Category: Week 3: 1800 and 1824 (Page 1 of 3)

“Heads, I win; tails, you cheated,” is the New York Times’ summation of Donald Trump’s rhetorical strategy for his past three elections. It’s a sentiment that comes directly out of the mouth of the former President himself, such as when he said “[he would] totally accept the results of [the] great and historic presidential election – if [he] win[s]” in reference to the 2016 election. It’s a sentiment that he has continued to push into the current election, but much earlier, and much harder. 

The 2024 Election marks the 200 year anniversary of the 1824 election, and, despite there having been 40 more Presidents since John Quincy Adams was inaugurated as the 6th U.S. President, some things still haven’t changed. 

Most significant is the cries of election fraud. Allegations of “stolen” elections that are now spewed by Donald Trump on his Truthsocial and X account, were once the words of Andrew Jackson, all those years ago, alleging that his loss in the Election of 1824 was due to a “Corrupt Bargain”. 

At the time, to become President, the candidate would need to win the majority of the 261 votes making 131 the number to hit. The final race for office would be close between Henry Clay, William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson. Jackson would earn 99 electoral votes and 152,901 popular votes, which was more electoral or popular votes earned by any of the other candidates. However, as was the process for selecting a President at the time, Jackson was still shy of the majority needed to assume the Presidency. As a result, the election would be sent to the House of Representatives to be solved between the top three candidates, kicking Clay out of the race. It is there that Adams won by one vote. 

It didn’t take long before Jackson would spread conspiracies of a “Corrupt Bargain”, a behind-the-scenes deal between Adams and Clay that caused one of the House votes to switch. Jackson felt that he had not lost, rather, his seat had been stolen from him. 

What Jackson and his supporters would coin “The Corrupt Bargain” about the election of 2024, Trump has coined his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election as the “Big Lie”. 

This campaign cycle, we see Trump include this rhetoric of a stolen election much earlier than he had in his other campaigns. This could speak to his attempts to replicate the effective campaign Jackson ran, in which he utilized conspiracies of this corrupt bargain, and the public’s fury, to win the 2028 election. As early as May 17, 2023, Trump claimed that “they are playing election interference in 2024”, even tweeting images like this to his official social media. 

Similar to Jackson’s arguments that Clay weaponized Congress to overturn votes for Jackson into votes for Adams, Trump too accused President Biden of sending the Justice Department after him; claiming that the variety of court cases against Trump were interference in the 2024 election. 

However, while Jackson and Trump similarly spread conspiracies of “stolen elections” as a result of corruption and manipulation amongst the political elite, there are a few key differences between the two. One being that Jackson not only won the most electoral votes and popular votes of all candidates, but Trump in the 2020 election won neither, and in the 2016 election did not win the popular vote. 

The 2020 presidential election was not close. Biden beat former President Trump by over 7 million votes, and secured an Electoral College victory of 302-236. Jackson lost by one vote in the House. 

However, despite these staggering differences between the elections of the two former Presidents, one similarity remains; the use of media and allegations of corruption to rally support. Jackson, too, utilized the newspapers to his advantage to spread his allegations, create gossip, and stir anger. The American people want their votes to matter, they want to know that democracy works. Jackson and Trump understand this, they understand that if they can instill fear of fraud, corruption, and deception, they can stir distrust in the President and support for themselves.

It’s a strategy that worked for Jackson when he was elected to the Oval Office in the Election of 1828, and it’s a strategy that Trump hopes will yield similar results for him this election.

Defamatory statements, intentional disinformation, and their presence in campaign strategies are not new, nor are they a thing of the past. Instead, they have always existed, surviving by adapting to the current political climate. Throughout elections, the popularity of misinformation and sensational stories serve to show manifestations of some greater collective political anxiety.

Slander, Slander, and More Slander

In the election of 1800, newspaper articles dictated the outcome of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr’s battle to become president. When Burr and Jefferson tied in the election, anti-Burr proponents were quick to issue a narrative damaging Burr’s character as the tie-breaking vote was delegated to the House of Representatives. The smear campaign garnered enough fear surrounding the stability of the U.S. under Burr and ended up dissuading the Federalist-controlled House of Representatives from electing him on the 36th round of voting. It didn’t help that throughout the ongoing scandal, enforcement of libel/slander laws concerning inter-party quarrels or attacks from opponent parties was lacking. It left Burr with little legal recourse to combat attacks on his character and ultimately lead to his complete public defacement upon accusations of treason in Burr v. United States (among other things). With bi-partisan support, Burr was ousted from U.S. politics.

