Well, you could certainly make an argument for the "Revolution of 1800" when Jefferson was elected. Jefferson had a Utopian dream of America peopled by simple, upright farmers. His republicans (or as historians now call them for the most part "Democratic-Republicans") were really anti-Federalists, and the Federalists stood for (according to their detractors) aristocracy and elitism, while the Jeffersonians stood for democracy and republicanism (and, by extension, the "common man").

But Jackson was really the first one to use it, campaign-wise. Or, to be more accurate, Martin Van Buren, the "Little Magician," did.

My own favorite grammatical note: "privilege" comes from two Latin words for "private" and "law" -- that's what the word was formed for: "private law." Makes all kinds of sense, don't it?

:-)

-CW

Yep. It and the billiard table, etc. Do you know whether that was the first instance of the pattern in US politics of getting "the common man" to side with one elite by vilifying another, or whether it was going on even earlier?

(Language note: "vilify" comes from Latin vilis, meaning worthless or vile, and is thus unrelated to "villain" which comes from villanus, meaning farmhand.)

as it shows you certainly do know what you're talking about...

To the standards applicable in a casual discussion, anyway. I confess I didn't remember that Clay was from Kentucky, until I looked.

The "corrupt bargain" may not have actually happened, but it sure did get Jackson elected in 1828, didn't it?

Heh. Had to smile when I read that term, as it shows you certainly do know what you're talking about...

-CW

Kentucky went almost unanimously for Clay, who came in fourth in the electoral count and was thus ineligible for the House vote. Clay was much closer to Adams (both ideologically and politically) than to Jackson. No corrupt bargain was necessary. If Clay had been ineligible to the office of secretary of state, or for further runs for president or both, he would probably still have supported Adams in the House vote. If Clay's voters or Clay's electors had faced the choice between Adams and Jackson, with no input whatsoever from Clay himself, they would probably also have chosen Adams.

Finally, the representatives were under no obligation to follow the preferences of the voters, the electors, Clay, or anyone else. They had full authority under the Constitution to support whoever they chose for president, subject only to the voters' option of throwing them out of office at the next election.

By no criterion does Kentucky's House vote provide any support whatsoever for the claim that the election was stolen.

JQA was groomed from birth to be president

Agreed. That's how meritocratic elites perpetuate themselves and mostly-exclude outsiders.

Jackson truly was born in a shack to parents of low standing

Agreed. He was an aristocrat in the sense that aristocracy was the social order he identified with and believed in, not in terms of his origins within that social order.

Just re-read your comment. I hadn't heard the bit about Jackson claiming to be born on a plantation, but if he said it, he was lying. He was born in either SC or possibly the state next door (his parents lived very close to the state line), and they were dirt poor farmers. Too poor to own slaves I believe (although Jackson did so later), which in the Southern "aristocracy" was pretty low down on the class scale.

Jackson, interestingly enough, was the last president to have fought in the Revolution, I believe. He was a messenger boy of about 13, and was captured by the British. Only US president to have been prisoner of war (McCain would have been the second).

-CW

Then why did the Kentucky House legislation vote for Adams when there were -- in the popular vote which had been held -- exactly zero votes for him? That's right -- not a single soul in the state of KY voted for Adams, and yet the congressional delegation cast their vote for him in the House.

Sounds pretty stolen to me.

As for your other point, you make a pretty good case. To be more precise, I should have used the term "dynastic" rather than "artistocratic." JQA was groomed from birth to be president (rather like, say, Jeb Bush), but Jackson truly was born in a shack to parents of low standing (you should hear what the Adams people had to say about Jackson's parents in the newspapers... but I digress).

Jackson's Hermitage was indeed a Southern estate. I was thinking more of parentage and upbringing in that comment. Jackson was mocked for being "illiterate" by the Adams people, even though he wasn't. He just couldn't spell worth a damn. But "illiterate" back then (to some people) meant not knowing at least French, Latin, and Greek.

-CW

Hey, they actually followed the procedure specified in the Constitution. You get to be president if you win a majority of electoral votes, or if you win in the House after no one wins a majority of electoral votes.

Adams was about as close to an aristocrat as ever led this country, and Jackson was about as far removed from such elitism as can be imagined.

Um, no.

The plantation system was an aristocracy, and it's what Jackson stood for. He wasn't an aristocrat himself, but he was steeped in aristocracy to his very core. According to Wikipedia, in 1824 he claimed to have been born on his uncle's plantation. In other words, he was for aristocratic pedigree before he was against it.

John Quincy Adams was born with massive advantages, but his advancement was in large part meritocratic -- to the point that some of his achievements in lower office are more important than those of his presidency.