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

It is important to understand the past as it informs how we think about the present.

The election of 1800 was quite contested. Prior to the election of 1800, the presidential power remained in the hands of the Federalists. During the election of 1800, was the first time that there was a transfer of power out of the Federalist “political party” to the Democratic-Republicans. This election started with polarized thinking between multiple people within and across party lines. Both political parties believed that the other party was going to “…subvert the government and overthrow the Constitution” (Horn 2000, p. 3). For the 1800 presidential election the Federalist candidates included John Adams (incumbent) and Charles C. Pinckney (minister to France) and the Democratic-Republican candidates included Thomas Jefferson (then current Vice President of the US) and Aaron Burr (Senator from New York).

Within every election there are behind the scenes conversations that impact the election itself. Alexander Hamilton (Federalist) wrote a series of letters to Theodore Sedgwick (Federalist and then current Speaker of the House of Representatives) detailing his thoughts on the election and how to keep the government out of the hands of the Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr). Hamilton states that “To support Adams & Pinckney, equally, is the only thing that can possibly save us from the fangs of Jefferson” (Hamilton to Sedgewick 4 May 1800). This polarization between candidates is still reflected today with the 2024 election. During the Presidential debate on September 10, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris stated that “[Trump’s] former National Security Advisor has said he is dangerous and unfit. His former Secretary of Defense has said the nation, the Republic, would never survive another Trump term” (Kamala Harris during the 2024 US Presidential Debate). Her statement and the statement of Alexander Hamilton reflect the same sentiment—the other candidate is dangerous. Similarly former President Donald Trump forcefully attacked Vice President Kamala Harris stating that “[she’s] a radical Left-liberal” (Donald Trump during the 2024 US Presidential Debate). The difference between the debate on September 10, 2024, and the letter between Hamilton and Sedgewick was that one was on a public forum and the other was on a private forum.

However, that doesn’t mean that things happen behind the scenes that influence the public outcome. Alexander Hamilton is writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives who plays great sway in how an election was to be handled if a tie occurred in the Electoral College. Similarly, with a bipartisan immigration bill during President Joe Biden’s administration, former President Donald Trump called some congressmen, including current speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson to kill the bill as Vice President Kamala Harris noted during Tuesday’s debate. Once again, this demonstrates the behind-the-scenes partisan purpose for getting their political agenda through.

The election of 1824, our second US contested election, seems at first quite similar to the election of 1800. Once again, the election revolved around five candidates (one is even an Adams) and the election ends up in the US House of Representatives. But let’s take a step back to understand what happened. The election comes down to five candidates—all technically Democratic-Republicans. John Calhoun becomes the first loser (and perhaps the biggest winner) when he drops out of the race before the election, in order to run for Vice President. The four men still in the running by the election are Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, John Quincy Adams, son of second President (John Adams), Andrew Jackson, a violence prone politician and general, and lastly, William Crawford, a congressional powerbroker whose name I have to look up every time I remember there was a fifth candidate.

When the states vote, Jackson receives the most electoral college votes, with John Quincy Adams receiving the next most, followed by Crawford, and then Clay. Unfortunately for Jackson’s supporters, a presidential candidate needs a plurality (more than half) of the votes rather than a majority (the most). Jackson’s majority of 99 electoral votes fell short of the 131 votes he needed to win the plurality, so the election was turned over to the house of representatives. In accordance with the twelfth amendment to the constitution, the house decides the winner out of the top three candidates. This rule eliminates Henry Clay from the running but does not lock him out of the process—if anything, it has the potential to give him more power, in the election because of his position as speaker of the house.

Unlike the election of 1800, a president is selected in the first round of voting in the House. They elect John Quincy Adams as the new president. Jackson won the most electoral votes and claimed the popular vote (the strength of this claim has been disputed by historian Donald Ratcliffe using data from Philip Lampi), but Jackson will not be elected president in 1824. This infuriated Jackson and his supporters, but what really set them off was Adams’s appointment of Henry Clay to the position of Secretary of State. Clay’s fancy new job is held up as clear proof of a “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay. However, even now we don’t know if there was actually a “corrupt bargain”, but we do know the accusations of corruption created a bitter rivalry between Jackson and Clay and helped fuel Jackson’s successful1828 campaign.

Ok, now you understand. But, so what? Why should you care about an election that happened 200 years ago? Well, the 1824 election can help you understand how we got “here”. Yes, it can tell us about the past, but it can also say something about the present.

200 years ago a man claimed that populist support meant he should have been president and, when he lost, he along with his allies, spent four years campaigning for the next election. This man claimed status as a “Washington outsider,” despite previously holding elected office. Jackson’s supporters cast him as a folk hero of the masses—the kind of guy who will fight for you the way he fights his enemies on the street.

Despite his involvement in the First Seminal War, the Creek War, the Invasion of Florida and subsequent execution of unarmed British officials, and a reputation for getting into fights, Jackson became president four years after losing in 1824. Jackson refused to back down and accept he lost.

Donald Trump loves to compare himself to Jackson. It’s important to understand what he means.

“We’re not going back! We’re not going back!” Those four words have, somewhat accidentally, become the slogan of Kamala Harris’ campaign. The chant emerged in the Harris Campaign’s first official event following Biden’s decision to drop out of the race. Harris has centralized this theme of progress within her campaign messaging. It sets up a natural contrast between Harris, a first-time nominee for president and Trump, the former president who is running as the Republican candidate in his third straight election. 

Centering a campaign around the broad idea of progress is not particularly novel. However, Harris’ ability to juxtapose her candidacy with the very recent Trump administration is powerful, and it draws comparisons to the election of 1800.

The election of 1800 positioned Federalists against Democratic-Republicans. Like Harris and Trump, these parties presented very different visions for the future of the country. According to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello, a key difference between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans was their opinions surrounding the British style of government. Federalists wanted to improve upon the British form of government while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans wanted clearer, more dramatic change. 

As the election of 1800 heated up, personal attacks against candidates were frequent. One critic, writing under a pseudonym, said that electing Jefferson meant “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest, will be openly taught and practiced.” (Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello). It would take endorsements from former enemies and a tumultuous final election in the House of Representatives, but Jefferson would ultimately win the election. 

As Harris navigates the final two months of her campaign, it might be helpful to remember Jefferson’s. The stakes and circumstances were different, but the tone was similar. Jefferson argued for a fresh president to take office in order to further the process of establishing American democracy. And despite Jefferson’s opponent’s claims, the country did not implode at his winning the election. In fact, the transition of power was relatively peaceful. If there is a lesson for Harris to take away from 1800, perhaps it is to quiet the noise and frenzy that surrounds you as a candidate and focus on the progress that your campaign is promising. It seemed to work for Jefferson.

Sources:

“We Are Not Going Back” Wasn’t Written to Be a Campaign Catchphrase. Kamala Harris Voters Had Other Ideas, Chris Smith, September 6, 2024

“A Nation Divided: The Election of 1800” Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello