text:
Cnut

Cnut (Knútr ; c. 990 – 12 November 1035), also known as Canute and with the epithet the Great,  was King of England from 1016, King of Denmark from 1018, and King of Norway from 1028 until his death in 1035. The three kingdoms united under Cnut's rule are referred to together as the North Sea Empire by historians.

As a Danish prince, Cnut won the throne of England in 1016 in the wake of centuries of Viking activity in northwestern Europe. His later accession to the Danish throne in 1018 brought the crowns of England and Denmark together. Cnut sought to keep this power base by uniting Danes and English under cultural bonds of wealth and custom. After a decade of conflict with opponents in Scandinavia, Cnut claimed the crown of Norway in Trondheim in 1028. In 1031, Malcolm II of Scotland also submitted to him, though Anglo-Norse influence over Scotland was weak and ultimately did not last by the time of Cnut's death.

Dominion of England lent the Danes an important link to the maritime zone between the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, where Cnut, like his father before him, had a strong interest and wielded much influence among the Norse–Gaels. Cnut's possession of England's dioceses and the continental Diocese of Denmark – with a claim laid upon it by the Holy Roman Empire's Archdiocese of Hamburg-Bremen – was a source of great prestige and leverage within the Catholic Church and among the magnates of Christendom (gaining notable concessions such as one on the price of the pallium of his bishops, though they still had to travel to obtain the pallium, as well as on the tolls his people had to pay on the way to Rome). After his 1026 victory against Norway and Sweden, and on his way back from Rome where he attended the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor, Cnut deemed himself "King of all England and Denmark and the Norwegians and of some of the Swedes" in a letter written for the benefit of his subjects. Medieval historian Norman Cantor called him "the most effective king in Anglo-Saxon history".

He is popularly invoked in the context of the legend of King Canute and the tide.

Birth and kingship
Cnut was a son of the Danish prince Sweyn Forkbeard, who was the son and heir to King Harald Bluetooth and thus came from a line of Scandinavian rulers central to the unification of Denmark. Neither the place nor the date of his birth are known. Harthacnut I was the semi-legendary founder of the Danish royal house at the beginning of the 10th century, and his son, Gorm the Old, became the first in the official line (the "Old" in his name indicates this). Harald Bluetooth, Gorm's son and Cnut's grandfather, was the Danish king at the time of the Christianization of Denmark; he became one of the first Scandinavian kings to accept Christianity.

The Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg and the Encomium Emmae report Cnut's mother as having been Świętosława, a daughter of Mieszko I of Poland. Norse sources of the High Middle Ages, most prominently Heimskringla by Snorri Sturluson, also give a Polish princess as Cnut's mother, whom they call Gunhild, a daughter of Burislav, the king of Vindland.

Since in the Norse sagas the king of Vindland is always Burislav, this is reconcilable with the assumption that her father was Mieszko (not his son Bolesław). Adam of Bremen in Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum is unique in equating Cnut's mother (for whom he also produces no name) with the former queen of Sweden, wife of Eric the Victorious and by this marriage mother of Olof Skötkonung.

To complicate the matter, Heimskringla and other sagas also have Sweyn marrying Eric's widow, but she is distinctly another person in these texts, named Sigrid the Haughty, whom Sweyn only marries after Gunhild, the Slavic princess who bore Cnut, has died. Different theories regarding the number and ancestry of Sweyn's wives (or wife) have been advanced (see Sigrid the Haughty and Gunhild). But since Adam is the only source to equate the identity of Cnut's and Olof Skötkonung's mother, this is often seen as an error on Adam's part, and it is often assumed that Sweyn had two wives, the first being Cnut's mother, and the second being the former Queen of Sweden. Cnut's brother Harald was the younger of the two brothers according to Encomium Emmae.

Some hint of Cnut's childhood can be found in the Flateyjarbók, a 13th-century Icelandic source that says he was taught his soldiery by the chieftain Thorkell the Tall, brother to Sigurd, Jarl of Jomsborg, and the legendary Jomsvikings, at their stronghold on the island of Wollin, off the coast of Pomerania. His date of birth, like his mother's name, is unknown. Contemporary works such as the Chronicon and the Encomium Emmae, do not mention this. Even so, in a Knútsdrápa by the skald Óttarr svarti, there is a statement that Cnut was "of no great age" when he first went to war. It also mentions a battle identifiable with Sweyn Forkbeard's invasion of England and attack on the city of Norwich, in 1003–04, after the St. Brice's Day massacre of Danes by the English, in 1002. If Cnut indeed accompanied this expedition, his birthdate may be near 990, or even 980. If not, and if the skald's poetic verse references another assault, such as Sweyn's conquest of England in 1013–14, it may even suggest a birth date nearer 1000. There is a passage of the Encomiast (as the author of the Encomium Emmae is known) with a reference to the force Cnut led in his English conquest of 1015–16. Here (see below) it says all the Vikings were of "mature age" under Cnut "the king".

A description of Cnut appears in the 13th century Icelandic Knýtlinga saga: "Knut was exceptionally tall and strong, and the handsomest of men, all except for his nose, that was thin, high-set, and rather hooked. He had a fair complexion and a fine, thick head of hair. His eyes were better than those of other men, being both more handsome and keener-sighted."

Hardly anything is known for sure of Cnut's life until the year he was part of a Scandinavian force under his father, King Sweyn, in his invasion of England in summer 1013. Cnut was likely part of his father's 1003 and 1004 campaigns in England, although the evidence is not firm. The 1013 invasion was the climax to a succession of Viking raids spread over a number of decades. Following their landing in the Humber, the kingdom fell to the Vikings quickly, and near the end of the year King Æthelred fled to Normandy, leaving Sweyn Forkbeard in possession of England. In the winter, Sweyn was in the process of consolidating his kingship, with Cnut left in charge of the fleet and the base of the army at Gainsborough in Lincolnshire.

On the death of Sweyn Forkbeard after a few months as king, on Candlemas (Sunday 3 February 1014), Harald succeeded him as King of Denmark, while the Vikings and the people of the Danelaw immediately elected Cnut as king in England. However, the English nobility took a different view, and the Witenagemot recalled Æthelred from Normandy. The restored king swiftly led an army against Cnut, who fled with his army to Denmark, along the way mutilating the hostages they had taken and abandoning them on the beach at Sandwich in Kent. Cnut went to Harald and supposedly made the suggestion they might have a joint kingship, although this found no favour with his brother. Harald is thought to have offered Cnut command of his forces for another invasion of England, on the condition he did not continue to press his claim. In any case, Cnut succeeded in assembling a large fleet with which to launch another invasion.

Conquest of England

Among the allies of Denmark was Bolesław I the Brave, the duke of Poland (later crowned king) and a relative to the Danish royal house. He lent some Polish troops, likely to have been a pledge made to Cnut and his brother Harald when, in the winter, they "went amongst the Wends" to fetch their mother back to the Danish court. She had been sent away by their father after the death of the Swedish king Eric the Victorious in 995, and his marriage to Sigrid the Haughty, the Swedish queen mother. This wedlock formed a strong alliance between the successor to the throne of Sweden, Olof Skötkonung, and the rulers of Denmark, his in-laws. Swedes were certainly among the allies in the English conquest. Another in-law to the Danish royal house, Eiríkr Hákonarson, was the earl of Lade and the co-ruler of Norway with his brother Sweyn Haakonsson – Norway having been under Danish sovereignty since the Battle of Svolder, in 999. Eiríkr's participation in the invasion left his son Hakon to rule Norway, with Sweyn.

In the summer of 1015, Cnut's fleet set sail for England with a Danish army of perhaps 10,000 in 200 longships. Cnut was at the head of an array of Vikings from all over Scandinavia. The invading army was composed primarily of mercenaries. The invasion force was to engage in often close and grisly warfare with the English for the next fourteen months. Practically all of the battles were fought against the eldest son of Æthelred, Edmund Ironside.

Landing in Wessex
According to the Peterborough Chronicle manuscript, one of the major witnesses of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, early in September 1015 "[Cnut] came into Sandwich, and straightway sailed around Kent to Wessex, until he came to the mouth of the Frome, and harried in Dorset and Wiltshire and Somerset", beginning a campaign of an intensity not seen since the days of Alfred the Great. A passage from Queen Emma's Encomium provides a picture of Cnut's fleet: "[T]here were there so many kinds of shields, that you could have believed that troops of all nations were present. ... Gold shone on the prows, silver also flashed on the variously shaped ships. ... For who could look upon the lions of the foe, terrible with the brightness of gold, who upon the men of metal, menacing with golden face, ... who upon the bulls on the ships threatening death, their horns shining with gold, without feeling any fear for the king of such a force? Furthermore, in this great expedition, there was present no slave, no man freed from slavery, no low-born man, no man weakened by age; for all were noble, all strong with the might of mature age, all sufficiently fit for any type of fighting, all of such great fleetness, that they scorned the speed of horsemen."

Wessex, long ruled by the dynasty of Alfred and Æthelred, submitted to Cnut late in 1015, as it had to his father two years earlier. At this point Eadric Streona, the Ealdorman of Mercia, deserted Æthelred together with 40 ships and their crews and joined forces with Cnut. Another defector was Thorkell the Tall, a Jomsviking chief who had fought against the Viking invasion of Sweyn Forkbeard, with a pledge of allegiance to the English in 1012 – some explanation for this shift of allegiance may be found in a stanza of the Jómsvíkinga saga that mentions two attacks against Jomsborg's mercenaries while they were in England, with a man known as Henninge, a brother of Thorkell, among their casualties. If the Flateyjarbók is correct that this man was Cnut's childhood mentor, it explains his acceptance of his allegiance – with Jomvikings ultimately in the service of Jomsborg. The 40 ships Eadric came with, often thought to be of the Danelaw, were probably Thorkell's.

