United States presidential election, 1800
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States presidential election of 1800, sometimes referred to as the “Revolution of 1800”, was a realigning election in which Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr defeated incumbent President John Adams. The election ushered in a generation of Democratic-Republican Party rule and the eventual demise of the Federalist Party. It is therefore considered the pivotal election of the First Party System.
However, one of the flaws in the original Constitution then came to the forefront. Members of the Electoral College could only vote for President; the Vice President was the runner-up in the election. The Democratic-Republican plan to have one elector vote for Jefferson and not Burr was bungled, resulting in a tie in the electoral vote between Jefferson and Burr. The election was then put into the hands of the outgoing Federalist House of Representatives. Most Federalists voted for Burr in order to block Jefferson from the Presidency, and the result was a week of deadlock. Finally, the deadlock was broken—making Jefferson the winner only two weeks before Inauguration Day—thanks in part to the efforts of Alexander Hamilton, who thought Burr was far more dangerous to the United States than Jefferson. (Hamilton's intervention helped fuel his feud with Burr; this rivalry ended in Hamilton's death in a duel with Burr three years later.)
Jefferson's eventual victory ended America's most acrimonious presidential campaign to date. As a result of the problems arising from the election, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1804, providing that electors make a distinct choice between their selections for President and Vice President.
Contents |
[edit] General election
[edit] Campaign
This election was a rematch of the 1796 election. The campaign was acrimonious. Federalists spread rumors that the Democratic-Republicans were radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country. Thus George Washington in 1798 complained, “that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country.”[1] Meanwhile the Democratic-Republicans accused Federalists of destroying republican values with the Alien and Sedition Acts and even accused Adams of planning to declare himself king and make a dynastic marriage with Britain.
Adams was attacked by both the opposition Democratic-Republicans and parts of his own Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans felt that his policy was too favorable toward Britain, feared the new army called up for the Quasi-War,[2] opposed his new taxes, and attacked his Alien and Sedition Acts as violations of states rights. A faction of “High Federalists” considered Adams too moderate. Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton schemed to elect vice presidential candidate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney instead. One of Hamilton's letters attacking Adams became public, embarrassing Adams and damaging Hamilton's schemes.
[edit] Jefferson's platform
Political parties in the 1790s did not issue official platforms, but Jefferson issued a major statement in a January 26, 1799 public letter to Elbridge Gerry that was widely reprinted and circulated. It became the political creed for which he was best known in his lifetime.[3]
In confutation of these and all future calumnies, by way of anticipation, I shall make to you a profession of my political faith; in confidence that you will consider every future imputation on me of a contrary complexion, as bearing on its front the mark of falsehood & calumny.
I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by it's friends, & not that which it's enemies apprehended, who therefore became it's enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchising it's features by the forms of it's administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle. I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, & to the legislature of the Union it's constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the general government, & all those of that government to the Executive branch. I am for a government rigorously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of it's being a public blessing. I am for relying, for internal defence, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which, by it's own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, grind us with public burthens, & sink us under them.
I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; & little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe; entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty.
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another: for freedom of the press, & against all violations of the constitution to silence By force & not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents. And I am for encouraging the progress of science in all it's branches; and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head & bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, & to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality, & every other science were in the highest perfection in ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be devised more perfect than what was established by our forefathers. To these I will add, that I was a sincere well-wisher to the success of the French revolution, and still wish it may end in the establishment of a free & well-ordered republic; but I have not been insensible under the atrocious depredations they have committed on our commerce.[4]
[edit] Selection method changes
Partisans on both sides sought any advantage they could find. In several states, this included changing the method of selection to ensure the desired result. In Georgia, Democratic-Republican legislators replaced the popular vote with selection by the state legislature. Federalist legislators did the same in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. (This may have had some unintended consequences in Massachusetts, where the delegation to the federal House of Representatives was changed from 12–2 Federalist to 8–6 Federalist by irate voters.) Pennsylvania also switched to legislative choice, but this resulted in an almost evenly split set of electors. Virginia switched from electoral districts to winner-take-all, a move that probably switched one or two votes from the Federalist column to the Democratic-Republican column.
