A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign

After the colonies won their independence from Britain, Adams was sent to France as an American ambassador. Jefferson ended up succeeding him in that post. Adams was initially sent to Paris along with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin enjoyed considerable popularity in French society, which celebrated him as an Enlightenment celebrity, akin to their own Voltaire. Adams, who did not enjoy comparable stature in French court or society, felt jealous, and “gradually, Adams turned his rancor on Franklin, which soured their relationship” (7). Despite their personal differences, the two of them worked together well as professionals, and their trips were considered a diplomatic success.

According to Larson, “both men rejoiced in 1784 when Jefferson arrived in Paris to join them in seeking postwar treaties of commerce and friendship with the various European nations” (8). Jefferson did not feel threatened by Franklin’s status, and he also deferred to Adams, treating him as a senior professional colleague, which helped Adams’s ego to feel less bruised. Abigail Adams likewise embraced Jefferson, even taking care of his children at times.

But, “[a]s their political goals for America diverged, [...] their ideological zeal drove them apart” (10). Their beliefs were shaped by their backgrounds: Adams went to Harvard, but, like his father, tried to live a relatively humble life, at least in terms of the material things. His hopes for his career were anything but humble. Jefferson, who graduated from William and Mary, was equally ambitious. The two men spent their early careers eager for a larger cause to attach themselves to when they finally had their chance at the Continental Congress and, after the war, in their ambassadorships in Europe.

At that time, they started to truly diverge, on political matters. Jefferson, like his fellow Republicans, “trusted popular rule and distrusted elite institutions [...] [he] instinctively revered man in nature” (19), such as laborers and farmers. Adams took an opposing stance:

In contrast, Adams and the Federalists tended to distrust the common people, and instead to place their faith in the empowerment of what they saw as a natural aristocracy, though one that should be restrained by civil institutions such as those provided by a written constitution with checks and balances (19).

Their differences of opinion were exaggerated by the public political context of the day. Adams’s party was split between Federalists and High Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton. The High Federalists, the more extreme wing of the party, pulled the entire party to take firmer stances on its core beliefs. The democratic wing of Jefferson’s Republican party, led by George Clinton in New York, played a similar role, pulling the Republicans likewise away from the political center.

This split intensified in the wake of the French Revolution, which triggered a strong political reaction in America, particularly among Federalists in power in 1798. Federalists feared an invasion by the French and used this to justify legislation that consolidated power in the national government, including the fortification of the army. This produced the so called “Additional Army” and the passing of the Naturalization, Alien, and Sedition Acts, which “raised the bar for citizenship, authorized the deportation of foreigners, and outlawed false and malicious criticism of the government in the press or by individuals, including by opposition politicians” (35).

Initially, these acts were popular among frightened American voters and buoyed Adams’s popularity in his mid-term in 1798. His popularity eventually ebbed towards the end of his term, and his re-election did not seem assured as he entered the election of 1800. 

The Framers of the American Constitution ordained that elections should proceed in the following manner: “[E]ach elector would cast two equal votes [...] the most highly favored candidate would become President, and the second most highly favored candidate would be placed in line for succession as Vice President” (40). The Framers further required that neither vote could be weighted. Neither could be designated as a presidential vote or a vice presidential vote—all would be tallied equally towards candidate totals. They also required that at least one Electoral College vote from each state be for an out-of-state presidential candidate, in order to assure that the eventual president would enjoy nationwide support, while still allowing electors to support hometown favorites.

In 1789 and 1792, the system worked as the Founders hoped that it would, largely because Washington, who was overwhelmingly popular, was a candidate and won both elections. When Washington recused himself for the 1796 election, things became more complicated because of the growing strength of, and polarization between, the two national political parties.

In 1796, the Federalists had agreed to support Adams for President and South Carolinian Thomas Pinckney for Vice President. The Republican party widely supported Jefferson and backed him throughout the election process. On the Federalist side, the political climate became more complicated when Alexander Hamilton tried to take advantage of what he saw as an opportunity to give the Presidency to Pinckney—who was a High Federalist—over Adams. He concocted a scheme to generate support for Pinckney throughout the south, but his plan was foiled when northern Federalists got wind of it. They distributed their votes between Adams and non-competitive candidates, denying Pinckney support he would have otherwise had from the north. The result was the split Executive branch: Federalist Adams as President and Republican Jefferson as Vice President. Going into the election of 1800, Hamilton became more determined than ever to replace Adams as the Federalist standard bearer.

When Washington died, in December of 1799, his passing castnational politics into disarray. Both parties angled to try to position themselves in a good light. Some politicians went to his funeral and tried to gain popularity by mourning in a very public fashion. Others tried to gain popularity by accusing the public mourners of making a campaign issue out of the death of a great leader: “As the only person whom all Federalists admired, Washington had held the party together and given it meaning [...] For beleaguered Federalists, their leader’s passing came at a critical time” (65-66). When Jefferson did not attend Washington’s funeral, his decision caused great outcry among the Federalists. 

Another cause for debate between the Republicans and the Federalists was the violence of the French Revolution. Most Republicans celebrated the Revolution as a sign of the spread of liberal democracy, but Federalists were less enthusiastic, urging caution in the face of Jacobin extremism. This debate over the question of whether the violent Jacobins went too far continued to mark the political conversation in the coming years, with the Federalists wielding the revolution as an example of mob rule run amok.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the French Revolution, and the fear of conflict with France, were the impetus for the Federalist Congress to raise the Additional Army and to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. In 1800, when Republican presses began criticizing the Additional Army as a standing army, Federalist prosecutors took two Republican editors to court, under the Sedition Act: “Their indictments covered more than simply their depictions of the federal military as a ‘standing army’ but that became a key issue in both cases, and the only grounds for conviction in one” (76). These trials became key campaign issues: “For Federalists, they showed the government’s patriotic commitment to maintaining domestic security and civil order. For Republicans, they demonstrated Adams’s despotic disregard of individual liberty” (76). Both editors denounced their convictions from jail and became popular public figures, martyrs for their cause of civil liberty.

At the start of 1800, the outlook on the electoral college map for the presidential election was as follows: the northern states in New England were expected to go to the Federalists—either Pinckney or Adams. The southern states were expected to go to Jefferson or another Republican. A few undecided states in the mid-Atlantic that were still up for grabs would end up being the deciding factors in the otherwise evenly split electoral college vote. These states were Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.

Pennsylvania was in a unique position. Because of recent redistricting, and the relationship between their district elections and their selection of electoral college representatives, the state was in political limbo: “Nothing in the national Constitution actually required states to cast electoral votes, and no state could do so without enacting a method for choosing electors” (85).

It was precisely that method of selection that Pennsylvania lacked. The governor had decided to respond to the long string of events that produced the limbo by waiting until October to decide whether or not to pass a key provision providing for the selection of electoral college representatives: “If the Republicans failed to gain the majority [in their state senate elections] then Pennsylvania might not vote” (85) in the electoral college to select a president.

In New York and New Jersey, the electoral college representatives would be selected after the state senate elections, in mid-1800. Because of this, these two state elections moved into the national political spotlight.