Advance into the North
Early in 1016, the Vikings crossed the Thames and harried Warwickshire, while Edmund Ironside's attempts at opposition seem to have come to nothing – the chronicler says the English army disbanded because the king and the citizenry of London were not present. The mid-winter assault by Cnut devastated its way northwards across eastern Mercia. Another summons of the army brought the Englishmen together, and they were met this time by the king, although "it came to nothing as so often before", and Æthelred returned to London with fears of betrayal. Edmund then went north to join Uhtred the Earl of Northumbria and together they harried Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire in western Mercia, possibly targeting the estates of Eadric Streona. Cnut's occupation of Northumbria meant Uhtred returned home to submit himself to Cnut, who seems to have sent a Northumbrian rival, Thurbrand the Hold, to massacre Uhtred and his retinue. Eiríkr Hákonarson, most likely with another force of Scandinavians, came to support Cnut at this point, and the veteran Norwegian jarl was put in charge of Northumbria.

Prince Edmund remained in London, still unsubdued behind its walls, and was elected king after the death of Æthelred on 23 April 1016.

Siege of London

Cnut returned southward, and the Danish army evidently divided, some dealing with Edmund, who had broken out of London before Cnut's encirclement of the city was complete, and had gone to gather an army in Wessex, the traditional heartland of the English monarchy. Part of the Danish army besieged London, constructing dikes on the northern and southern flanks and a channel dug across the banks of the Thames to the south of the city, enabling their longships to cut off communications up-river.

There was a battle fought at Penselwood in Somerset – with a hill in Selwood Forest as the likely location – and a subsequent battle at Sherston, in Wiltshire, which was fought over two days but left neither side victorious.

Edmund was able to temporarily relieve London, driving the enemy away and defeating them after crossing the Thames at Brentford. Suffering heavy losses, he withdrew to Wessex to gather fresh troops, and the Danes again brought London under siege, but after another unsuccessful assault they withdrew into Kent under attack by the English, with a battle fought at Otford. At this point Eadric Streona went over to King Edmund, and Cnut set sail northwards across the Thames estuary to Essex, and went from the landing of the ships up the River Orwell to ravage Mercia.

London captured by treaty
On 18 October 1016, the Danes were engaged by Edmund's army as they retired towards their ships, leading to the Battle of Assandun, fought at either Ashingdon, in south-east, or Ashdon, in north-west Essex. In the ensuing struggle, Eadric Streona, whose return to the English side had perhaps only been a ruse, withdrew his forces from the fray, bringing about a decisive English defeat. Edmund fled westwards, and Cnut pursued him into Gloucestershire, with another battle probably fought near the Forest of Dean, for Edmund had an alliance with some of the Welsh.

On an island near Deerhurst, Cnut and Edmund, who had been wounded, met to negotiate terms of peace. It was agreed that all of England north of the Thames was to be the domain of the Danish prince, while all to the south was kept by the English king, along with London. Accession to the reign of the entire realm was set to pass to Cnut upon Edmund's death. Edmund died on 30 November, within weeks of the arrangement. Some sources claim Edmund was murdered, although the circumstances of his death are unknown. The West Saxons now accepted Cnut as king of all of England, and he was crowned by Lyfing, Archbishop of Canterbury, in London in 1017.

King of England

Cnut ruled England for nearly two decades. The protection he lent against Viking raiders – many of them under his command – restored the prosperity that had been increasingly impaired since the resumption of Viking attacks in the 980s. In turn, the English helped him to establish control over the majority of Scandinavia, too. Under his rule, England did not experience serious external attacks.

Consolidation and Danegeld
As Danish King of England, Cnut was quick to eliminate any prospective challenge from the survivors of the mighty Wessex dynasty. The first year of his reign was marked by the executions of a number of English noblemen whom he considered suspect. Æthelred's son Eadwig Ætheling fled from England but was killed on Cnut's orders. Edmund Ironside's sons likewise fled abroad. Æthelred's sons by Emma of Normandy went under the protection of their relatives in the Duchy of Normandy.

In July 1017, Cnut wed Queen Emma, the widow of Æthelred and daughter of Richard I, Duke of Normandy. In 1018, having collected a Danegeld amounting to the colossal sum of £72,000 levied nationwide, with an additional £10,500 extracted from London, Cnut paid off his army and sent most of them home. He retained 40 ships and their crews as a standing force in England. An annual tax called heregeld (army payment) was collected through the same system Æthelred had instituted in 1012 to reward Scandinavians in his service.

Cnut built on the existing English trend for multiple shires to be grouped together under a single ealdorman, thus dividing the country into four large administrative units whose geographical extent was based on the largest and most durable of the separate kingdoms that had preceded the unification of England. The officials responsible for these provinces were designated earls, a title of Scandinavian origin already in localised use in England, which now everywhere replaced that of ealdorman. Wessex was initially kept under Cnut's personal control, while Northumbria went to Erik of Hlathir, East Anglia to Thorkell the Tall, and Mercia remained in the hands of Eadric Streona.

This initial distribution of power was short-lived. The chronically treacherous Eadric was executed within a year of Cnut's accession. Mercia passed to one of the leading families of the region, probably first to Leofwine, ealdorman of the Hwicce under Æthelred, but certainly soon to his son Leofric. In 1021, Thorkel also fell from favour and was outlawed.

Following his death in the 1020s, Erik of Hlathir was succeeded as Earl of Northumbria by Siward, whose grandmother, Estrid (married to Úlfr Thorgilsson), was Cnut's sister. Bernicia, the northern part of Northumbria, was theoretically part of Erik and Siward's earldom, but throughout Cnut's reign it effectively remained under the control of the English dynasty based at Bamburgh, which had dominated the area at least since the early 10th century. They served as junior Earls of Bernicia under the titular authority of the Earl of Northumbria. By the 1030s Cnut's direct administration of Wessex had come to an end, with the establishment of an earldom under Godwin, an Englishman from a powerful Sussex family. In general, after initial reliance on his Scandinavian followers in the first years of his reign, Cnut allowed those Anglo-Saxon families of the existing English nobility who had earned his trust to assume rulership of his Earldoms.

Affairs to the East

At the Battle of Nesjar, in 1016, Olaf Haraldsson won the kingdom of Norway from the Danes. It was at some time after Erik left for England, and on the death of Svein while retreating to Sweden, maybe intent on returning to Norway with reinforcements, that Erik's son Hakon went to join his father and support Cnut in England, too.

Cnut's brother Harald may have been at Cnut's coronation, in 1016, returning to Denmark as its king, with part of the fleet, at some point thereafter. It is only certain, though, that there was an entry of his name, alongside Cnut's, in confraternity with Christ Church, Canterbury, in 1018. This is not conclusive, though, for the entry may have been made in Harald's absence, perhaps by the hand of Cnut himself, which means that, while it is usually thought that Harald died in 1018, it is unsure whether he was still alive at this point. Entry of his brother's name in the Canterbury codex may have been Cnut's attempt to make his vengeance for Harald's murder good with the Church. This may have been just a gesture for a soul to be under the protection of God. There is evidence Cnut was in battle with "pirates" in 1018, with his destruction of the crews of thirty ships, although it is unknown if this was off the English or Danish shores. He himself mentions troubles in his 1019 letter (to England, from Denmark), written as the King of England and Denmark. These events can be seen, with plausibility, to be in connection with the death of Harald. Cnut says he dealt with dissenters to ensure Denmark was free to assist England: "King Cnut greets in friendship his archbishop and his diocesan bishops and Earl Thurkil and all his earls ... ecclesiastic and lay, in England ... I inform you that I will be a gracious lord and a faithfull observer of God's rights and just secular law. (He exhorts his ealdormen to assist the bishops in the maintenance of) God's rights ... and the benefit of the people.

If anyone, ecclesiastic or layman, Dane or Englishman, is so presumptuous as to defy God's law and my royal authority or the secular laws, and he will not make amends and desist according to the direction of my bishops, I then pray, and also command, Earl Thurkil, if he can, to cause the evil-doer to do right. And if he cannot, then it is my will that with the power of us both he shall destroy him in the land or drive him out of the land, whether he be of high or low rank. And it is my will that all the nation, ecclesiastical and lay, shall steadfastly observe Edgar's laws, which all men have chosen and sworn at Oxford. Since I did not spare my money, as long as hostility was threatening you, I with God's help have put an end to it. Then I was informed that greater danger was approaching us than we liked at all; and then I went myself with the men who accompanied me to Denmark, from where the greatest injury had come to us, and with God's help I have made it so that never henceforth shall hostility reach you from there as long as you support me rightly and my life lasts. Now I thank Almighty God for his help and his mercy, that I have settled the great dangers which were approaching us that we need fear no danger to us from there; but we may reckon on full help and deliverance if we need it."

Statesmanship

Cnut was generally remembered as a wise and successful king of England, although this view may in part be attributable to his good treatment of the Church, keeper of the historic record. Accordingly, he is considered, even today, as a religious man despite the fact that he was in an arguably sinful relationship, with two wives, and the harsh treatment he dealt his fellow Christian opponents.

Under his reign, Cnut brought together the English and Danish kingdoms, and the Scandinavic and Saxon peoples saw a period of dominance across Scandinavia, as well as within the British Isles. His campaigns abroad meant the tables of Viking supremacy were stacked in favour of the English, turning the prows of the longships towards Scandinavia. He reinstated the Laws of King Edgar to allow for the constitution of a Danelaw, and for the activity of Scandinavians at large.

Cnut reinstituted the extant laws with a series of proclamations to assuage common grievances brought to his attention, including: On Inheritance in case of Intestacy, and On Heriots and Reliefs. He also strengthened the currency, initiating a series of coins of equal weight to those being used in Denmark and other parts of Scandinavia. He issued the Law codes of Cnut known now as I Cnut and II Cnut, though these seem primarily to have been produced by Wulfstan of York.

In his royal court, there were both Englishmen and Scandinavians.

King of Denmark
Harald II died in 1018, and Cnut went to Denmark to affirm his succession to the Danish crown, stating his intention to avert attacks against England in a letter in 1019 (see above). It seems there were Danes in opposition to him, and an attack he carried out on the Wends of Pomerania may have had something to do with this. In this expedition, at least one of Cnut's Englishmen, Godwin, apparently won the king's trust after a night-time raid he personally led against a Wendish encampment.

