s many thousands of
votes which had been "cast for no candidate in particular, but in
opposition to the caucus ticket generally," were reckoned as if they
had been cast for Jackson or against Adams, as suited the especial
case. Undoubtedly Jackson did have a plurality, but undoubtedly it
fell very far short of the imposing figure, nearly 48,000, which his
supporters had the audacity to name.

The election took place in the House on February 9, 1825. Daniel
Webster and John Randolph were tellers, and they reported that there
were "for John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, thirteen votes; for
Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, seven votes; for William H. Crawford,
of Georgia, four votes." Thereupon the speaker announced Mr. Adams (p. 174)
to have been elected President of the United States.

This end of an unusually exciting contest thus left Mr. Adams in
possession of the field, Mr. Crawford the victim of an irretrievable
defeat, Mr. Clay still hopeful and aspiring for a future which had
only disappointment in store for him, General Jackson enraged and
revengeful. Not even Mr. Adams was fully satisfied. When the committee
waited upon him to inform him of the election, he referred in his
reply to the peculiar state of things and said, "could my refusal to
accept the trust thus delegated to me give an opportunity to the
people to form and to express with a nearer approach to unanimity the
object of their preference, I should not hesitate to decline the
acceptance of this eminent charge and to submit the decision of this
momentous question again to their decision." That this singular and
striking statement was made in good faith is highly probable. William
H. Seward says that it was "unquestionably uttered with great
sincerity of heart." The test of action of course could not be
applied, since the resignation of Mr. Adams would only have made Mr.
Calhoun President, and could not have been so arranged as to bring
about a new election. Otherwise the course of his argument would (p. 175)
have been clear; the fact that such action involved an enormous
sacrifice would have been to his mind strong evidence that it was a
duty; and the temptation to perform a duty, always strong with him,
became ungovernable if the duty was exceptionally disagreeable. Under
the circumstances, however, the only logical conclusion lay in the
inauguration, which took place in the customary simple fashion on
March 4, 1825. Mr. Adams, we are told, was dre