[edit] Voting
Since each state could choose its own election day, voting lasted from April to October. In April, Burr succeeded in reversing the Federalist majority and getting a Democratic-Republican majority in New York's state legislature. With the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans tied 65–65 in the Electoral College, the last state to vote, South Carolina, chose eight Democratic-Republicans, giving the election to Jefferson and Burr.
Under the United States Constitution, each presidential elector cast two votes, without distinction as to which was for President or Vice President. The recipient of a majority of votes was elected President, while the Vice Presidency went to the recipient of the second greatest number of votes. The Federalists therefore had one of their electors vote for John Jay rather than for vice presidential candidate Pinckney. The Democratic-Republicans had a similar plan to have one of their electors cast a vote for another candidate instead of Burr, but, by a misadventure, failed to execute it. Thus, the Democratic-Republican electors each cast their two votes for Jefferson and Burr, giving each of them 73 votes—a tie. A contingent election had to be held in the House of Representatives—the old House elected in 1798.
[edit] Disputes
[edit] Defective certificates
When the electoral ballots were opened and counted on February 11, 1801, it turned out that the certificate of election from Georgia was defective; while it was clear that the Electors had cast their votes for Jefferson and Burr, the certificate did not take the Constitutionally-mandated form of a “List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each”. Jefferson, who was counting the votes in his role as President of the Senate, immediately counted the votes from Georgia as votes for Jefferson and Burr. No objections were raised, and Jefferson and Burr's final tally was duly totalled at 73, a majority.
Historians such as Bruce Ackerman contend that this incident demonstrates several defects in the original Constitution by exploring what would have happened if the ballots from Georgia had been disallowed. Because Georgia's envelope had contained a valid certificate of ascertainment, it was known that Georgia had appointed four electors. Since the Constitution mandated that a contingent election be immediately held, and since Jefferson and Burr would not have received a majority of the electoral vote, the House would have held a contingent election among the top five electoral vote-getters. In such a case, the lame-duck Federalist House could have chosen to elect Pinckney, Adams, or even Jay. Moreover, if the House had chosen to elect one of the Federalist candidates, the lame-duck Federalist Senate would then have chosen between Jefferson and Burr for the Vice Presidency.
The first defect alleged by Ackerman is that the Vice President would often be a contender for the Presidency, particularly since, under pre-12th Amendment rules, the Vice President was the runner-up in the previous presidential election. Thus, the founders ensured that somebody who would have a distinct personal interest in the outcome of the presidential election would be counting the votes. And, indeed, in this case we had Jefferson making a decision which very well may have locked out several rivals from consideration by the House. A second defect is that, under pre-20th Amendment rules, the outgoing Congress (who, as in this election, may have been repudiated at the polls) supervises the counting. Had the Federalists wanted to, they could have disputed the Georgia election ballot, and they had a distinct interest in doing so. Finally, the Constitution doesn't clearly say what should happen when a vote-counting problem arises, which means that the Congress could easily degenerate into chaos as they try to determine the rules for resolving the dispute.[5]
[edit] Results
Jefferson and Burr tied for first place, so the election was thrown into the House of Representatives.
| Presidential Candidate | Party | Home State | Popular Vote(a), (b), (c) | Electoral Vote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percentage | ||||
| Thomas Jefferson | Democratic-Republican | Virginia | 41,330 | 61.4% | 73 |
| Aaron Burr | Democratic-Republican | New York | — | — | 73 |
| John Adams | Federalist | Massachusetts | 25,952 | 38.6% | 65 |
| Charles Cotesworth Pinckney | Federalist | South Carolina | — | — | 64 |
| John Jay | Federalist | New York | — | — | 1 |
| Total | 67,282 | 100.0% | 276 | ||
| Needed to win | 70 | ||||
Source (Popular Vote): U.S. President National Vote. Our Campaigns. (February 10, 2006).
