications for this? Is this going to be war now? So Calhoun wants Jackson severely punished. Now, your current Secretary of State is John Quincy Adams. The "Quincy" part is important because he is the son of our former President John Adams. So it's important to differentiate the two. But, John Quincy Adams he is the current Secretary of State and he takes a different perspective than Calhoun. John Quincy Adams kind of takes the mentality: let's not cry over spilled milk. Right? I mean, he basically says what's done is done. Jackson's already done it, so now that he's already done it we might as well just formalize it. We might as well just officially take Florida, get it in the paperwork and move on, but there's no point in crying about this. There's no point arguing about this. It's done. So under Monroe's administration, John Quincy Adams will create the Adams-Onís Treaty in 1819. The Adams-Onís Treaty, which officially gives Florida to the United States-- will officially give Florida to the United States in exchange for forgiving Spanish debts that were owed to the United States. Debts, in terms of trade between Spain in the U.S. That's in terms of destruction caused by the Native Americans on behalf of Spain. Okay, so we forgive Spanish debts and in return we get Florida. A great expansion here. So even though some people are criticizing, "Oh these Republicans are out federalizing the Federalists," at the same time, between this National Bank, between this new infrastructure of road systems, between this expansion into Florida, right? People are very prideful in these changes. Prideful because our economy is doing good. Prideful because of our, you know, show a force against other nations, new resources for us. Really prideful under Monroe in 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine. The bottom right depiction on the slide is essentially showing you, kind of through political cartoon, what the Monroe Doctrine does. Happening by the 1820s is a great overthrow of much of the Spanish Empire. Spain's Empire in the 1820s is crumbling, at least in terms of the New World. Arguably, what happens in the 1820s is many of your Latin American-- your modern-day Latin American countries--many of them were beginning to breed out their own nationalism. And you can argue that nationalism creates nations. Okay, so for example, coming into our 1820s you're going to see places like Mexico, you're going to see places like Brazil, you're going to see places like Ecuador, places like Peru, all places that were once under the Spanish Empire but who, by the 1820s, start to realize, "We're not Spanish, we're something different from the Spanish. We have different ideas of politics, we have different types of cultures and customs, we even have different variations of language." So a lot of these places like let's say Mexico, for example, started to say, "We're not Spanish but we're Mexican and we're proud to be Mexican and we want a Mexico that is ruled by Mexicans, not by Spain." Right? Same in places like Peru. They found themselves to be uniquely Peruvian and they wanted a Peru that was for Peruvians not under Spain. So out of that nationalism of being something different, they start to rally their numbers and they overthrow the Spanish Empire. Well the fear for the United States is, what does that mean for the future of these brand-new countries? I mean, what's to stop Spain from recolonizing or what's to stop Britain... from this brand-new Mexico coming into fruition...what's to stop Britain from now going in and conquering it? Or maybe France? And if there is reconquering, if there are these European powers coming in and now taking over the freshly overthrown Spanish locations, what would that mean for the United States? So let's take Britain, for example, right, Britain we know is in modern-day Canada. Well now, what if Britain comes in and does take Mexico? Now Britain is becoming this vast empire surrounding the United States. So what's to stop Britain from that strength of potentially taking over the U.S. Okay, so the U.S. has a lot of fears as Spain's Empire is crumbling. So the Monroe Doctrine basically says that if a European power is overthrown in the New World that they cannot recolonize that. The Western Hemisphere is off-limits to European powers. Okay, if they're [European country] already there, right? If they already have a colony, that's fine. That's one thing, but you can't take anymore. You can't recolonize what you've lost. You can't come in and colonize what another has lost. If a European power is overthrown and [now] a free, independent, new nation is created, that needs to be respected. Okay, that western hemisphere is off-limits. It also wants the respect that the United States, and many of the Western Hemisphere countries, that they have a different type of government. A different type of democracy and that's something to be respected, not something to be altered by the European powers. This doctrine will also establish that if a European power attempts to recolonize anywhere in this New World, in this Western Hemisphere, that the