His hold on the Danish throne presumably stable, Cnut was back in England in 1020. He appointed Ulf Jarl, the husband of his sister Estrid Svendsdatter, as regent of Denmark, further entrusting him with his young son by Queen Emma, Harthacnut, whom he had designated the heir of his kingdom. The banishment of Thorkell the Tall in 1021 may be seen in relation to the attack on the Wends. With the death of Olof Skötkonung in 1022, and the succession to the Swedish throne of his son Anund Jacob bringing Sweden into alliance with Norway, there was cause for a demonstration of Danish strength in the Baltic. Jomsborg, the legendary stronghold of the Jomsvikings (thought to be on an island off the coast of Pomerania), was probably the target of Cnut's expedition. Successful, after this clear display of Cnut's intentions to dominate Scandinavian affairs, it seems that Thorkell reconciled with Cnut in 1023.

When the Norwegian king Olaf Haraldsson and Anund Jakob took advantage of Cnut's commitment to England and began to launch attacks against Denmark, Ulf gave the Danish freemen cause to accept Harthacnut, still a child, as king. This ruse resulted in Ulf ruling the kingdom as regent. Upon news of these events, Cnut set sail for Denmark to restore himself and to deal with Ulf, who then got back in line. In a battle known as the Battle of the Helgeå, Cnut and his men fought the Norwegians and Swedes at the mouth of the river Helgeå, probably in 1026, and the apparent victory left Cnut as the dominant leader in Scandinavia. Ulf the usurper's realignment and participation in the battle did not, in the end, earn him Cnut's forgiveness. Some sources state that the brothers-in-law were playing chess at a banquet in Roskilde when an argument arose between them, and the next day, Christmas 1026, one of Cnut's housecarls killed the jarl with his blessing, in Trinity Church, the predecessor to Roskilde Cathedral.

Journey to Rome

His enemies in Scandinavia subdued, and apparently at his leisure, Cnut was able to accept an invitation to witness the accession in Rome of the Holy Roman Emperor Conrad II. He left his affairs in the north and went from Denmark to the coronation at Easter 1027, which would have been of considerable prestige for rulers of Europe in the Middle Ages. On the return journey he wrote his letter of 1027, like his letter of 1019, informing his subjects in England of his intentions from abroad and proclaiming himself "king of all England and Denmark and the Norwegians and of some of the Swedes".

Consistent with his role as a Christian king, Cnut says he went to Rome to repent for his sins, to pray for redemption and the security of his subjects, and to negotiate with the Pope for a reduction in the costs of the pallium for English archbishops, and for a resolution to the competition between the archdioceses of Canterbury and Hamburg-Bremen for superiority over the Danish dioceses. He also sought to improve the conditions for pilgrims, as well as merchants, on the road to Rome. In his own words: "... I spoke with the Emperor himself and the Lord Pope and the princes there about the needs of all people of my entire realm, both English and Danes, that a juster law and securer peace might be granted to them on the road to Rome and that they should not be straitened by so many barriers along the road, and harassed by unjust tolls; and the Emperor agreed and likewise King Robert who governs most of these same toll gates. And all the magnates confirmed by edict that my people, both merchants, and the others who travel to make their devotions, might go to Rome and return without being afflicted by barriers and toll collectors, in firm peace and secure in a just law."

"Robert" in Cnut's text is probably a clerical error for Rudolph, the last ruler of an independent Kingdom of Burgundy. Hence, the solemn word of the Pope, the Emperor and Rudolph was given with the witness of four archbishops, twenty bishops, and "innumerable multitudes of dukes and nobles", suggesting it was before the ceremonies were completed. Cnut without doubt threw himself into his role with zest. His image as a just Christian king, statesman and diplomat and crusader against unjustness, seems rooted in reality, as well as one he sought to project.

A good illustration of his status within Europe is the fact that Cnut and the King of Burgundy went alongside the emperor in the imperial procession and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with him on the same pedestal. Cnut and the emperor, in accord with various sources, took to one another's company like brothers, for they were of a similar age. Conrad gave Cnut lands in the Mark of Schleswig – the land-bridge between the Scandinavian kingdoms and the continent – as a token of their treaty of friendship. Centuries of conflict in this area between the Danes and the Germans led to the construction of the Danevirke, from Schleswig, on the Schlei, an inlet of the Baltic Sea, to the North Sea.

Cnut's visit to Rome was a triumph. In the verse of Knútsdrápa, Sigvatr Þórðarson praises Cnut, his king, as being "dear to the Emperor, close to Peter". In the days of Christendom, a king seen to be in favour with God could expect to be ruler over a happy kingdom. He was surely in a stronger position, not only with the Church and the people, but also in the alliance with his southern rivals he was able to conclude his conflicts with his rivals in the north. His letter not only tells his countrymen of his achievements in Rome, but also of his ambitions within the Scandinavian world at his arrival home: "... I, as I wish to be made known to you, returning by the same route that I took out, am going to Denmark to arrange peace and a firm treaty, in the counsel of all the Danes, with those races and people who would have deprived us of life and rule if they could, but they could not, God destroying their strength. May he preserve us by his bounteous compassion in rule and honour and henceforth scatter and bring to nothing the power and might of all our enemies! And finally, when peace has been arranged with our surrounding peoples and all our kingdom here in the east has been properly ordered and pacified, so that we have no war to fear on any side or the hostility of individuals, I intend to come to England as early this summer as I can to attend to the equipping of a fleet."

Cnut was to return to Denmark from Rome, arrange for its security, and afterward sail to England.

King of Norway and part of Sweden

In his 1027 letter, Cnut refers to himself as king of "the Norwegians, and of some of the Swedes" – his victory over Swedes suggests Helgeå to be the river in Uppland and not the one in eastern Scania – while the king of Sweden appears to have been made a renegade. It has been speculated that the Swedish city Sigtuna was held by Cnut; there were coins struck there that called him king, but there is no narrative record of his occupation. These coins are however usually regarded as copies of coins minted in Denmark. Coins stating that the Swedish king Olof Skötkonung was King of England have also been found in Sigtuna. Cnut also stated his intention of proceeding to Denmark to secure peace between the kingdoms of Scandinavia, which fits the account of John of Worcester that in 1027 Cnut heard some Norwegians were discontented and sent them sums of gold and silver to gain their support for his claim to the throne.

In 1028, Cnut set off from England to Norway, and the city of Trondheim, with a fleet of fifty ships. King Olaf Haraldsson was unable to put up a serious fight, both as his nobles had been bribed by Cnut and (according to Adam of Bremen) because he tended to apprehend their wives for sorcery. Cnut was crowned king, now of England, Denmark and Norway as well as part of Sweden. He entrusted the Earldom of Lade to the former line of earls, in Håkon Eiriksson, with Eiríkr Hákonarson probably dead by this time. Hakon was possibly the Earl of Northumbria after Erik as well.

Hakon, a member of a family with a long tradition of hostility towards the independent Norwegian kings, and a relative of Cnut's, was already in lordship over the Isles with the earldom of Worcester, possibly from 1016 to 1017. The sea-lanes through the Irish Sea and the Hebrides led to Orkney and Norway, and were central to Cnut's ambitions for dominance of Scandinavia and the British Isles. Hakon was meant to be Cnut's lieutenant in this strategic chain, and the final component was his installation as the king's deputy in Norway, after the expulsion of Olaf Haraldsson in 1028. Unfortunately, he was drowned in a shipwreck in the Pentland Firth (between the Orkney Islands and the mainland coast) either late 1029 or early 1030.

Upon the death of Hakon, Olaf Haraldsson returned to Norway, with Swedes in his army. He died at the hands of his own people, at the Battle of Stiklestad in 1030. Cnut's subsequent attempt to rule Norway without the key support of the Trondejarls, through Ælfgifu of Northampton, and his eldest son by her, Sweyn Knutsson, was not a success. The period is known as Aelfgifu's Time in Norway, with heavy taxation, a rebellion, and the restoration of the former Norwegian dynasty under Saint Olaf's illegitimate son Magnus the Good.

Influence in the western sea-ways
In 1014, while Cnut was preparing his re-invasion of England, the Battle of Clontarf pitted an array of armies laid out on the fields before the walls of Dublin. Máel Mórda mac Murchada, king of Leinster, and Sigtrygg Silkbeard, ruler of the Norse-Gaelic kingdom of Dublin, had sent out emissaries to all the Viking kingdoms to request assistance in their rebellion against Brian Bóruma, the High King of Ireland. Sigurd the Stout, the Earl of Orkney, was offered command of all the Norse forces, while the High King had sought assistance from the Albannaich, who were led by Domnall mac Eimín meic Cainnig, the Mormaer of Mar. The Leinster-Norse alliance was defeated, and both commanders, Sigurd and Máel Mórda, were killed. Brian, his son, his grandson, and the Mormaer Domhnall were slain as well. Sigtrygg's alliance was broken, although he was left alive, and the high-kingship of Ireland went back to the Uí Néill, again under Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill.

There was a brief period of freedom in the Irish Sea zone for the Vikings of Dublin, with a political vacuum felt throughout the entire Western Maritime Zone of the North Atlantic Archipelago. Prominent among those who stood to fill the void was Cnut, "whose leadership of the Scandinavian world gave him a unique influence over the western colonies and whose control of their commercial arteries gave an economic edge to political domination". Coinage struck by the king in Dublin, Silkbeard, bearing Cnut's quatrefoil type – in issue c. 1017–25 – sporadically replacing the legend with one bearing his own name and styling him as ruler either "of Dublin" or "among the Irish" provides evidence of Cnut's influence. Further evidence is the entry of one Sihtric dux in three of Cnut's charters.