A Coordinated Sensationalist Attack

In a similar vein, the contested election of 1824 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams provides a look at strategized misinformation and its utility in altering the political climate in the long run. With an additional audience of newly enfranchised white male voters, candidates now had to expand their campaign to include common men, along with aristocrats, to secure votes. In this climate, Jackson rose to prominence with his political promises and rhetoric that pandered to the growing number of recently enfranchised white men. Newspapers published headlines remarking about Jackson’s character, likening him to the average joe in an attempt to appear more relatable than Adams (a child of nepotism). When Jackson lost the election in 1824, he spread the conspiracy of a “corrupt bargain,” and easily turned it into sensationalized news. His insistence on corruption occurring between Adams and then-speaker of the House Henry Clay (also an 1824 presidential candidate) to elect Adams as president instead of Jackson served as the foundation for his election in 1828. As more white men were able to vote without property requirements, they increasingly wanted their interests to be fairly represented; Jackson’s positioning as an underdog victimized by corruption fulfilled that criteria. In the end, he set a strong precedent regarding effective methods to wield the media as a weapon.

Sensationalism, Misinformation, and Terrorism

Today, the utilization of the media as a political tool to manipulate public opinion remains steadfast. Nevertheless, the advent of various options for media consumption (TVs, electronic devices, newspapers, etc.) along with the internet itself has added layers of nuance to political messaging.

From his initial inauguration in 2016 to now, Donald Trump has rarely avoided controversy. However, it is clear that over the last few years, he, along with his other political allies, have upped the rhetorical ante dramatically. His recent debate against Kamala Harris provides a litany of misinformation, sensationalist clickbait-esque soundbites, and straight-up lies. In particular, his comment about Kamala Harris, saying “…she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison” quickly became viral due to its wildly unsubstantiated nature. As a means of gaining control, Trump commonly defaults to fear-mongering and creating political boogeymen as a tactic to incite outrage toward his opponents in an attempt to dampen their message.

Amplified greatly by uninhibited access to social media and news channels, Trump’s intentional spread of misinformation frequently incited terroristic actions (stochastic terrorism) that mobilized his fan-base at whim. By using his supporters as lackeys, he built a de-localized group of policy enforcers who took it upon themselves to threaten the lives of adversaries in a relationship not so dissimilar to a king and knight squadron. Examples of Trump’s incitement include his repeated insistence on labeling COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus,” which led to a notable uptick in hate crimes against Asian Americans during 2021-2022, his comments about shooting protestors demonstrating in Minneapolis (causing them to be targeted/antagonized), and the infamous January 6th insurrection as a result of his election fraud claim. In addition, he set a precedent for militaristic action in response to the practice of free speech (regarding opposition to his policies/protesting) using misinformation as justification. His large-scale use of threats and violence against criticism created a hostile political environment where backlash and unrest continue to propagate to this day. Trump’s success of misinformation-backed crusading emboldens his supporters while simultaneously increasing growing public concern over the bounds of executive power.

Sources

Mike Levine (May 30, 2020): ‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults.

Libby Cathey & Meghan Keneally (May 30, 2020): A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as inciting violence

Khadijah Costley White (January 19, 2021): How Trump Shaped the Media

Carey Wallace (April 14, 2016): Forget Hamilton, Burr Is the Real Hero

William Nester (2013): The Corrupt Bargain, Chapter 6

Reeve Huston (2011): The Expansion of Democracy during the Jacksonian Era

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-

encyclopedia/election-1800/.

Title from “The Election of 1800” from Hamilton: An American Musical.

If you have felt like the 2024 election has been light on policy, you are not alone in your thinking. 

As election day creeps closer, news articles are emphasizing the lack of clear policy positions as voters try to nail down where candidates stand. Nowhere has the lack of clear policy been more apparent than at the presidential debate on Tuesday, Sept. 10. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump traded pointed remarks and personal attacks, but little time was spent articulating the details of their agendas. When asked about his plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, Trump simply stated that he has “the concepts of a plan,” but he could not name the specific elements he will include. When Harris was asked to explain her vision for improving the economy, she struggled to point to specific policy changes she would implement to reduce the effects of inflation. 

For policy nerds — and frankly, anyone who pays attention to politics — the general devaluing of policy debates, replaced instead by personality politics, is alarming. After all, what is the role of the president if not to enact policy? 

Jimmy Kimmel summed it up nicely during his post-debate monologue on Sept. 10: “Who are we kidding, this election isn’t about the issues.” He’s not wrong. A 2023 study by Filipe Falcão et al. found political outcomes are most influenced by voters’ personality traits and the way they perceive the personality traits of the candidates. Policy often takes a backseat. But why is that? Why has it seemed policy plays an insubstantial role in presidential campaign strategy and election outcomes? 

