his signature at the last moment. It has miscalculated on both grounds. The Clay party will gain nothing on the Bank question in this State [Pennsylvania] and will lose elsewhere. Attachment to a large monied corporation is not a popular attribute. The feeling of common minds is against Mr. Clay." 83 McLean himself expressed this opinion: "I do not believe that the veto will lose the general the vote of any State; and his election, I consider, as certain as any future event can be. His opponent will fall below the last vote of Mr. Adams." 84

85

The election returns fulfilled these prophecies excepting only as to Pennsylvania and Kentucky. The result was a victory for Jackson by an electoral vote unequalled, when two or more parties participated, since the days of Washington. Wirt and Ellmaker obtained only the seven votes of Vermont. Clay and Sergeant received the entire vote of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware and Kentucky, and five from Maryland—a total of 49. Excepting South Carolina's, Jackson received every remaining electoral vote save two not cast in Maryland, a total of 219 of the 288 in the electoral college. Van Buren did nearly as well; he received the same electoral vote as did Jackson less the 30 votes of Pennsylvania which went to Wilkins. In South Carolina and Delaware presidential electors were still appointed by the legislature. Since the nullificationists wholly controlled the former State, it is not strange that its II votes went to Calhoun's friend, John Floyd of Virginia. The popular vote defies exact calculation. Based on the returns given in Niles' Register, probably the most accurate source available, and supplemented by conservative estimates, based on the individual State's population, its general attitude toward the candidates and the issues, and on such figures for

83 Richard to McLean, July 19, 1832; cf. ibid., October 25, 1832, McLean MSS.

84 McLean to Robert Walsh, July 29, 1832, McLean MSS. 85 This was due to the illness of two electors.

86 See table, Appendix IV.

local elections as can be found, it is a safe statement that of the popular vote Jackson received about 661,000, Clay about 454,000 and Wirt about 100,000. It is therefore approximately correct to estimate Jackson's majority at 100,000,87 though this is some 30,000 less than Stanwood's somewhat erroneous tabulation,88

The National Republican and Antimasonic opposition to Jackson owed its defeat primarily to the popularity with the larger part of the electorate of Jackson's measures, the latter based on his intuitive perception of the will of the masses, reinforced by his personal popularity on the one hand, and to the alliance of West and South, fortified by New York, on the other hand. Jackson's policy was sufficiently acceptable to the particularistic South to hold all of it loyal to him except the nullifiers, and his strict construction attitude toward the Bank led both South and West to join hands in his support. For the support of New York he was largely indebted to Van Buren and his excellent political organization, the Albany Regency, which in combination with the Richmond Junto formed so effective an element in Jackson's support.

That it was not merely a victory for Jackson's character and personality but rather for the principles upon which he had stood was conclusively demonstrated by the complexion of the House of Representatives elected with him. So far was the Bank from achieving its needed two-thirds majority, that of the 240 members of this new body 140 were administration supporters.89 Such being the case, it was entirely natural that Jackson should regard the result of the campaign in general as a vindication of his constitutional principles and of his policies, and in particular as a verdict against the Bank 90 which, aided by the National Republicans, had challenged him to a test of strength before the country.

87 Ibid.

88 Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, p. III. 89 Niles' Register, vol. xlv, p. 228.

90 Van Buren, Autobiography, p. 657.

APPENDIX I

PARTY NOMENCLATURE

To determine exactly when the terms "Democratic" and "Democratic Republican," on the one hand, and the term "National Republican," on the other, came to be applied to the followers of Jackson and to those of Adams and Clay respectively, is difficult. This cannot be categorically determined since usage varied in different States. Indeed the only sweeping statement applicable is that there never was any uniformity or consistency generally displayed by either party in its self-designation down to 1830; even as late as 1832 the Jacksonians referred to themselves officially as the "Republican party."1

The chief causes for the slow development of distinctive party names were: first, the reluctance of the various factions into which the old Republican party was split by the campaign of 1824 to regard themselves, or even to seem to appear, as other than the true Republican party; second, the fact that the campaigns of 1824 and 1828 were so largely based upon the personalities of the candidates instead of upon their political principles. Thus during the campaign of 1824 the Adams, Clay, Calhoun, Crawford and Jackson factions respectively considered themselves as parts of the old Republican party as it had existed under Madison and Monroe.