In one of his verses, Cnut's court poet Sigvatr Þórðarson recounts that famous princes brought their heads to Cnut and bought peace. This verse mentions Olaf Haraldsson in the past tense, his death at the Battle of Stiklestad having occurred in 1030. It was therefore at some point after this and the consolidation of Norway that Cnut went to Scotland with an army, and the navy in the Irish Sea, in 1031, to receive, without bloodshed, the submission of three Scottish kings: Maelcolm, the future King Maelbeth and Iehmarc. One of these kings, Iehmarc, may be one Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, an Uí Ímair chieftain and the ruler of a sea-kingdom of the Irish Sea, with Galloway among his domains. Nevertheless, it appears that Malcolm adhered to little of Cnut's power, and that influence over Scotland died out by the time of Cnut's death.

Further, a Lausavísa attributable to the skald Óttarr svarti greets the ruler of the Danes, Irish, English and Island-dwellers – use of Irish here being likely to mean the Gall Ghaedil kingdoms rather than the Gaelic kingdoms. It "brings to mind Sweyn Forkbeard's putative activities in the Irish Sea and Adam of Bremen's story of his stay with a rex Scothorum (? king of the Irish) [&] can also be linked to... Iehmarc, who submitted in 1031 [&] could be relevant to Cnut's relations with the Irish".

Relations with the Church

Cnut's actions as a conqueror and his ruthless treatment of the overthrown dynasty had made him uneasy with the Church. He was already a Christian before he was king – being named Lambert at his baptism – although the Christianization of Scandinavia was not at all complete. His marriage to Emma of Normandy, even though he was already married to Ælfgifu of Northampton, who was kept in the south with an estate in Exeter, was another conflict with Church teaching. In an effort to reconcile himself with his churchmen, Cnut repaired all the English churches and monasteries that were victims of Viking plunder and refilled their coffers. He also built new churches and was an earnest patron of monastic communities. His homeland of Denmark was a Christian nation on the rise, and the desire to enhance the religion was still fresh. As an example, the first stone church recorded to have been built in Scandinavia was in Roskilde, c. 1027, and its patron was Cnut's sister Estrid.

It is difficult to ascertain whether Cnut's attitude towards the Church derived from deep religious devotion or was merely a means to reinforce his regime's hold on the people. There is evidence of respect for the pagan religion in his praise poetry, which he was happy enough for his skalds to embellish in Norse mythology, while other Viking leaders were insistent on the rigid observation of the Christian line, like St Olaf. Yet he also displays the desire for a respectable Christian nationhood within Europe. In 1018, some sources suggest he was at Canterbury on the return of its Archbishop Lyfing from Rome, to receive letters of exhortation from the Pope. If this chronology is correct, he probably went from Canterbury to the Witan at Oxford, with Archbishop Wulfstan of York in attendance, to record the event.

His ecumenical gifts were widespread and often exuberant. Commonly held land was given, along with exemption from taxes as well as relics. Christ Church was probably given rights at the important port of Sandwich as well as tax exemption, with confirmation in the placement of their charters on the altar, while it got the relics of St Ælfheah, at the displeasure of the people of London. Another see in the king's favour was Winchester, second only to the Canterbury see in terms of wealth. The New Minster Liber Vitae records Cnut as a benefactor of the monastery, and the Winchester Cross, with 500 marks of silver and 30 marks of gold, as well as relics of various saints was given to it. Old Minster was the recipient of a shrine for the relics of St Birinus and the probable confirmation of its privileges. The monastery at Evesham, with its Abbot Ælfweard purportedly a relative of the king through Ælfgifu the Lady (probably Ælfgifu of Northampton, rather than Queen Emma, also known as Ælfgifu), got the relics of St Wigstan. While some English approved of these policies, which his skalds called "destroying treasure", the burden of taxation was widely felt. His attitude towards London's see was clearly not benign. The monasteries at Ely and Glastonbury were apparently not on good terms either.

Other gifts were also given to his neighbours. Among these was one to Chartres, of which its bishop wrote: "When we saw the gift that you sent us, we were amazed at your knowledge as well as your faith ... since you, whom we had heard to be a pagan prince, we now know to be not only a Christian, but also a most generous donor to God's churches and servants". He is known to have sent a psalter and sacramentary made in Peterborough (famous for its illustrations) to Cologne, and a book written in gold, among other gifts, to William the Great of Aquitaine. This golden book was apparently to support Aquitanian claims of St Martial, patron saint of Aquitaine, as an apostle. Of some consequence, its recipient was an avid artisan, scholar and devout Christian, and the Abbey of Saint-Martial was a great library and scriptorium, second only to the one at Cluny. It is likely that Cnut's gifts were well beyond historian's current knowledge.

Cnut's journey to Rome in 1027 is another sign of his dedication to the Christian religion. It may be that he went to attend the coronation of Conrad II in order to improve relations between the two powers, yet he had previously made a vow to seek the favour of St Peter, the keeper of the keys to the heavenly kingdom. While in Rome, Cnut made an agreement with the Pope to reduce the fees paid by the English archbishops to receive their pallium. He also arranged that travellers from his realm not be straitened by unjust tolls and that they should be safeguarded on their way to and from Rome. Some evidence exists for a second journey in 1030.

Death and succession

Cnut died on 12 November 1035 in Shaftesbury, Dorset. In Denmark, he was succeeded by Harthacnut, reigning as Cnut III, although with a war in Scandinavia against Magnus I of Norway, Harthacnut was "forsaken [by the English] because he was too long in Denmark". His mother Queen Emma, previously resident at Winchester with some of her son's housecarls, was made to flee to Bruges in Flanders, under pressure from supporters of Cnut's other son, after Svein, by Ælfgifu of Northampton: Harold Harefoot – regent in England 1035–37 (who went on to claim the English throne in 1037, reigning until his death in 1040). Eventual peace in Scandinavia left Harthacnut free to claim the throne himself in 1040 and to regain for his mother her place. He brought the crowns of Denmark and England together again until his death in 1042. Denmark fell into a period of disorder with a power struggle between the pretender to the throne Sweyn Estridsson, son of Ulf, and the Norwegian king, until the death of Magnus in 1047.

If the sons of Cnut had not died within a decade of his death, and if his only known daughter Gunhilda, who was to marry Conrad II's son Henry III eight months after his death, had not died in Italy before she could become empress consort, Cnut's reign might well have been the foundation for a complete political union between England and Scandinavia, a North Sea Empire with blood ties to the Holy Roman Empire.

Bones at Winchester
Cnut was buried in the Old Minster, Winchester. With the events of 1066 the new regime of Normandy was keen to signal its arrival with an ambitious programme of grandiose cathedrals and castles throughout the High Middle Ages. Winchester Cathedral was built on the old Anglo-Saxon site and the previous burials, including Cnut's, were set in mortuary chests there. During the English Civil War in the 17th century, plundering Roundhead soldiers scattered the bones of Cnut on the floor and they were spread amongst the various other chests, notably those of William Rufus. After the restoration of the monarchy, the bones were collected and replaced in their chests, although somewhat out of order.

Marriages and children

 * 1 – Ælfgifu of Northampton
 * Sweyn Knutsson, King of Norway ;
 * Harold Harefoot, King of England.

 * 2 – Emma of Normandy
 * Harthacnut, King of Denmark and England ;
 * Gunhilda of Denmark, wed Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor.

Cnut's skalds
The Old Norse catalogue of skalds known as Skáldatal lists eight skalds who were active at Cnut's court. Four of them, namely Sigvatr Þórðarson, Óttarr svarti, Þórarinn loftunga and Hallvarðr háreksblesi, composed verses in honour of Cnut which have survived in some form, while no such thing is apparent from the four other skalds Bersi Torfuson, Arnórr Þórðarson jarlaskáld (known from other works), Steinn Skaptason and Óðarkeptr (unknown). The principal works for Cnut are the three Knútsdrápur by Sigvatr Þórðarson, Óttarr svarti and Hallvarðr háreksblesi, and the Höfuðlausn and Tøgdrápa by Þórarinn loftunga. Cnut also features in two other contemporary skaldic poems, namely Þórðr Kolbeinsson's Eiríksdrápa and the anonymous Liðsmannaflokkr.

Cnut's skalds emphasise the parallelism between Cnut's rule of his earthly kingdom and God's rule of Heaven. This is particularly apparent in their refrains. Thus the refrain of Þórarinn's Höfuðlausn translates to "Cnut protects the land as the guardian of Byzantium [God] [does] Heaven" and the refrain of Hallvarðr's Knútsdrápa translates to "Cnut protects the land as the Lord of all [does] the splendid hall of the mountains [Heaven]". Despite the Christian message, the poets also make use of traditional pagan references and this is particularly true of Hallvarðr. As an example, one of his half-stanzas translates to "The Freyr of the noise of weapons [warrior] has also cast under him Norway; the battle-server [warrior] diminishes the hunger of the valcyrie's hawks [ravens]." The skald here refers to Cnut as "Freyr of battle", a kenning using the name of the pagan god Freyr. References of this sort were avoided by poets composing for the contemporary kings of Norway but Cnut seems to have had a more relaxed attitude towards pagan literary allusions.

The story of Cnut and the waves

This story of Cnut resisting the incoming tide was first recorded by Henry of Huntingdon in his Historia Anglorum in the early twelfth century: "When he was at the height of his ascendancy, he ordered his chair to be placed on the sea-shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide, 'You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on to my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master.' But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king's feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, 'Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and the sea obey eternal laws.'"