United States will see that as an act of aggression. Alright, that means if Britain decides to try to conquer Mexico, the United States will see that as an act of aggression. An act of aggression means an act of war. So if Britain tries to colonize Mexico, the United States will take that as an act of war against the United States. But think about what that means. That means that any recolonization effort on behalf of a European power is going to result in the United States going to war with those powers. That's why the political cartoon shows this line. This basically invisible line that's telling your European powers that you stay over there and we'll stay over here. Right? The Monroe Doctrine says you can take care of your business on that side of the globe and we'll take care of our business on this side of the globe. For a lot of Americans this is a great show of pride for the United States because we kind of puffed our chests at the world. I mean, we're establishing for other countries exactly how this Western Hemisphere is gonna be. Okay, so a lot of people take pride in that. Great American moment. Monroe showed [the] strength of the United States. But again, despite our unity and pride-- our nationalism under Monroe-- problems that we've long had in the United States are still sitting there. And just as that unity is being created, sectionalism will rear its ugly head in. One thing that causes sectionalism is the Panic of 1819. The Panic of 1819 is a financial panic in the United States. The financial panic due, largely, to the textile industry. Going to be a drop in our textile industries, a drop in terms of market of our textile industries. Drop in market due to a lot of foreign competition in the textile industries. The problem when there's a drop in certain markets is that a lot of banks have investments in those markets. A lot of banks give loans to those markets and now those loans will be defaulted on. When there's a default on these loans, it causes the banks to lose money. Banks will start to go under. So this textile industry is going to affect businesses. Businesses and textile, job loss in those industries. It's also going to affect farmers. Farmers who are growing the crops for those textile industries. And then it's going to affect us overall because our banks now can't maintain. Okay, so there's this huge financial panic then in the United States. So a lot of our Americans are going to look to our National Bank and they're going to ask for help. They're gonna look to the second National Bank for assistance, for a bailout. The second National Bank will only bail out the industries of the Northeast. They will not bail out farmers. So if you live in the Northeast, if you're in the industries of the Northeast, you quite like the National Bank. You think the National Bank is good. The National Bank helped you pulled you out of the Panic of 1819. If you're a southerner or a westerner, right a farmer of these regions, you don't quite like the National Bank. You will actually blame the National Bank for the Panic of 1819. You will blame it for the plight that you are sitting in from the Panic of 1819 because that Bank didn't assist you. So we see a great deal of sectionalism during the supposed Era of Good Feelings because we are now seeing divisions over ideas of economics, ideas of finances, ideas of banking. We'll also, of course, see sectionalism over issues of slavery. That institution that just keeps rearing up problems since day one. Issues of slavery due to that lovely Louisiana Purchase back in 1803. As noted, many Americans are moving into that Louisiana territory. So a lot of territories within this purchased area, they're going to have the numbers to start applying for statehood. For example, in 1819 Missouri, the territory of Missouri, will have 60,000 people. 60,000 people means it has enough population to apply for statehood. Great! Fantastic! All Missouri has to do is create a state constitution, get the state constitution approved by the government, and Missouri becomes a state in the U.S. Slight problem. When Missouri sends off its state constitution, Missouri is applying to become a slave state. A slave state in which we have been working so hard to balance out our free states versus our slave states. Keep everybody completely equal, keep the balance of powers within our House of Reps. equal between free versus slave states. Balance of powers in our Senate between free versus slave states. Try to tiptoe around slavery to keep everybody happy. But now, here comes Missouri to tip the balance. Prior, we never really had this problem because of the use of the Mason-Dixon line, which you can see in that top right graphic on your screen. The Mason-Dixon line gets its name from two surveyors-- one named Mason and one named Dixon-- and these two surveyors Mason and Dixon they were hired to figure out where the boundaries were between Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. There were disputes over where Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware began and ended. So Mason and Dixon come out and they