Party nomenclature began to take distinctive shape, locally at least, during the campaign of 1824. At the beginning of that contest the one party name in existence was "Republican." Indeed the party had been mostly so styled since

1 See "Proceedings of a Convention of Republican Delegates. held at Baltimore, .. May, 1832," History Pamphlets, vol. 293, Johns Hopkins University Library.

1812, as is shown by Jefferson's letters and by Niles' Register. As the Adams and Clay factions inclined more toward each other in their advocacy of a nationalistic policy as to internal improvements, and still considered themselves and were considered within the Republican party, the descriptive adjective "national" began to be applied to them to differentiate them from the rather more particularistic followers of Jackson and Crawford. As far as can be ascertained the term "National Republican" was first applied to the AdamsClay followers in New York during the latter stages of the campaign of 1824 when they united in the state legislature in order to defeat the Regency's effort to choose Crawford electors. Van Buren speaks of it thus: "The 'high minded' [a little group of anti-Clintonian Federalists] espoused the cause of Mr. Adams zealously, and the feelings produced, or rather revived, by that contest carried them back into the federal ranks then called National Republicans-where the survivors are still [1854] serving as Whigs." However this may have been, the term was not at all used in contemporary newspapers and letters.

In New York politics the name Democratic" was also revived just prior to the opening of the national campaign of 1824. In 1818 there had been a split in the Republican party in the State, Clinton leading one faction and Van Buren the other.1 The latter was dubbed by its enemies the "Bucktails," and about the same time began to refer to itself as the "Democratic" party." The term "Republican," however, was still used to indicate both "Bucktails" and Clintonians. As the Albany Regency under Van Buren's direction grew in strength and its party in the State became dominant, the term "Democratic" came to mean the Regency's party.

2 Cf. Niles' Register, vols. i, ii, iii, ix, xi, xvii, xxi.

3 Van Buren Autobiography, p. 108.

♦ Weed. Autobiography, p. 67.

"Van Buren, Autobiography, p. 98; Weed, p. 78; Hammond, vol. ii, pp. 86-87, 115, 139.

• Hammond, p. 139.

In Pennsylvania down to 1823 the general party term was "Republican" as distinguished from "Federalist." As the democracy of the State became more and more militant in its support of Jackson, the popular meetings of his followers all over the State used the term "Democrats " to describe themselves and their political principles and referred to the political body in which they claimed membership as the "democratic republican party." The state convention which nominated Jackson for president was composed of delegates appointed by the “democratic republicans of this state." At the same time however the convention referred to the congressional caucus as being made up of a “minority of the republican members of Congress" and its action as being therefore a departure from "republican party" established usage. This indicates that the party at large in the country was still styled the "Republican" and that Jackson's Pennsylvania supporters considered themselves as part of it.

So far as any generalization is possible from the above and other instances, it appears that both general groupsthe followers of Crawford and Jackson on the one hand, and those of Adams and Clay on the other into which the old Republican party was showing a tendency to divide by the end of 1823, still regarded themselves as Republicans and within the party thus designated. The terms "Democratic," "Democratic Republican" and "National Republican” had come into being as party names, but their use was confined to localities, States at most. The use of the first of these seems to have been confined to the Regency party in New York, that of the second to the Jacksonians in Pennsylvania, while the third was a designation for the Adams-Clay faction in New York plus the remnant of Federalists who joined them. Certainly there was no general use of any party name except "Republican."

"Niles' Register, vol. xxv, pp. 167, 195, 242-243; pamphlet in A. J. Donelson MSS. containing account of Jackson meeting at Pittsburg. Pa., November 14, 1823.

8 Niles' Register, vol. xxvi, pp. 19-20.

Ibid., p. 20.