This has become by far the best known story about Cnut, although in modern readings he is usually a wise man who knows from the start that he cannot control the waves.

title: Cnut


text:
Proetus

In Greek mythology, Proetus (Ancient Greek: Προῖτος Proitos) may refer to the following personages:

 * Proetus, king of Argos and Tiryns, son of Abas and twin brother of Acrisius.
 * Proetus, a prince of Corinth as the son of Prince Thersander, son of King Sisyphus. He was the father of Maera who died a maiden. Scholiasts on the Odyssey confound him with the Argive Proetus.
 * Proetus of Thebes, eponym of the Proetid Gates, and father of Galanthis.
 * Proetus of Nauplia, a son of Nauplius I and father of Lernus.
 * Proetus, a son of Agenor (?). It is unclear whether Stephanus is referring to a son of Agenor named Proetus, or to the Argive Proetus as a descendant of Agenor.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Proetus


text:
Talk:Bruno of Querfurt

Untitled
When will HJ learn to type? HJ, in ALL EUROPEAN LANGUAGES people put a SPACE between punctuation and the following word. We put NO SPACE between preceding words and punctuation (with the exception of dashes, sometimes). Please note the space between Bruno and its comma, and between fiercest and its comma. Please not the failure to space between 'river.The'. You do this all the time. I dislike such carelessness.
 * Therefore Bruno, who had set out from Mainz went to Hungary instead. There he went to the places that Saint Adalbert of Prague had attended. Bruno tried to convert the leader of Black Hungary named Axum, but he encountered large opposition, also from the Greek monks there. Success was not possible and Bruno then went to Kiev. Grand Duke Vladimir gave him territories extending to the Petchenegs at the Black Sea between the Danube and the Don river.The Petchenegs were considered the fiercest , most cruel of all the heathen tribes. Bruno spent five months and baptized many. He aided in bringing about a peace treaty between them and the Kiev ruler.He consecrated a bishop there and then went to Poland.

On a historical point, the color-meaning of proper names is irrelevant in encyclopedias unless there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that the color name is based on the individual's personal characteristics (hair color, etc.). Big hint - it usually isn't relevant. Leave it out. Oh, well, who am I kidding? I'm talking to the computer screen here. MichaelTinkler

 * She can't even get it right when she's plagiarising it from the Catholic Encyclopedia. User:David Parker

 * "Black Hungary" is exactly why I stopped after two paragraphs to read for a while! Argh! MichaelTinkler

 * It's typical - no attempt to learn anything about the things she claims to be writing about - just pass it off as your own work (when it's nothing of the sort, but an almost verbatim lift) regardless of whether the content has any meaning. Drivel. User:David Parker

I hate to ask, but doesn't one of her other articles say that Bruno is the son of one of the Ottos? JHK

1. "Bruno met Adalbert of Prague, who was martyred a year later." - the two NEVER met! 2. "Bruno spent much time at the monastery where Adalbert had become a monk and where abbot John Canaparius wrote a life of Saint Adalbert ." - not too much IF AT ALL 3. "Bruno entered a monastery near Ravenna, founded by Otto, and underwent severe ascetic training under the guidance of St. Romuald." - the hermitage at Pereum was not a monastery yet and was certainly not founded by Otto. 4. "Bruno tried to convert the leader of "Black Hungary" named Achtum or Axum, but he encountered strong opposition, including that of the Greek monks there." - WTF?! Black Hungarians (Nigri Ungri). Achtum, Axum - no comments. But opposition from Greek monks?! Imagination or stupidity? 5. "In Poland he consecrated a bishop from Sweden" - not from but FOR Sweden or rather for the people called Suigi 6. "In 1008 Bruno wrote a letter to Henry I, Holy Roman Emperor. exhorting him to show clemency towards Boleslaus I." - the letter was written to Henry the SECOND. I am not even starting to comment on "exhortation to clemency" TO SUM UP: lotsa bullshit

Ahtum or Black Magyars
Bruno of Qurfurt in his work (Vita quinque fratrum eremitarum; Vita vel passio Benedicti et Iohannis socorumque suorom) does not mention Ahtum, but he relates his missionary work among the Black Magyars. Therefore I suggest the following wording: "Bruno tried to convert the Black Magyars, but they insisted on their faith." instead of "Bruno tried to convert Ahtum, Duke of Banat, who was an Orthodox. Bruno encountered strong opposition, including that of the Greek monks there." (Borsoka (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Search request
I know him as St Boniface of Querfurt, and an alternative name given here is Boniface, but when you search for Boniface, he doesn't show up. Can someone knowledgeable about such things fix it so he can be searched as Boniface? (I'm not asking for the page to be re-named, merely the ability to search for the name I recognize, and we acknowledge on the page.) Thanks 155.213.224.59 (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Feast Day
Why is his feast day in October? In many cases, it's tied to death dates, but that isn't the case here. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruno of Querfurt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927084800/http://www.if.vu.lt/files/LIS%20serveris/LietuvosIstorijosStudijosNo23.pdf to http://www.if.vu.lt/files/LIS%20serveris/LietuvosIstorijosStudijosNo23.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bruno of Querfurt


text:
Julian Sochocki

Julian Karol Sochocki (Julian Karol Sochocki; Юлиан Васильевич Сохоцкий; February 2, 1842, in Warsaw, Congress Poland, Russian Empire – December 14, 1927, in Leningrad, Soviet Union) was a Polish-Russian mathematician. His name is sometimes transliterated from Russian in several different ways (e.g. Sokhotski or Sochotski).

Life and work
Sochocki was born in Warsaw under the Russian domination to a Polish family, where he attended state gymnasium. In 1860 he registered at the physico-mathematical department of St Petersburg University. His study there was interrupted for the period 1860–1865 because of his involvement with Polish patriotic movement: he had to return to Warsaw to escape prosecution.

In 1866 he graduated from the Department of Physics and Mathematics at the University of Saint Petersburg. In 1868 he received his master's degree and in 1873 his doctorate. His master's dissertation, practically the first text in Russian mathematical literature on Cauchy method of residues, was published in 1868. The dissertation itself contains many original grasps, which have been also ascribed to other mathematicians. His doctoral thesis contains the famous Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem.

From 1868 Sochotcki lectured at the St Petersburg university, first as the "privat-docent", from 1882 as an ordinary professor, and from 1893 as a merited professor. In 1894 he was elected corresponding member of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Sochocki died on December 14, 1927, in a nursing home in Leningrad.

Sochocki is mainly remembered for the Casorati–Sokhotski–Weierstrass theorem and for the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem.

Selected publications

 * Теорiя интегральныхъ вычетовъ с нѣкоторыми приложенiями (A Theory of Integral Residues with Some Applications) (1868)
 * Объ определенныхъ интегралахъ и функцiяхъ употребляемыхъ при разложенiяхъ въ ряды (On Definite Integrals and Functions Used in Series Expansions) (1873)
 * О суммахъ Гаусса и о законе взаимности символа Лежандра (On Gauss Sums and the Reciprocity Law of the Legendre Symbol) (1877)
 * Высшая алгебра (Higher Algebra) (St. Petersburg, 1882)
 * Теорiя чиселъ (Number Theory) (St. Petersburg, 1888)
 * Начало общего наибольшего делителя въ применении к теорiи делимости алгебраическихъ чиселъ (The Principle of the Greatest Common Divisor Applied to Divisibility Theory of Algebraic Numbers) (1893), ,

title: Julian Sochocki


text:
1816 United States presidential election

The 1816 United States presidential election was the eighth quadrennial presidential election. It was held from November 1 to December 4, 1816. In the first election following the end of the War of 1812, Democratic-Republican candidate James Monroe defeated Federalist Rufus King. The election was the last in which the Federalist Party fielded a presidential candidate.

As President James Madison chose to retire after serving two terms, the Democratic-Republicans held a congressional nominating caucus in March 1816. With the support of Madison and former President Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State Monroe defeated Secretary of War William H. Crawford to win his party's presidential nomination. Governor Daniel D. Tompkins of New York won the Democratic-Republican vice presidential nomination, continuing the party's tradition of balancing a presidential nominee from Virginia with a vice presidential nominee from either New York or New England. The Federalists did not formally nominate a ticket, but Senator King of New York emerged as the de facto Federalist candidate.

The previous four years of American politics were dominated by the effects of the War of 1812. Its drawn outcome and the peace concluded in 1815 were satisfactory to the American people, and the Democratic-Republicans received credit for the results. Federalists were discredited by having opposed the war and by radical rhetoric from New England Federalists at the Hartford Convention. Also, President Madison had adopted certain measures favored by Federalists, including a national bank and protective tariffs. The Federalists had little to campaign on, and Monroe easily won the Electoral College, carrying 16 of the 19 states.

Declined to run
James Monroe was the favorite candidate of both former President Jefferson and retiring President Madison. However, Monroe faced stiff competition from Secretary of War William H. Crawford of Georgia. Also, there was widespread sentiment, especially in New York, that it was time to end the Virginia dynasty of presidents, resulting in Daniel D. Tompkins and Simon Snyder, the governors of New York and Pennsylvania respectively, briefly considering running for the presidential nomination. But Monroe's long record of service at home and abroad made him a fitting candidate to succeed Madison. Crawford never formally declared himself a candidate, because he believed that he had little chance against Monroe and feared such a contest might deny him a place in the new cabinet. Tompkins and Snyder realized they had even less chance of beating Monroe to the nomination, and instead positioned themselves to run for the vice presidency. Still, Crawford's supporters posed a significant challenge to Monroe.

Fifty-eight of the Democratic-Republican members of the United States Congress attended the first nominating caucus. A second caucus in March 1816 was attended by one hundred nineteen members of Congress. Monroe won the presidential nomination against Crawford by a vote of sixty-five to fifty-four while Tompkins won the vice-presidential nomination against Snyder by a vote of eighty-five to thirty.

Federalist Party candidates
In hopes of uniting with disaffected Democratic-Republicans, as they had in the previous election, the Federalists initially planned to hold their own congressional nominating caucus after that of the Democratic-Republicans. With the end of the war and the nomination of Monroe, the Federalists abandoned their hopes of another fusion ticket, and the demoralized party failed to formally nominate a candidate. Senator Rufus King of New York, who had been the party's 1804 and 1808 vice presidential nominee, and who had been nominated for president by a dissident faction of the party in 1812, eventually emerged as the de facto Federalist presidential nominee. Several Federalists would receive electoral votes for vice president, with former Senator John Eager Howard of Maryland receiving the most votes. The Federalists did not formally select a vice-presidential candidate.