Part of the answer may come from elections 200 years ago. The presidential elections of 1824 and 1828 mark pivotal moments that deeply influenced modern electoral dynamics. These elections, and the “Corrupt Bargain” claim that led to Andrew Jackson’s rise, paved the way for a style of campaigning that is reflected in modern politics. 

As William Nester reveals in his book on Jackson, the personality-driven politics, populism, and politics of grievance that we see overshadowing substantive policy discussions today grew out of this early 19th-century period. In many ways, these elections set the stage for modern presidential campaigns, characterized by emotional appeals and personal grievances drowning out detailed policy platforms.

After the election of 1824 was decided by the House of Representatives, where Speaker of the House Henry Clay played a consequential role in rallying support for John Quincy Adams, the nature of presidential elections shifted. Although historian Donald Ratcliffe has called into question whether Jackson truly won the popular vote in 1824, the frequent reality in politics, as this case reflects, is that constructed narratives matter more than objective truth. Jackson crafted a rhetoric around the perceived unfairness of the election result; he attacked the elitist, career politician mindset officials in Washington often hold and played up his toughness, military experience, and anti-establishment attitude. Regardless of whether Jackson actually won the popular vote in 1824, his ability to campaign on this narrative heading into the 1828 election, a tactic that had not previously been attempted to this degree, proved majorly effective. 

The 1828 election between Jackson and Adams was, by many accounts, an “ugly” election, with personal attacks becoming standard. Supporters of Adams threw accusations of adultery at Jackson, while Jackson supporters claimed Adams was only a successful diplomat because he procured women for officials of other countries. But while Jackson kept up the flamethrowing, Adams backed down. His refusal to play the dirty game likely contributed to his landslide loss to Jackson in 1828. This victory, in turn, only gave subsequent candidates more reason to attempt the objectionable strategy centered on personal grievances.

Supporters watch as former President Donald J. Trump walks onto the stage at a rally in Indianola, Iowa on Jan. 14, 2024. (Photo by Zach S.)

The parallels between Andrew Jackson’s rise to power in 1828 and Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016 are striking. Both men capitalized on a wave of populist sentiment that viewed the political establishment as corrupt and out of touch with the concerns of average citizens. Similar to Jackson, Trump ran on a platform that emphasized his outsider status as he railed against “the elites,” offering a brand of politics based on grievance rather than nuanced policy proposals. All the while, truth was secondary. What mattered was not the accuracy of the narrative but simply whether it landed with voters.

Ultimately, a well-crafted personal narrative that resonates with voters, making them feel seen and represented by someone who claims to understand them, often seems to be a more effective electoral approach than appealing directly to voters’ stances on substantive issues. As Americans become increasingly disillusioned with the political system, it seems likely that campaigns will remain intentionally light on policy, instead opting to appeal to the personality traits voters find most desirable in a candidate — traits that take priority over policy.

In the election of 1800, the Federalists were faced with a tough choice—whether to settle with Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr, both Democratic Republicans, as the man to run the country. 36 tie-breaking ballots in the House of Representatives proved this task was no small one. 

Amidst those 36 rounds of voting, men like Alexander Hamilton were writing letters to members of the House, urging them that in “In a choice of Evils, let them take the least”: Jefferson rather than Burr. Hamilton chose his recipients wisely. One such letter arrived to Harrison Gray Otis, Speaker of the Massachusetts House, addressed on Dec. 23, 1800—while the tie between Burr and Jefferson was still actively being contested. Hamilton’s purpose was not only to convince Gray Otis to change his vote to Jefferson, but also to hopefully convince Gray Otis so well that the Massachusetts congressman became a mouthpiece for the rest of the Federalists. Though Gray Otis never changed his own vote to Jefferson, the first contested election gives us a glimpse into political persuasions and inter-party relationships that still exist today. 

I’m reminded of the waves of calling for the end of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign this last summer. That political rhetoric—”choose the lesser of two evils”—is certainly something we’re familiar with in 2024. In 1800, the concern over Burr was that he could not be controlled. Hamilton tells Gray Otis in his letter, “Mr. Jefferson I suspect will not dare much. Mr. Burr will.” In 2024, Democrats worried Biden would practically throw the election to the Republicans due to a declining performance. 

Dozens of figures publicly called for Biden to step down this summer, with the most prominent, famous figure perhaps being George Clooney in his op-ed to the New York Times. It is heavily suspected that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also called for Biden to step down behind closed doors. Though both Pelosi and Clooney were a part of Biden’s own political party, I still believe we see connections between men like Hamilton’s attempted persuasion of Gray Otis and today’s political world. When faced with no other option but to choose a Democratic Republican, Hamilton set down to write letters to his fellow Federalists. In 2024, when faced with a candidate Democrats believed would fall short of the election, they turned to behind-closed-doors persuasions and open letters for all eyes to see. 

