The Presidential election of 1800 (Electoral college vote is held on January 3, 1801) is often referred to as the “Revolution of 1800” due to its significant impact on the American political landscape. It was a highly contentious and pivotal election that marked the first peaceful transfer of power between two political parties in the United States.
The election of 1796 had seen John Adams, a Federalist, beat Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in a closely fought contest. The result set the stage for the rematch in 1800. The two men’s differing visions for America’s future fueled partisan divisions, with Adams favoring a strong centralized government and Jefferson advocating for states’ rights and a more agrarian society.
The main contenders were incumbent President John Adams of the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson’s running mate was Aaron Burr, who played a crucial role in the election outcome.
The campaign was dominated by issues such as foreign policy, particularly relations with France and Britain, the power of the federal government, and the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were seen by many as an overreach of executive power.
In the 1800 Presidential election, foreign policy was a dominant issue, reflecting the young nation’s place in a world of European conflicts, particularly between Britain and France following the French Revolution. The two main candidates, incumbent President John Adams of the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party, had distinctly different views on foreign policy, shaped by their philosophies, experiences, and the international context of the time.
John Adams (Federalist Party)
1. Pro-British Leanings: Adams and the Federalists favored closer ties with Great Britain. They admired British political institutions and believed that economic ties with Britain were crucial for American commerce. The Federalists were wary of the French Revolution, seeing it as violent and destabilizing, and were concerned about its radical ideologies spreading to the United States.
2. Strong Central Government and Army: Adams supported a strong central government and a robust military, which he believed were necessary to protect American interests and maintain negotiation power in international relations. This stance was partially influenced by the ongoing quasi-war with France, an undeclared naval conflict.
3. The XYZ Affair and Quasi-War: Adams’s presidency was marked by the XYZ Affair, in which French officials demanded bribes to start negotiations to stop French attacks on American shipping. This led to a surge in anti-French sentiment and the quasi-war. While Adams ultimately sought peace with France through diplomacy, his initial responses favored military buildup and preparedness.
Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican Party)
1. Pro-French Leanings: Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans were more sympathetic to France, especially due to the Franco-American alliance during the American Revolution. They admired the French Revolution’s early ideals of liberty and republicanism, though they were increasingly concerned by its more radical and violent turns. Jefferson believed that America owed a debt to France for its support during the Revolution and generally favored policies that aligned with French interests.
2. Skepticism of a Strong Central Government: Jefferson was wary of a large standing army and navy, fearing that they could lead to an oppressive government or unnecessary entanglements in European conflicts. He preferred a limited government and emphasized the importance of state militias.
3. Peace and Commerce: Jefferson advocated for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” a stance echoing his belief in maintaining commercial relationships while avoiding the political and military conflicts of Europe. He was particularly critical of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which he saw as overreactions driven by Federalist fears of foreign influence and domestic insurrection.
The 1800 election’s foreign policy debate reflected deeper ideological divisions between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. Adams’s approach was characterized by a cautious, defense-oriented stance that leaned toward Britain, while Jefferson’s vision promoted a more idealistic, pro-French foreign policy with a focus on limited government and avoiding European entanglements. These differing perspectives were not just about foreign relations; they were fundamentally about the nature of the American republic, its values, and its place in the world. This election set the stage for how the United States would navigate its foreign policy amid global turbulence in the years to come.
In 1800, electors voted for President and Vice President on the same ballot without distinguishing between the two offices. This system led to a tie between Jefferson and Burr, both of the Democratic-Republican party, thrusting the decision into the House of Representatives.
Jefferson and Burr each received 73 electoral votes, Adams got 65, and Charles C. Pinckney, the other Federalist candidate, received 64. This tie necessitated a contingent election in the House.
The country was anxious as the election moved to the House of Representatives. The Federalists controlled the outgoing House and faced a dilemma: vote for Jefferson, their ideological opponent, or Burr, whom they considered less predictable and reliable.
Jefferson maintained a posture of republican virtue, while Burr actively canvassed for support. The Federalists, torn between two opponents, engaged in intense internal debate.
There were rumors and accusations of manipulative tactics and backroom deals, though nothing was ever proven definitively. The intense partisanship of the time led to widespread suspicion and allegations of corruption.
The Constitution stipulated that in the event of an electoral tie, the House of Representatives would choose the President, with each state delegation having one vote.