Dispute about Indiana
On February 12, 1817, the House and Senate met in joint session to count the electoral votes for president and vice president. The count proceeded without incident until the roll came to the last state to be counted, Indiana. At that point, Representative John W. Taylor of New York objected to the counting of Indiana's votes. He argued that Congress had acknowledged the statehood of Indiana in a joint resolution on December 11, 1816, whereas the ballots of the Electoral College had been cast on December 4, 1816. He claimed that at the time of the balloting, there had been merely a Territory of Indiana, not a State of Indiana. Other representatives contradicted Taylor, asserting that the joint resolution merely recognized that Indiana had already joined the Union by forming a state constitution and government on June 29, 1816. These representatives pointed out that both the House and Senate had seated members from Indiana who had been elected prior to the joint resolution, which would have been unconstitutional had Indiana not been a state at the time of their election. Representative Samuel D. Ingham then moved that the question be postponed indefinitely. The House agreed almost unanimously, and the Senate was brought back in to count the electoral votes from Indiana. The issue had no bearing on the final result.

Results
When the votes were counted, Monroe had won all but three of the nineteen states. King thought that a Monroe victory was inevitable, and did not seriously contest the election.

Each of the three states that were won by King voted for a different person for vice president. Massachusetts electors voted for former United States Senator (and future Governor) John Eager Howard of Maryland. Delaware chose a different Marylander, sitting United States Senator Robert Goodloe Harper. Connecticut split its vote between James Ross of Pennsylvania and Chief Justice John Marshall.

Maryland did not choose its electors as a slate; rather, it divided itself into electoral districts, with each district choosing one elector. Three of Maryland's eleven districts were won by Federalist electors. However, these electors did not vote for King or for a Federalist vice president, instead casting blank votes as a protest.

Source (Popular Vote): A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825''

(a) Only 10 of the 19 states chose electors by popular vote. (b) Those states that did choose electors by popular vote had widely varying restrictions on suffrage via property requirements. (c) One Elector from Delaware and three Electors from Maryland did not vote.

Results by state
Elections in this period were vastly different from modern day presidential elections. The actual presidential candidates were rarely mentioned on tickets and voters were voting for particular electors who were pledged to a particular candidate. There was sometimes confusion as to who the particular elector was actually pledged to. Results are reported as the highest result for an elector for any given candidate. For example, if three Monroe electors received 100, 50, and 25 votes, Monroe would be recorded as having 100 votes. Confusion surrounding the way results are reported may lead to discrepancies between the sum of all state results and national results.

The Federalist parties of New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania did not provide a slate of electors, and as such Monroe was virtually unopposed in most of these states (with the exception of Federalist unpledged electors who received a handful of votes). In Pennsylvania, the federalist supported Monroe electors with opposition coming from an independent ticket of unpledged electors.

Voters in Tennessee cast ballots, but they have been lost to time.

States that flipped from Federalist to Democratic-Republican

 * New York
 * New Jersey
 * New Hampshire
 * Rhode Island

States where the margin of victory was under 10%

 * 1)  New Hampshire, 6.33% (1,813 votes)


text:
1820 United States presidential election

The 1820 United States presidential election was the ninth quadrennial presidential election. It was held from Wednesday, November 1, to Wednesday, December 6, 1820. Taking place at the height of the Era of Good Feelings, the election saw incumbent Democratic-Republican President James Monroe win re-election without a major opponent. It was the third and the most recent United States presidential election in which a presidential candidate ran effectively unopposed. As of 2024, this is the most recent presidential election where an incumbent president was re-elected who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, before the Democratic-Republican party split into separate parties. James Monroe's re-election marked the first time in U.S. history that a third consecutive president won a second election. This happened again with Barack Obama's re-election in the 2012 election and at no other point have multiple consecutive presidents won two elections.

Monroe and Vice President Daniel D. Tompkins faced little to no opposition from other Democratic-Republicans in their quest for a second term. The Federalist Party had fielded a presidential candidate in each election since 1796, but the party's already-waning popularity had declined further following the War of 1812. Although able to field a nominee for vice president, the Federalists could not put forward a presidential candidate, leaving Monroe without organized opposition.

Monroe won every state and received all but one of the electoral votes. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams received the only other electoral vote, which came from faithless elector William Plumer. Nine different Federalists received electoral votes for vice president, but Tompkins won re-election by a large margin. No other post-Twelfth Amendment presidential candidate has matched Monroe's electoral vote share. Monroe and George Washington remain the only presidential candidates to run without any major opposition. Monroe's victory was the last of six straight victories by Virginians in presidential elections (Jefferson twice, Madison twice, and Monroe twice). This was the last election in which an incumbent ticket was reelected until the ticket of Woodrow Wilson and Thomas R. Marshall were reelected in 1916.

Background
Despite the continuation of single-party politics (known in this case as the Era of Good Feelings), serious issues emerged during the election in 1820. The nation had endured a widespread depression following the Panic of 1819 and momentous disagreement about the extension of slavery into the territories was taking center stage. Nevertheless, James Monroe faced no opposition party or candidate in his re-election bid, although he did not receive all of the electoral votes (see below).

Massachusetts was entitled to 22 electoral votes in 1816, but cast only 15 in 1820 because of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which made the region of Maine, long part of Massachusetts, a free state to balance the pending admission of slave state Missouri. In addition, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Mississippi also cast one fewer electoral vote than they were entitled to, as one elector from each state died before the electoral meeting. Consequently, this meant that Mississippi cast only two votes when any state is always entitled to a minimum of three. This is one of only three times a state or district has cast under the minimum of three electoral votes, the others being Nevada in 1864 and the District of Columbia in 2000. In the case of the former, an elector was snowbound and there was no law to replace him (Nevada had only become a state that year). In that of the latter, a faithless elector abstained from voting.

Alabama, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, and Missouri participated in their first presidential election in 1820, Missouri came with controversy since it was not yet officially a state (see below). No new states would participate in American presidential elections until 1836, after the admission to the Union of Arkansas in 1836 and Michigan in 1837 (after the main voting, but before the counting of the electoral vote in Congress).

Democratic-Republican Party nomination
Only fifty of the one hundred ninety-one Democratic-Republican members of the United States Congress attended the nominating caucus and they unanimously voted to not make a nomination as it would be unnecessary to do so. Monroe and Tompkins appeared on the ballot with the support of the Democratic-Republican Party despite not being formally nominated.

Campaign
Monroe's re-election in 1820, while notable for its broad support, was not without opposition nor did there exist a unanimity of sentiment in favor of President Monroe. Complaints of Monroe's administration included his opposition to federal funds in constructing internal improvements, his failure to advocate a substantial increase in the tariff, his failure to champion the cause of the South in the Missouri Controversy, and his failure to champion the cause of the North in the Missouri Controversy.

Despite these criticisms, Monroe received backing from both Democratic-Republican and Federalist elector candidates in most states. In many cases, rival Democratic-Republicans vied for the privilege of casting their electoral vote for Monroe. True opposition to Monroe's presidency only emerged in New York and Pennsylvania where New York Governor DeWitt Clinton was supported as an alternative presidential candidate.

Federal funding
Monroe's opposition to federal funds in constructing internal improvements and his apparent neutrality on the tariff issue were especially displeasing to Kentucky and the Middle Atlantic states. In early 1819, the Kentucky Gazette vigorously endorsed the idea of federal internal improvements, condemning Monroe for his position on the issue. Later, commenting on Monroe's pending visit to Lexington, the Kentucky Gazette said:

"It is hoped the president will remain with us long enough to examine the state of our factories. They will present to him a different aspect from that which they wore, when he was here in 1808. If their fallen state should produce any impression, it is possible, through the agency of the chief magistrate, that the government will take some steps to encourage domestic manufactures."

After Monroe's visit, the Gazette, once more returning to the issue of internal improvements, noted that the President had been emphatically told during his stay in Kentucky that the people of the state were not in sympathy with his position on that question.

Opposition to Monroe on the issue was also present in New York where the Clintonian faction of the Democratic-Republicans deeply resented Monroe on the matter with Governor Clinton even expressing disappointment as early as 1817. The two men were not on friendly terms since the latter's campaign against the party in the 1812 presidential election. This conflict openly erupted after the Clintonians accused the Monroe administration of using patronage to defeat Clinton in his campaign for re-election. When it came to the time of choosing electors, the Bucktail faction of the Democratic-Republicans, which was loyal to Monroe, and the Clintonians ran rival tickets. Newspapers referred to the former as the "slave ticket" and the latter as the "anti-slave ticket". Ultimately, the Clintonian faction lost, with the legislature voting 89 for the Bucktail ticket, 53 for the Clintonian ticket, and 1 not voting. The Columbian, the Clintonian organ in New York City, claimed that its candidates would have voted for Monroe had they won. However, it is likely that some would have supported Clinton instead.

Tariff policy
It was in Pennsylvania that the greatest criticism of Monroe's tariff policy, or lack of a tariff policy, was encountered and where the most spirited opposition to Monroe existed. The Panic of 1819, with its disastrous effects on many factories in the state, produced a strong demand for higher protective tariffs. A public meeting held in Philadelphia in August 1819 declared that it would vote for no one for public office who was known to be unfriendly to the principle of tariff protection. This opposition to Monroe was spearheaded by William Duane and his newspaper the Philadelphia Auror. Duane, though a Democratic-Republican, had been for years a severe critic of both the state and national leadership of the party. In 1820 the Aurora's anonymous correspondent, BRUTUS (suspected to be Duane himself), began to denounce Monroe as the champion of slavery, blamed him for causing the defeat of the tariff bill of 1820, blamed him for discouraging internal improvements, and accused him of championing the cause of the national bank, favoring the caucus system, and even encouraging the Supreme Court to render corrupt decisions.

On October 21, a public meeting was held in Philadelphia to nominate anti-Monroe electoral candidates. The meeting was contentious, with the Pro-Monroe Philadelphia Democratic Press and the Aurora offering conflicting accounts. The Democratic Press claimed that Monroe supporters were so numerous at the State House's Mayor's Court Room that the opposition had to move to Overholt's Tavern. In contrast, the Aurora described the meeting, which was said to have been largely made up of Quakers, as impressive but disrupted by unruly Monroe supporters, leading many Quakers to withdraw in dismay as they were not accustomed to such turmoil.

The newly formed anti-Monroe ticket pledged support for Clinton as president and campaigned briefly in Philadelphia, though the rest of the state remained largely indifferent. The Aurora vehemently attacked Monroe as a candidate who supported slavery and urged Pennsylvania to break from their vassalage to the "slave aristocracy." BRUTUS, on the eve of the election, denounced Monroe as an enemy of internal improvements and domestic manufacturing, while praising Governor Clinton's support for these initiatives.

When the election returns were counted it was found that Monroe had received 1,233 votes in Philadelphia to 793 for Clinton. Elsewhere in Pennsylvania, Clinton's support was minimal, with only Fayette County breaking 10% of the vote for Clinton electors.

Missouri Compromise and Virginia
Unexpected opposition to Monroe came from his very own state of Virginia. In February 1820, when the Virginia legislative caucus met to nominate presidential electors just as the Missouri Compromise was being finalized, it was clear that Monroe wouldn't veto the compromise as it seen as the only peaceful solution to the slavery issue within the Union. However, while Northern moderates urged Monroe to accept the compromise, Virginia Democratic-Republicans, led by the Richmond Enquirer, demanded that the South resist any restrictions on slavery in Missouri or other territories. As such, the Virginia caucus was dismayed to hear rumors that Monroe supported a compromise allowing slavery in Missouri but prohibiting it in the Louisiana Territory above the Parallel 36°30′ north. Angered, the caucus adjourned without making nominations. Virginians, including Henry St. George Tucker, wrote furious letters to Washington, condemning the compromise and expressing their unwillingness to support Monroe if it meant sacrificing Southern rights. Monroe, usually mild-mannered, grew indignant at these criticisms. He wrote to his son-in-law, George Hay, emphasizing that principles were more important than expediency and suggesting that if the legislators preferred another candidate, they should say so. Instead, the caucus reconvened on February 17 and nominated Monroe supporters for the electoral college, likely realizing their earlier mistake. Hay selectively shared favorable letters from Monroe with the caucus, hinting at a possible compromise. Eventually, Monroe approved the Missouri Compromise, despite earlier considering a veto.

Disputes
On March 9, 1820, Congress had passed a law directing Missouri to hold a convention to form a constitution and a state government. This law stated that "the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever." However, when Congress reconvened in November 1820, the admission of Missouri became an issue of contention. Proponents claimed that Missouri had fulfilled the conditions of the law and therefore was a state; detractors contended that certain provisions of the Missouri Constitution violated the United States Constitution.

By the time Congress was due to meet to count the electoral votes from the election, this dispute had lasted over two months. The counting raised a ticklish problem: if Congress counted Missouri's votes, that would count as recognition that Missouri was a state; on the other hand, if Congress failed to count Missouri's vote, it would count as recognition that Missouri was not a state. Knowing ahead of time that Monroe had won in a landslide and that Missouri's vote would therefore make no difference in the final result, the Senate passed a resolution on February 13, 1821, stating that if a protest were made, there would be no consideration of the matter unless the vote of Missouri would change who would become president. Instead, the President of the Senate would announce the final tally twice, once with Missouri included and once with it excluded.

The next day this resolution was introduced in the full House. After a lively debate, it was passed. Nonetheless, during the counting of the electoral votes on February 14, 1821, an objection was raised to the votes from Missouri by Representative Arthur Livermore of New Hampshire. He argued that since Missouri had not yet officially become a state, it had no right to cast any electoral votes. Immediately, Representative John Floyd of Virginia argued that Missouri's votes must be counted. Chaos ensued, and order was restored only with the counting of the vote as per the resolution and then adjournment for the day.

Popular vote
The Federalists received a small amount of the popular vote despite having no electoral candidates. Even in Massachusetts, where the Federalist slate of electors was victorious, the electors cast all of their votes for Monroe. This was the first election in which the Democratic-Republicans won in Connecticut and Delaware.

Source (Electoral Vote):

Source (Popular Vote): A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825

(a) Only 15 of the 24 states chose electors by popular vote.

(b) Adams received his vote from a faithless elector.

(c) ''There was a dispute as to whether Missouri's electoral votes were valid, due to the timing of its assumption of statehood. The first figure excludes Missouri's votes and the second figure includes them.''

(d) Electors were elected to all 235 apportioned positions; however, three electors (from Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Tennessee) pledged to the Monroe/Tompkins ticket died before the Electoral College convened and were not replaced, bringing the total number of electoral votes cast to 229 or 232 respectively.

Electoral vote
The sole electoral vote against Monroe came from William Plumer, an elector from New Hampshire and former United States senator and New Hampshire governor. Plumer cast his electoral ballot for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Everett S. Brown, a political scientist, noted that Plumer had asked his son, William Plumer Jr., to see if Adams had objections to Plumer casting his vote for him. While legend has it this was to ensure that George Washington would remain the only American president unanimously chosen by the Electoral College, that was not Plumer's goal. In fact, Plumer simply thought that Monroe was a mediocre president and that Adams would be a better one. Plumer also refused to vote for Tompkins for Vice President as "grossly intemperate", not having "that weight of character which his office requires," and "because he grossly neglected his duty" in his "only" official role as President of the Senate by being "absent nearly three-fourths of the time"; Plumer ultimately voted for Adams for president and Richard Rush for vice president; in doing so, Plumer unwittingly prefigured the National Republican ticket that Adams and Rush would run on together in 1828. In response to Plumer's vote, Adams felt "surprise and mortification", and that Plumer's vote was an affront to the Monroe administration.

Even though every member of the Electoral College was pledged to Monroe, there were still a number of Federalist electors who voted for a Federalist vice president rather than Monroe's running mate Daniel D. Tompkins: those for Richard Stockton came from Massachusetts, while the entire Delaware delegation voted for Daniel Rodney for vice president, and Robert Goodloe Harper's vice presidential vote was cast by an elector from his home state of Maryland. In any case, these breaks in ranks were not enough to deny Tompkins a substantial electoral college victory.

Monroe's share of the electoral vote has not been exceeded by any candidate since, with the closest competition coming from Franklin D. Roosevelt's landslide 1936 victory.

Only Washington, who won the vote of each presidential elector in the 1789 and 1792 presidential elections, can claim to have swept the Electoral College.

Source:

(a) ''There was a dispute over the validity of Missouri's electoral votes, due to the timing of its assumption of statehood. The first figure excludes Missouri's votes and the second figure includes them.''

(b) These votes are from electors who voted for a Federalist vice president rather than Monroe's running mate Daniel D. Tompkins; combined, these votes represent only 5.6% of the electoral vote.

(c) Electors were elected to all 235 apportioned positions; however, three electors (from Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Tennessee) pledged to the Monroe/Tompkins ticket died before the Electoral College convened and were not replaced, bringing the total number of electoral votes cast to 229 or 232 respectively.

Results by state
Elections in this period were vastly different from modern-day presidential elections. The actual presidential candidates were rarely mentioned on tickets and voters were voting for particular electors who were pledged to a particular candidate. There was sometimes confusion as to who a particular elector was actually pledged to. Results are reported as the highest result for an elector for any given candidate. For example, if three Monroe electors received 100, 50, and 25 votes, Monroe would be recorded as having 100 votes. Confusion surrounding the way results are reported may lead to discrepancies between the sum of all state results and national results.

In Massachusetts, Federalist electors won 62.06% of the vote. However, only 7,902 of these votes went to Federalist electors who did not cast their votes for Monroe (this being most likely because these Federalist electors lost). Similarly, In Kentucky, 1,941 ballots were cast for an elector labelled as Federalist who proceeded to vote for Monroe. All of the Federalist Monroe votes have been placed in the Federalist column, as the Federalist party fielded no presidential candidate and therefore it is likely these electors simply cast their votes for Monroe because the overwhelming majority he achieved made their votes irrelevant.

States that flipped from Federalist to Democratic-Republican

 * Connecticut
 * Delaware
 * Massachusetts


text:
1824 United States presidential election

The 1824 United States presidential election was the tenth quadrennial presidential election. It was held from Tuesday, October 26 to Thursday, December 2, 1824. Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford were the primary contenders for the presidency. The result of the election was inconclusive, as no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote. In the election for vice president, John C. Calhoun was elected with a comfortable majority of the vote. Because none of the candidates for president garnered an electoral vote majority, the U.S. House of Representatives, under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, held a contingent election. On February 9, 1825, the House voted (with each state delegation casting one vote) to elect John Quincy Adams as president, ultimately giving the election to him.

The Democratic-Republican Party had won six consecutive presidential elections and by 1824 was the only national political party. However, as the election approached, the presence of multiple viable candidates resulted in there being multiple nominations by the contending factions, signaling the splintering of the party and an end to the Era of Good Feelings, as well as the First Party System.

Adams won New England, Jackson and Adams split the mid-Atlantic states, Jackson and Clay split the Western states, and Jackson and Crawford split the Southern states. Jackson finished with a plurality of the popular vote, and also of the electoral vote (due to the Three-fifths Compromise), while the other three candidates each finished with a significant share of the votes. Clay, who had finished fourth, was eliminated. Adams was the first son of a former president to become president, something later repeated by George W. Bush in 2000.

This is one of two presidential elections (along with the 1800 election) that have been decided in the House. It is also one of five elections in which the winner did not achieve at least a plurality of the national popular vote and the only election in which the candidate who received the most electoral votes from the Electoral College did not win the election.

Background
The Era of Good Feelings, associated with the administration of President James Monroe, was a time of reduced emphasis on political party identity. With the Federalists discredited, Democratic-Republicans adopted some key Federalist economic programs and institutions. The economic nationalism of the Era of Good Feelings that would authorize the Tariff of 1816 and incorporate the Second Bank of the United States portended abandonment of the Jeffersonian political formula for strict construction of the Constitution, limited central government, and primacy of Southern slaveholding interests.