Source (Electoral Vote): Electoral College Box Scores 1789–1996. Official website of the National Archives. (July 30, 2005).
(a) Votes for Federalist electors have been assigned to John Adams and votes for Republican electors have been assigned to Thomas Jefferson.
(b) Only 6 of the 16 states chose electors by any form of popular vote.
(c) Those states that did choose electors by popular vote had widely varying restrictions on suffrage via property requirements.
[edit] Breakdown by ticket
| Presidential Candidate | Running Mate | Electoral Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jefferson | Aaron Burr | 73 |
| John Adams | Charles Cotesworth Pinckney | 64 |
| John Adams | John Jay | 1 |
[edit] Contingent election
The members of the House of Representatives balloted as states to determine which of Jefferson and Burr would become President. There were sixteen states, and an absolute majority—in this case, nine—were required for victory.
While it was common knowledge that Jefferson was the candidate for President and Burr for Vice President, the lame-duck House was controlled by the Federalists, who were loath to vote for Jefferson, their partisan nemesis. Thus, most Federalists voted for Burr, giving Burr six of the eight states controlled by Federalists. The seven states controlled by Democratic-Republicans all voted for Jefferson, and Georgia's lone living Federalist representative also voted for Jefferson, giving Jefferson eight states. Vermont was evenly split, casting a blank ballot. The remaining state, Maryland, had five Federalist representatives to three Democratic-Republicans; one of its Federalist representatives vote for Jefferson, forcing the state delegation to cast a blank ballot.
Over the course of seven days from February 11 to February 17, the House cast a total of 35 ballots, with Jefferson receiving the votes of eight state delegations each time—one short of the necessary majority of nine. During the confusion, Alexander Hamilton said he supported Jefferson because he was “by far not so dangerous a man” as Burr. On Tuesday, February 17, on the 36th ballot, Jefferson was elected. Federalist James A. Bayard of Delaware and his allies in Maryland and Vermont all cast blank ballots thereby giving Jefferson a majority of ten states to four.
[edit] Results
| Jefferson | Burr | no result | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st – 35th ballots | 8 | 6 | 2 |
| 36th ballot | 10 | 4 | 2 |
In the following table, results for the state delegation are expressed as (<votes for Jefferson>-<votes for Burr>-<abstentions>).
| 1st ballot | 2nd–35th ballots(a) | 36th ballot | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia (b) | Jefferson (1-0-0) |
Jefferson (1-0-0) |
Jefferson (1-0-0) |
| Kentucky | Jefferson (2-0-0) |
Jefferson (2-0-0) |
Jefferson (2-0-0) |
| New Jersey | Jefferson (3-2-0) |
Jefferson (3-2-0) |
Jefferson (3-2-0) |
| New York | Jefferson (6-4-0) |
Jefferson (6-4-0) |
Jefferson (6-4-0) |
| North Carolina | Jefferson (9-1-0) |
Jefferson (6-4-0) |
Jefferson (6-4-0) |
| Pennsylvania | Jefferson (9-4-0) |
Jefferson (9-4-0) |
Jefferson (9-4-0) |
| Tennessee | Jefferson (1-0-0) |
Jefferson (1-0-0) |
Jefferson (1-0-0) |
| Virginia | Jefferson (16-3-0) |
Jefferson (14-5-0) |
Jefferson (14-5-0) |
| Maryland | no result (4-4-0) |
no result (4-4-0) |
Jefferson (4-0-4) |
| Vermont | no result (1-1-0) |
no result (1-1-0) |
Jefferson (1-0-1) |
| Delaware | Burr (0-1-0) |
Burr (0-1-0) |
no result (0-0-1) |
| South Carolina (c) | Burr (0-5-0) |
Burr (1-3-0) |
no result (0-0-4) |
| Connecticut | Burr (0-7-0) |
Burr (0-7-0) |
Burr (0-7-0) |
| Massachusetts | Burr (3-11-0) |
Burr (3-11-0) |
Burr (3-11-0) |
| New Hampshire | Burr (0-4-0) |
Burr (0-4-0) |
Burr (0-4-0) |
| Rhode Island | Burr (0-2-0) |
Burr (0-2-0) |
Burr (0-2-0) |
(a) The votes of the individual representatives is typical and may have fluctuated from ballot to ballot, but the result for each individual state did not change.
