I Wish I’d been there Question 2: Corrupt Bargain The Americans termed the election done in 1824 to be a ˜Corrupt Bargain’ due to a series of events that took place in that period. The election that was done in 1824 manifested the ultimate fall of the Republican-Federalist political model. It was the first time that there was no Federalist candidate, with five candidates who run as Democratic-Republicans. It is vivid that no single party model was present in that year. The recognized candidate that stood in for the Candidate-Republicans Monroe was William Crawford, who was the secretary to the treasury. A section of Republicans had chosen him to the candidature, though his support came out to be liability since other candidates opted for a more clear process for choosing the candidate to represent them. The result of the tight election took many political heavy weights by surprise. The one who came out on top was Andrew Jackson, the star of the 1812 war with 99 votes. The person who came second was John Quincy, the son to the second president with 84 votes. On the other hand, Crawford was the last with 41 votes (Hollinshead). Taking to fact that Jackson had scooped the lead, he did not have the popular vote by getting 43% alongside 30% for Adams, he would hence not occupy the presidency. Since no one had met the threshold of leadership in the country, something had to be done so as to resolve the case in point. Considering that no one had acquired the majority votes electoral center, the House of Representatives was forced to select from the two leading candidates. Henry Clay, who was the speaker of House at the time, was in a vital seat. Taking to fact that he was one of the candidates contesting for the presidency in 1824 and came fourth overall, Clay was on the fore front in most of the attacks that he received. As opposed to see the nation be led by a person that he did not want and like, the Kentuckian Clay joined forces with Ohio Valley-New England which would make John Quincy get to the white house. On the other hand, Adams chose Clay as his secretary of state, a spot that had been initially for propelling one to presidency. This form of organization, conversely, did not prove to be of any help for both Adams and Clay. The coalition that was formed between them was what was termed to as a œCorrupt Bargain by the ones backing Jackson, the fierce presidential race started prior to Adams becoming the president (Hollinshead). According to those that supported Jackson, the coalition that was formed by Adams and Clay was a sign of a corrupt regime which only the leading persons went after their selfish desires with no consideration for the will of the mass or most voters. The supporters to Jackson, quite frankly, overstated their state; genuinely Jackson did meet the majority that was needed for a presidential candidate to take up office, according to the 1824 election. On the other hand, when Adams while in office went on to favor a rigid federal responsibility in economic advancement, the supporters to Jackson criticized their political foes as making use of government favors so as to offer as incentives their close allies and economic leaders. Quite conversely, Jackson offered himself as a leader of the person on the ground, the one who stood for their rights and its through doing this that he was able to democratize American politics. Question 7: Western Expansion The northerners and southerners took strong stance against the matter of inclusion of slavery to the west of the region this was due to a number of reasons. In the start of the nineteenth century, a good size of the white Northerners and Southerners were in consensus that the Western territories ought to be occupied by Americans, and that the choice of shifting Indians to reservations and using their land to settle the white settlers was God’s strategy or the country’s call (Hollinshead). This aspect showed the optimism and desire of Americans, in the North and South, who shifted west looking for improved living. However, stiff contrasts shown with regard to the rising society that was formed to the west if it would be free from slavery. The period that the US took control of a number of lands in the Mexico War, the issue that rose was the manner that slavery would be handled in the newly acquired lands, being a center of keen focus. This made the made to the creation of an anti-slavery politics: œfree soil where people, commonly from the north, were not in consensus with the growth of the slavery in the western regions. Southerners saw free soil as a risky doctrine basically due to the more autonomous states that were included to the Union, the more inadequate slave states’ representation in the Congress would be. Southerners were of the opinion that if they were limited in number in the Congress, policies would be passed that would put an end to slavery in the South, taking to fact that soilers stated that this was not part of what they were after. A good number of Southerners were similarly not in agreement with the choice of policy of popular autonomy, where the individuals that settled in the lands to the west would be given consent to choose for themselves if their new region could allow slavery or turn it down. Congress on the other hand aimed to set up the common sovereignty as the law that would be followed in line with the compromise of 1850, structured and allowed with the help of senators. The creation of the sculpture of Daniel Webster by Thomas Ball was a sign of the popularity due to the high number of sales that it acquired from the northerners. This was similar to the sculpture of Stephen Douglas as was done by Louis. Experiments with popular sovereignty undertaken in Kansas proved to a good number of people in the South that the farmers that do not have slaves would develop quite fast and grow in the new regions (Hollinshead). As a result, southerner started to impress upon the congress to allow laws to safeguard slavery to the west of the country. A good number of northerners similarly were not in consensus with the popular sovereignty since it was part of what they attribute to as being œslave power conspiracy. They were of the opinion that the persons with slaves were given a due advantage over Free states politicians to safeguard the slaveholders, though it did not accord the white settlers respect. Surely, rejection to the popular sovereignty managed free soil Northerners to acquire the Republican Party in 1854 so as to complain on the addition of slavery into the west. Work Cited Hollinshead, Byron. I Wish I’d been there. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2007 Print.