An unintended consequence of wide single-party identification was reduced party discipline. Rather than political harmony, factions arose within the party. Monroe attempted to improve discipline by appointing leading statesmen to his Cabinet, including Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford of Georgia, and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. General Andrew Jackson of Tennessee led high-profile military missions. Only House Speaker Henry Clay of Kentucky held political power independent of Monroe. He refused to join the cabinet and remained critical of the administration.

Two key events, the Panic of 1819 and the Missouri crisis of 1820, influenced and reshaped politics. The economic downturn broadly harmed workers, the sectional disputes over slavery expansion raised tensions, and both events plus other factors drove demand for increased democratic control. Social disaffection would help motivate revival of rivalrous political parties in the near future, though these had not yet formed at the time of the 1824 election.

Nomination process
The previous competition between the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party collapsed after the War of 1812 due to the disintegration of the Federalists' popular appeal. President James Monroe of the Democratic-Republicans was able to run without opposition in the 1820 election. Like previous presidents who had been elected to two terms, Monroe declined to seek re-nomination for a third term. Vice President Daniel D. Tompkins had long-since been dismissed as a viable successor to Monroe due to a combination of health problems and a financial dispute with the federal government, and he formally ruled himself out of making a presidential run at the start of 1824. The presidential nomination was thus left wide open within the Democratic-Republican Party, the only major national political entity remaining in the United States.

The congressional caucus nominated Crawford for president and Albert Gallatin for vice president, but only 66 of the 240 Democratic Republican members of Congress attended the caucus, which was widely attacked as undemocratic. Gallatin had not sought the vice presidential nomination and soon withdrew at Crawford's request. Gallatin was also dissatisfied with repeated attacks on his credibility made by the other candidates. He was replaced by North Carolina Senator Nathaniel Macon. State legislatures also convened state caucuses to nominate candidates.

Adams sought to have Jackson be his vice-presidential running mate and Louisa Adams hosted a ball in honor of the Battle of New Orleans' ninth anniversary. He had supported Jackson during his invasion of Florida while Clay and Crawford opposed him, causing Jackson to oppose them. Clay supporters in the Tennessee legislature nominated Jackson for president in 1822, as an attempt to weaken Crawford in the state.

William Lowndes was nominated for president by the South Carolina legislature on December 18, 1821, but died on October 27, 1822. Calhoun was nominated by a group of men in Philadelphia, including George M. Dallas, in December 1821. However, Dallas later gave his support to Jackson's presidential campaign, with Calhoun as his running mate, in February 1824.

Martin Van Buren and his political machine supported Crawford in New York. During the selection of New York's electors Van Buren was able to deny Clay enough support to prevent him from being eligible for the contingent election.

Candidates
All four candidates were nominated by at least one state legislature. Andrew Jackson was recruited to run for the office of the president by the state legislature of Tennessee. Jackson did not seek the task of running for president. Instead, he wished to retire to his estate on the outskirts of Nashville, called the Hermitage.

Campaign
Candidates drew voter support by different states and sections. Adams dominated the popular vote in New England and won some support elsewhere, Clay dominated his home state of Kentucky and won pluralities in two neighboring states, and Crawford won the Virginia vote overwhelmingly and polled well in North Carolina. Jackson had geographically the broadest support, though there were heavy vote concentrations in his home state of Tennessee and in Pennsylvania and populous areas where even he ran poorly.

Policy played a reduced role in the election, though positions on tariffs and internal improvements did create significant disagreements. Both Adams and Jackson supporters backed Secretary of War John C. Calhoun of South Carolina for vice president. He easily secured the majority of electoral votes for that office. In reality, Calhoun was vehemently opposed to nearly all of Adams's policies, but he did nothing to dissuade Adams supporters from voting for him for vice president, partly because he was even more vehemently opposed to the prospect of a Clay presidency, and partly because he had a long-standing personal enmity with Crawford.

The campaigning for presidential election of 1824 took many forms. Contrafacta, or well known songs and tunes whose lyrics have been altered, were used to promote political agendas and presidential candidates. Below can be found a sound clip featuring "Hunters of Kentucky", a tune written by Samuel Woodsworth in 1815 under the title "The Unfortunate Miss Bailey". Contrafacta such as this one, which promoted Andrew Jackson as a national hero, have been a long-standing tradition in presidential elections. Another form of campaigning during this election was through newsprint. Political cartoons and partisan writings were best circulated among the voting public through newspapers. Presidential candidate John C. Calhoun was one of the candidates most directly involved through his participation in the publishing of the newspaper The Patriot as a member of the editorial staff. This was a sure way to promote his own political agendas and campaign. In contrast, most candidates involved in early 19th century elections did not run their own political campaigns. Instead it was left to volunteer citizens and partisans to speak on their behalf.

Results
The 1824 presidential election marked the final collapse of the Republican-Federalist political framework. The electoral map confirmed the candidates' sectional support, with Adams winning in New England, Jackson having wide voter appeal, Clay attracting votes from the West, and Crawford attracting votes from the eastern South. Jackson earned only a plurality of electoral votes. Thus, the presidential election was decided by the House of Representatives, which elected John Quincy Adams on the first ballot. John C. Calhoun, supported by Adams and Jackson, easily won the vice presidency, not requiring a contingent election in the Senate.

Jackson's electoral college plurality was the result of the Three-fifths Compromise. The electoral college results would have been 83 for Adams and 77 for Jackson without the inflated electoral count of slaveholding states. Crawford likewise benefited in this regard, as all but eight of his electoral votes were from slave states, while Clay's electoral votes were split relatively evenly (20 from the free states of New York and Ohio, 17 from the slave states of Kentucky and Missouri); without the Three-fifths Compromise, Crawford would have finished last in the electoral college, and Clay would have entered the contingent election at his expense.

Results by state
Elections in this period were vastly different from modern-day presidential elections. The actual presidential candidates were rarely mentioned on tickets and voters were voting for particular electors who were pledged to a particular candidate. There was sometimes confusion as to who a particular elector was actually pledged to. Results are reported as the highest result for an elector for any given candidate. For example, if three Jackson electors received 100, 50, and 25 votes, Jackson would be recorded as having 100 votes. Confusion surrounding the way results are reported may lead to discrepancies between the sum of all state results and national results.

Close states
States where the margin of victory was under 1%:
 * 1) Maryland 0.32% (109 votes)

States where the margin of victory was under 5%:
 * 1) Ohio 1.53% (766 votes)

States where the margin of victory was under 10%:
 * 1) Illinois 5.23% (244 votes)

1825 contingent election
As no presidential candidate had won an absolute electoral vote majority, the responsibility for electing a new president devolved upon the U.S. House of Representatives, which held a contingent election on February 9, 1825. As prescribed by the Twelfth Amendment, the House was limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and William Crawford; Henry Clay, who had finished fourth, was eliminated. Each state delegation, voting en bloc, had a single vote. There were 24 states at the time, thus an absolute majority of 13 votes was required for victory.

Clay detested Jackson and had said of him, "I cannot believe that killing 2,500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult, and complicated duties of the Chief Magistracy." Moreover, Clay's American System was closer to Adams's position on tariffs and internal improvements than Jackson's. Even if Clay had wished to align with Crawford over Jackson, which was highly unlikely in any event since Clay's policy differences with Crawford were even deeper, especially on matters of the tariff, Crawford had been in poor health, and no path to victory was evident.

Daniel Pope Cook, Illinois' sole representative, was anti-slavery and gave his support to Adams. James Buchanan attempted to make a compromise with Clay in which Jackson would make him Secretary of State in exchange for his support. Clay instead gave his support to Adams and was able to have the Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio delegations support him. Illinois, Louisiana, and Maryland, which Jackson won during the election, had their delegations support Adams.

Van Buren attempted to have New York's delegation be divided between Adams and Crawford in order to increase its power and make a deal with one of them. However, Stephen Van Rensselaer, a Federalist allied with Van Buren, voted for Adams. Van Buren stated that Van Rensselaer found a ballot for Adams on the floor while Van Rensselaer, in his letter to Governor DeWitt Clinton, stated that he voted for Adams as he was bound to win and that he wanted to shorten "the long agony". Van Buren supported Jackson during the 1828 election and aided in Calhoun's selection as vice president.

Ignoring the nonbinding directive of the Kentucky legislature that its House delegation choose Jackson, the delegation voted 8–4 for Adams instead. Thus, Adams was elected president on the first ballot, with 13 states, followed by Jackson with seven, and Crawford with four.

Aftermath
Adams' victory shocked Jackson, who, as the winner of a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes, expected the House to choose him. Not long before the contingent House election, an anonymous statement appeared in a Philadelphia paper, called the Columbian Observer. The statement, said to be from a member of Congress, essentially accused Clay of selling Adams his support for the office of Secretary of State. No formal investigation was conducted, so the matter was neither confirmed nor denied. When Clay was indeed offered the position after Adams was victorious, he opted to accept and continue to support the administration he voted for, knowing that declining the position would not have helped to dispel the rumors brought against him. Jackson referred to Clay as the "Judas of the West".

By appointing Clay his Secretary of State, President Adams essentially declared him heir to the presidency, as Adams and his three predecessors had all served as Secretary of State. Jackson and his followers accused Adams and Clay of striking a "corrupt bargain", and the Jacksonians would campaign on this claim for the next four years, ultimately helping Jackson defeat Adams in 1828. Ironically, Adams offered Jackson a position in his Cabinet as Secretary of War, which Jackson declined to accept.

Adams' supporters controlled the U.S. House of Representatives after the 1824–25 elections and obtained the speakership for John W. Taylor. Adams' relationship with Calhoun deteriorated, with Calhoun opposing Clay's appointment as Secretary of State due to his own presidential ambitions. In June 1826, Calhoun gave his support to Jackson for the 1828 election.