Sources:

Sloan, Herbert. “‘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.

Alexander Hamilton’s Letter to Harrison Gray Otis from Dec. 23, 1800

The election of 1800 was a turning point in many ways. It included two parties with formal tickets (much like today), would end in a tie throwing the election to the House of Representatives, and be the first election to oversee the transfer of power between rival parties. For this reason, the election is often called the “Revolution of 1800”. 

In the electoral stalemate between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, a new form of politics would creep in. The mechanisms of how Hamilton convinced several Federalists to sway their vote is reminiscent of a political phrase thrown around today, “the lesser of two evils”. It would turn out to be an effective strategy, as Jefferson would ultimately be elected with help from a group of Federalists sympathetic to Hamilton’s ideas.

In Alexander Hamilton’s letter to James Bayard (which can be accessed here), he lays out not why Jefferson is an ideal candidate, but why Burr is an impossible one. Hamilton starts by quelling the notion that he intends to be an “apologist” for Jefferson or the fact that he would want to be. Hamilton goes on to list many of his perceived imperfections. The most aggressive language is reserved for the shortcomings of Burr. Hamilton berates Burr as an egomaniac who will use the executive to accomplish his own goals and establish “permanent power” for himself. The letter ends with a vivid display of accountability for the chosen candidate, “if he acts ill, we must share in the blame”. 

In a sense, the “Revolution of 1800” can be viewed as a transformation of politics from ideological purity to pragmatic bargaining. Just as in 1800, 2024 voters may find themselves driven more by fear of the opposition than a love for their chosen candidate. It is important to know that these dilemmas are not new and have been a part of the political debate since its founding. The intense partisanship and negative campaigning that we see today are not anomalies, but rather recurring features of American politics.

Sources:

“From Alexander Hamilton to James A. Bayard, 16 January 1801,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0169.

Sometimes it feels like American politics are in the worst state they have ever been, but in 1800 the problems they faced were unfathomable. The issues faced stemmed from the 1796 Election of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr versus John Adams and Charles Pinckney, but the rematch in 1800 replicated the issues and made them worse. Even with George Washington’s warning against political parties, they were quickly evolving into what we know them to be today. The party lines were drawn, and there was intraparty and interparty turmoil boiling up until the election. 

Nowadays, the Electoral College is a point of contention, but the whole electoral system was functioning improperly as soon as there wasn’t a universal choice like Washington. In the Election of 1800, there were 4 leading candidates from two different parties and none of them reached the required majority to be elected President. There was no distinction between votes for President or Vice-President, and the candidate with the second amount of votes became Vice-President. Because no candidate got the majority of votes, the election went to the lame-duck House of Representatives. The choice for the tie-breaker was between the two Democratic-Republicans, Burr and Jefferson. The Democratic-Republican issue was that Burr didn’t specify that the House of Representatives should vote Jefferson for President and many speculate that Burr wanted to take the glory of the Presidency for himself.

Because of this, the Federalists in the House of Representatives had the option of disrupting the opposition by electing Burr, the Vice-Presidential candidate as President. A letter from Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis, a fellow Federalist on December 23rd, 1800, was a perfect representation of the problems in this election. Two of the main points in the letter that Hamilton brought up were that, “Mr. Jefferson is respectably known in Europe” and “Mr. Burr, as I believe, a bankrupt beyond redemption”. In the letter, Hamilton laid out the situation as two bad choices, but he believed Jefferson was the better choice for President. Although Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson’s foreign policy, specific to France, he still had respect for him and knew that Europe did too. He believed that Jefferson had his own beliefs because of his conviction in himself, which was the opposite of how he viewed Burr. He thought Burr’s opinions could be changed with ease as his only goal was monetary gain. On the flip side, Jefferson believed that Federalists were attempting to uproot everything that the Nation believed in and return to a monarchical ruling. The fact that the House of Representatives had so much power over the fate of the Presidency in this situation was a fault of the system.

Jefferson was eventually elected by the House of Representatives, but the electoral system had to be changed afterwards. This election revealed the awkward nature of the system because of the development of party systems and the lack of distinction between Presidential candidates and Vice-Presidential candidates. Originally it was thought that the two best candidates should be President and Vice-President, but the party system wouldn’t allow this. The problems of the Election of 1800 were so consequential, it was coined the Revolution of 1800. After the national complications, the 12th Amendment was quickly ratified which attempted to solve the problems from the election.