Presidential elections were held in the United States from November 1 to December 6, 1820. Taking place at the height of the Era of Good Feelings, the election saw incumbent Democratic-Republican President James Monroe win reelection without a major opponent. It was the third and the most recent United States presidential election in which a presidential candidate ran effectively unopposed.
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, and the first time the incumbent president and vice-president were simultaneously reelected since George Washington and John Adams (who did not run as a ticket) in 1792.
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).
Nominations
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 ran with the support of the Democratic-Republican Party despite not being formally nominated.
General election
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." On the eve of the election, BRUTUS (the anonymous source mentioned above) 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 would not veto the compromise as it was 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 (i.e. slavery). 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 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.