Many may assume that Donald Trump is the first to claim the election of 2020 was rigged. In fact, charges of stolen presidential elections are not as rare in American history as one may assume. Hillary Clinton convinced 70% of Democrats that Russia rigged the 2016 election as payback for her interference in the 2000 Russian election. Historically, four candidates were associated with claims of rigged elections – Al Gore, who went to the Supreme Court, Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump.
In Nixon’s case, there were rumors of voting irregularities in the 1960 race against John F. Kennedy. Those resulted in his supporters, which included President Eisenhower, demanding recounts in Texas and Illinois. However, Richard Nixon refused to move for a recount, insisting it would “tear the country to pieces.” Nixon later wrote:
“I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who for the first time were trying to put free electoral procedures into effect, than that of the United States wrangling over the results of our presidential election, and even suggesting that the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.”
In a race with four candidates, Old Hickory, as Andrew Jackson was known, captured a plurality of electoral votes in the 1824 election but not a majority. Accordingly, a constitutionally prescribed contingent election was held in the House of Representatives. Each state then cast a single ballot in which John Quincy Adams won 13 to 7. There were backroom deals, and Jackson realized that he would be defeated. Jackson wrote to a colleague alleging “intrigue” and “abuses” by scheming politicians. Like Trump, the view was that Jackson was merely a Western populist who wanted to drain the swamp to become the first president to come from neither Virginia nor Massachusetts. Jackson claimed it was an East Coast conspiracy to swing the election toward Adams from Massachusetts. Jackson then took on the East Coast conspiracy, writing:
“The People of the West have been disregarded, and demagogues barter them as sheep in the shambles.”
Jackson’s defeat by a stolen election due to regional conflicts increased his support, not unlike what we see today with the MAGA movement behind Trump. The prevailing view among Jacksonian supporters maintained that the election was pulled off by “corrupt bargains,” which became the rallying cry of Adam’s critics. Back then, almost 60% of the electorate voted for Jackson’s opponents since the 12th Amendment only stated that the House selects the president by majority with no reference to a candidate who had the most popular or electoral votes and should become president.
John Quincy Adams
In 1824, the Federalists had collapsed. The Democratic-Republican Party had won six consecutive presidential elections and was the only national political party. The fact that this election was decided by Congress resulted in the split of that party into the Democrats and Republicans (South vs. North). Jackson and his supporters believed the election was rigged based on regional competition. Jackson argued: “liberty never was in greater danger. . . . Let the Presidency be transmitted by the exercise of a corrupt patronage . . . and we shall soon consider the form of electing by the people a mere farce.” Jackson wanted to destroy what people in 1824 saw as the DEEP STATE.
When Jackson won the next election because of the shenanigans, when he was inaugurated in 1829, It was a wild spectacle – as you would expect if Trump wins. Jackson had become a national celebrity among the American people who saw him as the champion against the Deep State. Washington, D.C., residents were ill-prepared for the wild scene that unfolded when Jackson’s supporters poured into the city much like the January 6th protesters. Some commentators referred to it as an enormous mass of people to an invading barbarian horde pillaging Rome. This regional bias eventually manifested in the Civil War by 1860, which was 31.4 years later.
Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster commented: “I never saw anything like it before,” he wrote to a relative. “Persons have come 500 miles to see Genl Jackson; & they really seem to think that the Country is rescued from some dreadful danger.” Of course, Webster was very much part of the regional conflict.
When Jackson won the next election in 1828 and reelection in 1832, he took revenge on the Bank of the United States, shutting it down on the personal belief that they had funded the Northerners. His destruction of the central bank led to the Panic of 1837 and the hard times of the 1840s, and every bank began to issue its own money.
Daniel Webster legally concluded that “when a law has been passed by Congress, and approved by the president, it is now no longer in the power, either of the same president, or his successors, to say whether the law is constitutional or not.” If, according to Webster, presidents could question the constitutionality of laws that have already been passed and affirmed by the courts, this would be the effect of violating the separation of powers. He also maintained that precedent and Jackson’s argument in the veto message on the recharter of the national bank that reliance on precedent is “a dangerous thing.” One can see the bias for the Deep State in his assumptions.
In Trump’s case, it was again rigged in Congress, this time by Pelosi and the Deep State. The FBI admitted that it had so many people among the January Sixers that they most likely broke the windows and encouraged moving into the capital so Pelosi could declare emergency rules and prevent any challenge to several state counts.
Even Pelosi’s son-in-law posted his picture being present at the January 6th insurrection.
Observing Jackson’s inauguration in 1829, we can see that the “populist” movement had previously been inspired against the Deep State. This is by no means unique to Trump and MAGA. The 2025 Inauguration will be nearly 23 intervals of the 8.6-year frequency. We are also looking at 2025 as the start of war, and indeed, it is also 86 years from the 1939 invasion of Poland.
The Deep State is fighting for its very soul. I do not see them quietly accepting a Trump victory as they did with Andrew Jackson, who is regarded as the father of the Democratic Party that split South vs. North. This time, the US will indeed once again split as it did with the contentious election of Andrew Jackson.