basically create the red line you see in the graphic. Okay, they create out this Mason-Dixon line which officially establishes the boundaries between those three states. Okay, that's all the line was. But, what the line will be come to be used for is to divide out between the North and the South. Everything that was North of that Mason-Dixon line were free states, everything that was South of that Mason-Dixon line were slave states. Okay, so in our graphic below, everything that is in green that is North of the Mason-Dixon line. And everything that is blue is South of the Mason-Dixon line. Okay, so as long as we abided by that Mason-Dixon line every time we got a new state, all we had to determine is if it's North of the line-- it's free-- if it's South of the line its slave. And that worked! Okay, that worked until you hit that Mississippi River because the line doesn't carry out beyond the Mississippi River. And if it did carry out beyond the Mississippi River, it would cut THROUGH this future state of Missouri. So then, how do you decide Missouri? How do you decide when the Mason-Dixon line no longer tells you North from South, free from slave? This causes quite the tizzy in our government. Quite the heated controversy in our government. We have got representatives now storming in from both sides declaring out that Missouri should be free, or Missouri should be slave. You have northern representatives who are saying that if Missouri goes slave that the north will secede. You have southern states coming in saying if Missouri goes free the south will secede. We are having threats of secession from both sides in 1819. Okay, 1819, threats of secession over slavery. So we've got to pacify this thing. We've got to calm people down. So what's proposed initially is the Tallmadge amendment. The Tallmadge amendment is proposed by one of our representatives, Representative James Tallmadge. He's from New York, so that should tell you something about where this policy will go. What representative Tallmadge says in his amendment is that Missouri can be a slave state. Okay, that's what this amendment is going to allow. It can be a slave state. It wants to be a slave state, so fine that's what it will be. But, you cannot attain any more slaves than what you already possess in Missouri. So you can have what you have, but you can't import in any more slaves. Additionally, under this amendment it will also establish that when any of your slaves reach the age of 25 you must free those slaves. So you can be a slave state and you can have the slaves that you have now, but you cannot import any more slaves in and you must free your slaves when they hit the age of 25. Essentially, if you reflect on what this means, eventually Missouri would become a free state. As you can imagine, the Tallmadge amendment does not pass. It doesn't pass because many of your southerners are outraged by this amendment. They're going to question the constitutionality of this. Question of constitutionality because the Constitution protects their right to property. So this amendment essentially would go against their constitutional right to the property of slavery, because they wouldn't have the right to purchase in more property and they wouldn't have the right to maintain that property for the lifetime of its value. They're going to have to lose their property when it hits 25. Okay, so our southerners get just as outraged by this. Our southerners are still now threatening that secession if this Tallmadge amendment passes. What ultimately saves the day is the compromise proposed by our "Great Compromiser." That is his nickname in U.S. history-- the Great Compromiser. This great compromiser is Henry Clay. Henry Clay will serve within the House of Representatives--he is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That's something to note for going forward here. And Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, he wants to resolve this conflict over Missouri. So he creates this Missouri Compromise of 1820, which states this: Missouri will be a slave state. Missouri will be a slave state, okay? Missouri wants to be slave, so if it wants to be slave it can be. But, at the same time that this compromise admits Missouri as a slave state, it will also admit Maine as a free state, okay? So Maine used to be a part of Massachusetts, but now we're going to separate out Maine as its own state and Maine will be free. Okay, so great because now this compromise is keeping the balance. Yes you get a new slave state, but you're also getting a new free state. Okay, so everything's still equal under this compromise. Now while that might resolve the issue of Missouri, Clay is recognizing... I mean, look look at all the rest of this Louisiana territory [and] think about all the other states we're going to have in our future. So great we will resolve Missouri today, but tomorrow it'll just be another state. The day after that another. So he wants to fix all of this, right? He wants to decide now for the entirety of this territory what these future states will be. So the Missouri Compromise also provides