(b) Even though Georgia had two representatives apportioned, one seat was vacant due to the death of James Jones.
(c) Even though South Carolina had six representatives apportioned, Thomas Sumter was absent due to illness, and Abraham Nott departed for South Carolina between the first and final ballots.
[edit] Electoral college selection
| Method of choosing Electors | State(s) |
|---|---|
| state is divided into electoral districts, with one Elector chosen per district by the voters of that district | Kentucky Maryland North Carolina |
| each Elector chosen by voters statewide | Rhode Island Virginia |
|
Tennessee |
| each Elector appointed by state legislature | (all other states) |
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ Mintz, S. (2003). Gilder Lehrman Document Number: GLC 581. Digital History. Retrieved on 2006-09-20.
- ^ In February 1799, Adams had started dissolving the army units called up for the Quasi-War, but the last regiment did not retire from the field until June 1800, well into the campaign.
- ^ Peterson, Merrill (1975). Thomas Jefferson, 627.
- ^ Jefferson, Thomas (1799-01-26). Letter to Elbridge Gerry.
- ^ Ackerman, Bruce (2005). “Jefferson Counts Himself In”, The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 55–76. ISBN 0-674-01866-4.
[edit] References
- (1834–1856) Annals of the Congress of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 10:1028–1033.
- A Historical Analysis of the Electoral College. The Green Papers. Retrieved on March 20, 2005.
[edit] Further reading
- (1999) Doron Ben-Atar and Barbara B. Oberg, eds.: Federalists Reconsidered.
- (2004) Jeffrey L. Pasley, et al., eds.: Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic.
- Beard, Charles A. (1915). The Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy.
- Bowling, Kenneth R., Donald R. Kennon (2005). Establishing Congress : The Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800.
- Buel, Richard (1972). Securing the Revolution: Ideology in American Politics, 1789–1815.
- Chambers, William Nisbet (1963). Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809.
- Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. (1965). The Making of the American Party System 1789 to 1809.
- Dunn, Susan (2004). The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism.
- Elkins, Stanley, Eric McKitrick (1995). The Age of Federalism.
- Ferling, John (2004). Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800.
- Fischer, David Hackett (1965). The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy.
- Freeman, Joanne B. (1999). "The election of 1800: a study in the logic of political change". Yale Law Journal 108 (8): 1959-1994.
- Goodman, Paul (1967). “The First American Party System”, William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham, eds.: The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, 56–89.
- Hofstadter, Richard (1970). The Idea of a Party System.
- Horn, James P. P., Jan Ellen Lewis, Peter S. Onuf (2002). The Revolution of 1800: Democracy, Race, and the New Republic.
- Miller, John C. (1959). Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox.
- Schachner, Nathan (1961). Aaron Burr: A Biography.
- Sharp, James Roger (1993). American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis.
[edit] External links
- Documentary Timeline Lesson plans from NEH
[edit] Navigation
| United States Presidential Elections |
|---|
| 1789 • 1792 • 1796 • 1800 • 1804 • 1808 • 1812 • 1816 • 1820 • 1824 • 1828 • 1832 • 1836 • 1840 • 1844 • 1848 • 1852 • 1856 • 1860 • 1864 • 1868 • 1872 • 1876 • 1880 • 1884 • 1888 • 1892 • 1896 • 1900 • 1904 • 1908 • 1912 • 1916 • 1920 • 1924 • 1928 • 1932 • 1936 • 1940 • 1944 • 1948 • 1952 • 1956 • 1960 • 1964 • 1968 • 1972 • 1976 • 1980 • 1984 • 1988 • 1992 • 1996 • 2000 • 2004 • 2008 See also: House • Senate • Governors |
