Discourse surrounding modern American politics often focuses on the polarization and level of vitriol among candidates, voters, and commentators. This heightened level of tension is particularly evident during each presidential election. Many reminisce about the good ol’ days when civility and compromise still dominated political discourse and lament the current level of personal attacks. However, the modern political moment is not uniquely polarized or vituperative. In the election of 1800, the two candidates were themselves and the groups that they represented were highly polarized. The combination of the strong personalities of those involved with the burgeoning party system led to a sometimes nasty and personal campaign.
The election of 1800 was the first time that the brand new American electoral system was put under real strain. In 1789, George Washington was nearly unanimously elected after the creation of the United States Constitution. His Vice President, John Adams succeeded him in office in the election of 1796, but, under the constitutional rules of the time, the second place winner became the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson, a personal rival and partisan opponent, became his second-in-command. The two opponents faced off again in the election of 1800. John Adams represented the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson represented the Democratic-Republicans, with Aaron Burr as his “running mate.” The same rules applied in 1800 as in 1796. Jefferson and Burr tied in the electoral college, and, as a surprise to everyone, Burr refused to step aside and become Vice President. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, where it took thirty-six ballots to elect Jefferson as President.
Even beyond those directly participating in this election, there was a great deal of interest and sense of personal stakes. Alexander Hamilton, who had largely retreated from politics because of personal and political scandals and tragedies, reentered the conversation out of his opposition to Aaron Burr. In a letter he wrote to Harrison Gray Otis, a member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts, he framed the contest as an existential one for the country. Despite his well-known and long dislike of Jefferson, he says “Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government—Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself—thinks of nothing but his own aggrandisement—and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.” The upcoming presidential election of 2024 does matter—every election matters. But this is not the first time that the results of an election seemed to threaten to the future of the nation and the collapse of civilized political discourse.
Sources
Herbert Sloan, “‘In a Choice of Evils… Jefferson Is in Every View Less
Dangerous than Burr’: Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis on
the Deadlocked Presidential Election of 1800,” OAH Magazine of
History 18, no. 5 (2004): 53–57,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163723.
James Horn, “Election of 1800,” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia,
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-
Title from “The Election of 1800” from Hamilton: An American Musical.
Hamilton’s choice of supporting his political enemy over the candidate he feared would destroy the nation is a very interesting one and rings similar to what alot of republicans have been doing in endorsing Harris over the past few months. I am thinking specifically of the Cheneys, who, despite being conservative republicans, still endorsed the liberal democratic nominee over one of their own party who poses a threat to the union.