a 36° 30′ line. You can see that on our map at the bottom. It's that red line running across the United States. The 36° 30′ line is the southern boundary to Missouri. What is stated in this compromise is that anything that is north of the 36° 30′ line... anything that is north of the 36° 30′ line, with the exception of Missouri, anything north will be a free state. So it doesn't matter when this state applies, it doesn't matter maybe what this state might request, if it is north of the 36° 30' it is to be free. If a future state is south of the 36° 30′ line, it will be slave [slave state]. Okay, so note, Missouri Compromise it pacifies things in 1820. It appeases people in 1820. And while people celebrate that things are pacified and things are coming to a calm, again, I need you to look at the size of that Louisiana territory. I need you to look at where that 36° 30′ line is drawn, because there is a lot more territory north of that 36° 30′ line than there is south of that 36° 30′ line which means that in the future many, largely southerners, are going to be upset about that 36° 30′ line policy. Which means that even though the Missouri Compromise works for now, it is a TEMPORARY solution Missouri Compromise of 1820 is a TEMPORARY solution to a much bigger problem. Our fissures within the nation only get worse. And what officially erodes out our Era of Good Feelings, what officially brings it to a close, is the election of 1824. Now the election of 1824, mind you, we are still a one-party system. It's all we have. One party-- the Democratic- Republicans. That's it. Even though we only have one party, we're going to have four candidates in 1824 who are all Democratic-Republicans now challenging each other to become president. Okay, so a one party system does not resolve having multiple candidates going against each other. And even though you only have one party, these four different candidates will show you that the interpretation of what this one party stands for is much more complex than you might think. We're going to see that even though this one party should have one set of values, that you can interpret those values in a variety of ways. Okay, so one of our candidates in 1824 is William Crawford. William Crawford is expected to win the election of 1824. He is the favorite of 1824. William Crawford has a great deal of experience. He is the former Secretary of Treasury in the United States. He hails from the state of Georgia, so he gets a lot of favor from your South and he is a huge states' rights advocate. So [that's] something else that your South will really like. They'll like that he's a states' rights advocate, because that means the federal government won't intervene in the states which, for your southerners, means the federal government won't intervene on behalf of slavery. Alright, so Crawford [he is a] very experienced politician and Crawford is expected to win this election. Crawford is going to go up against men like Henry Clay. Henry Clay, again, great deal of experience. Henry Clay is our current Speaker of the House. Henry Clay is becoming our Great Compromiser. He helps to calm this nation. Calm this nation through the Missouri Compromise of 1820. And Henry Clay, in 1824, is advocating for what is labeled the "American System." Alright, so here's where [chuckles] we see the kind of ambiguities of the Democratic-Republicans. Crawford is advocating for small government [and] states rights emphasis. And Clay is going to come in and his American System advocates for big government. Sis American system advocates for tariffs, infrastructure, National Bank. Okay, so two men, same party with totally different ideas of government. But Henry Clay, again, very experienced just like Crawford. They are both challenging men like John Quincy Adams. John Quincy Adams-- famous name. Son of a former president. John Quincy Adams very experienced as well. Adams, we've noted, is the former Secretary of State under the very popular Monroe and as a former Secretary of State he is largely credited with getting Florida for the United States. Okay, so here again popular, well-known face and very experienced. Now each of these men as we're emphasizing their political experience, the last competitor in our election of 1824 he is probably the least politically experienced. The last of our competitors is Andrew Jackson. Alright, he's got a little bit of political experience. He served as a territorial governor in Florida but not quite this experience like Crawford, a former Secretary of Treasury, or Clay, the Speaker of the House, or Adams, a former Secretary of State. I mean, Jackson's essentially a newbie on the political scene. Really what Jackson holds is military experience. Really what he holds is that he's a face. He's a face people know. He's a war hero and that's about it. So if you were to look on paper between these candidates you might automatically weed Jackson out. Right? Because he just doesn't quite have the résumé that the other three do. But interestingly enough, in the election of 1824, if you look at our graphs and our charts that are on the slide there you will notice that who receives the mo... most votes is Andrew Jackson. Right, if you look at our pie graph, Jackson's represented in red. And if you look at our chart, Jackson is at the top in gold. Jackson receives, right the least politically experience Jackson, receives the most votes in 1824. Now, I keep emphasizing the word "MOST" votes because there is a difference between the word "most" and the word "majority." Jackson receives the MOST votes. He receives more than anybody else, but he does not receive MAJORITY of the votes. He does not receive MAJORITY of the electoral college votes. And for the first time in this election, we have a recorded popular vote and, although he gets the most of the popular vote-- our first recorded popular vote, he does not get MAJORITY of the popular vote. Okay, obviously in reflecting in that pie graph, if he had majority he would have to have over 50% and he doesn't. He only has 41.3%. If he were to have majority of the electoral college vote, which he doesn't cause seen here he only has 99 okay, and if he was to have majority of the Electoral College vote he should have had 131 of the electoral college votes. Right? He doesn't get a 131, he gets 99. So he gets the most-- he gets more than anybody else-- but he doesn't get majority. So per our Constitution, if there is no majority then the presidential election goes to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives gets to choose who becomes president. Right, out of these candidates now, Crawford will be out of the running completely because Crawford actually suffers a stroke in 1824. A stroke that causes paralysis and blindness. So a lot of people question his capability to be president at that time. In fact, Crawford will die in just about a decade's time from this election. Henry Clay is not necessarily in the running because Henry Clay didn't even come in third place in the election of 1824. So really when the vote goes before the House of Representatives, the choice is between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. Don't forget who the Speaker of the House is. The Speaker of the House is one of our presidential candidates. The Speaker of the House is Henry Clay. Alright so as legend holds it... okay, as legend holds it Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, goes to John Quincy Adams and he basically conveys to John Quincy Adams "I can win you this presidency." I can win you this presidency by swaying the House of Representatives, but "if I win you this presidency you need to give me a cabinet position," you need to give me a position in your presidential cabinet--one of your advisors. Alright, this is legend. Legend because this isn't on paper. There's nothing that we can really look to to verify with 110 percent certainty that this negotiation went down. But here's how the election does play out: the House of Representatives will elect John Quincy Adams as President. John Quincy Adams becomes president in 1824 because of the House of Representatives. And when John Quincy Adams is elected president, because of the House of Representatives, guess who gets a cabinet position? Henry Clay. And Henry Clay doesn't just get any cabinet position. Henry Clay gets Secretary of State, which arguably is one of the most important positions in the cabinet. Right, at this time a lot of people thought if you were Secretary of State you were next in line to be President. So John Quincy Adams gets the presidency and Clay becomes Secretary of State. So yeah, it's a legend, but could it be true.? Maybe. Who definitely thinks that this bargain went down is Andrew Jackson, because Andrew Jackson's looking at the numbers and he's looking at this House of Representatives saying the people wanted me! Right. I got most of the electoral college vote. I got most of the popular vote. How are you gonna choose Adams when most of the people already chose me? I should be the victor of 1824. So Jackson does not respect this decision in 1824. He says that this is not a democratic election. He says this election in 1824 was a "Corrupt Bargain." This was the Corrupt Bargain of 1824. Andrew Jackson is furious in 1824. Furious with the corruption of this federal government, so Andrew Jackson isn't done yet. Andrew Jackson's going to come back. He's going to come back with a vengeance. He's going to come back in the election of 1828 and he's gonna win the election of 1828. He's coming out for blood in 1828. It will be a showdown between him and John Quincy Adams yet again and, unfortunately for John Quincy Adams, the supposed Corrupt Bargain of 1824 is the nail in the coffin for his presidency. It actually greatly hinders his political career as well as Henry Clay's political career. So this Corrupt Bargain is yet another way in which this Era of Good Feelings is sort of going out the door. We're seeing again the risings of new sectionalism, we're now seeing questions of our federal government-- its policies, its corruption... we're breeding for a new era in the United States what will be labeled by 1828 the "Jacksonian Era" in the United States.