The House was deeply divided, and several state delegations were deadlocked. The intense lobbying and negotiations highlighted the fragility of the young nation’s political institutions.
Alexander Hamilton’s role in the contingent election of February 1801 is one of the most intriguing aspects of the 1800 presidential election. Despite being political adversaries, Hamilton’s preference for Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr played a crucial role in Jefferson’s eventual victory.
Hamilton and Jefferson were founding fathers who profoundly disagreed on the direction of the United States. Hamilton favored strong central government, a robust financial system, and close ties with Britain, while Jefferson advocated for agrarianism, states’ rights, and French alliance. Despite these differences, Hamilton found himself in a position where he had to choose between two members of the opposing party due to the unique circumstances of the election.
Hamilton’s disdain for Aaron Burr was profound. He viewed Burr as an unprincipled opportunist who was far more dangerous and unpredictable than Jefferson. In contrast, although he disagreed with Jefferson’s policies, he acknowledged Jefferson’s commitment to republican principles and viewed him as a man of character. Hamilton wrote, “In a choice of Evils let them take the least – Jefferson is in every view less dangerous than Burr.”
Hamilton embarked on an extensive letter-writing campaign to Federalist members of the House of Representatives, who held the deciding votes in the contingent election. He used his influence and extensive network to persuade them to choose Jefferson, despite their party affiliation and personal preferences.
1. Correspondence: Hamilton wrote prolifically, arguing that Jefferson, though ideologically opposed, was a safer choice than Burr. His letters detailed his mistrust of Burr’s character and his belief that Jefferson, while disagreeable in policy, would maintain the country’s stability.
2. Lobbying and Persuasion: Beyond his letters, Hamilton engaged in direct lobbying efforts, meeting with influential Federalists to persuade them of the necessity of electing Jefferson. His reputation as a leading Federalist thinker meant that his opinion carried considerable weight.
3. Highlighting the Risks of Burr: Hamilton’s strategy involved not just promoting Jefferson but actively campaigning against Burr. He painted Burr as a dangerous wildcard who could destabilize the nation’s still-fragile institutions.
Hamilton’s efforts can be seen as both pragmatic and deeply rooted in his fear of what a Burr presidency would mean for the nation. By choosing Jefferson, Hamilton believed that he was helping to create a:
– Stabilized Political Climate: Hamilton likely believed Jefferson’s presidency would ensure a more predictable and stable political environment, even if it meant his party losing power.
– Personal and Political Rivalry: His rivalry with Burr was also personal; the two New Yorkers had been at odds for years. Hamilton’s mistrust of Burr’s ambitions and character was profound.
– Preservation of Federalist Ideals: Hamilton might have also believed that by keeping Burr out of the presidency, he was preserving the core ideals of the Federalist party, even if it meant temporarily ceding power to the opposition.
Hamilton’s intense lobbying efforts and his successful persuasion of key Federalists to either abstain or vote for Jefferson in the contingent election were pivotal. His actions demonstrate the complexities of early American politics, where ideological battles were fierce but the overarching commitment to the republic’s survival often drove leading figures to make unexpected alliances. The outcome solidified Jefferson’s place as President and marked the beginning of the end for the Federalist Party, ironically hastened by the actions of one of its most prominent members. Hamilton’s role in the 1801 contingent election remains a profound example of political maneuvering and the prioritization of country over party.
After 36 ballots and extensive political maneuvering, Jefferson was elected President and Burr Vice President. Key Federalists, believed to have been led by Alexander Hamilton who preferred Jefferson over Burr, abstained or voted for Jefferson, breaking the deadlock.
The Democratic-Republicans were elated, viewing the election as a vindication of the republican principles. The Federalists were resigned but worried about their diminishing influence.
Jefferson was inaugurated as the third President of the United States, marking the first peaceful transition of power from one political party to another in American history.
The confusion and near-crisis of the election led to the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which required electors to cast separate votes for President and Vice President, aiming to prevent future electoral ties between presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
The election of 1800 is considered a critical moment in the development of the United States’ political system. It established the precedent of peaceful transfer of power and underscored the need for clear electoral processes. It also marked the beginning of the end for the Federalist Party and signaled the rise of Jeffersonian democracy. The election’s dramatic and contentious nature continues to be studied and debated as a key event in American political history.
DAVE DOES HISTORY 
Leave a comment