[Illustration: A. K. McCLURE]
OUR PRESIDENTS
AND
HOW WE MAKE THEM
BY
A. K. McCLURE, LL.D.
ILLUSTRATED
NEW YORK AND LONDON
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
1900
Copyright, 1900, by A. K. MCCLURE.
_All rights reserved._
CONTENTS
PAGE
THE WASHINGTON ELECTIONS, 1789–92 1
THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON CONTEST, 1796 7
THE JEFFERSON-ADAMS-BURR CONTEST, 1800–1 12
THE JEFFERSON-PINCKNEY CONTEST, 1804 21
THE MADISON-PINCKNEY-CLINTON CONTESTS, 1808–12 25
THE MONROE ELECTIONS, 1816–20 32
THE ADAMS-JACKSON-CRAWFORD-CLAY CONTEST, 1824 39
THE JACKSON-ADAMS-CLAY CONTESTS, 1828–32 47
THE VAN BUREN-HARRISON CONTEST, 1836 59
THE HARRISON-VAN BUREN CONTEST, 1840 65
THE POLK-CLAY CONTEST, 1844 75
THE TAYLOR-CASS-VAN BUREN CONTEST, 1848 94
THE PIERCE-SCOTT CONTEST, 1852 115
THE BUCHANAN-FRÉMONT-FILLMORE CONTEST, 1856 130
THE LINCOLN-BRECKENRIDGE-DOUGLAS-BELL CONTEST, 1860 154
THE LINCOLN-MCCLELLAN CONTEST, 1864 183
THE GRANT-SEYMOUR CONTEST, 1868 202
THE GRANT-GREELEY CONTEST, 1872 221
THE HAYES-TILDEN CONTEST, 1876 244
THE GARFIELD-HANCOCK CONTEST, 1880 270
THE CLEVELAND-BLAINE CONTEST, 1884 288
THE HARRISON-CLEVELAND CONTEST, 1888 316
THE CLEVELAND-HARRISON-WEAVER CONTEST, 1892 337
THE MCKINLEY-BRYAN CONTEST, 1896 361
ILLUSTRATIONS
A. K. McCLURE _Frontispiece_
GEORGE WASHINGTON _Facing p._ x
JOHN ADAMS “ 12
THOMAS JEFFERSON “ 20
JAMES MADISON “ 24
JAMES MONROE “ 32
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS “ 38
ANDREW JACKSON “ 46
MARTIN VAN BUREN “ 58
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON “ 64
JOHN TYLER “ 70
JAMES K. POLK “ 74
ZACHARY TAYLOR “ 94
MILLARD FILLMORE “ 106
FRANKLIN PIERCE “ 114
JAMES BUCHANAN “ 130
ABRAHAM LINCOLN “ 154
ANDREW JOHNSON “ 182
ULYSSES S. GRANT “ 202
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES “ 244
JAMES A. GARFIELD “ 270
CHESTER A. ARTHUR “ 274
GROVER CLEVELAND “ 288
BENJAMIN HARRISON “ 316
WILLIAM McKINLEY “ 360
INTRODUCTION
The crux of American politics is the quadrennial election of President.
In the ebb and flow of our political activity the flood-tide comes
in the Presidential contests. There are often tumultuous struggles
and decisive events in the intervals, but their political effect and
all the issues and movements of parties crystallize in the recurring
conflict for the possession of the chief executive power.
Our American system makes the President the centre and focus of
political life. He is at once Prime Minister and independent executive.
He blends the functions of what in parliamentary government is the head
of the Cabinet, and what in other government is the head of the State.
He is a vital part of the legislative power without being amenable to
its control or dependent on its life. He is the framer of policies and
the arbiter of parties. All this makes the election of President the
central chord and the arterial force of our broad political action.
The history of Presidential elections, if not the history of the
nation, is at least the history of its determining periods. The
successive epochs of our national progress, with their passionate
struggles and controlling influences, are fully reflected in these
contests. After the retirement of Washington the battles from 1800
for a quarter of a century, which gave the succession of Jefferson,
Madison, and Monroe, marked the reaction from federal authority and
the rise of the democratic impulse in the young Republic. Then came
the period running through the three contests and two elections of
Jackson, the heirship of Van Buren, and the cyclonic reversal under
“Tippecanoe and Tyler too” in 1840, which turned on practical questions
of internal polity and signalized the transition from the formative
stage of the government to the inevitable clash between the sections.
This was followed by the long political and moral contention between
freedom and slavery, which began with the success of Polk and the Texas
annexation policy in 1844 and ended with the defeat of the divided
Democracy and the election of Lincoln in 1860, when the political
combat culminated in the armed and colossal struggle of the civil war.
Since its conclusion and its settlements the nation has been engaged in
the mighty work of internal upbuilding, never equalled anywhere else in
the world, and the elections have involved the contending theories.
The narrative of these elections, with the rise and fall of parties,
their divisions and their creeds, presents the outlines of the national
development. For this work Colonel McClure, by experience, taste,
and special knowledge, is peculiarly and pre-eminently fitted. It
is doubtful if any other living American has borne so active and so
intimate a part in so many Presidential elections. Not yet of age,
but already a zealous and eager observer of political movements as
a young editor, he attended the Whig National Convention of 1848 in
Philadelphia, and witnessed the nomination of General Taylor. From
that time he has been personally familiar with the inner workings of
every national convention and campaign. Including this year, there have
been twenty-nine Presidential contests in our history. Colonel McClure
has actively participated in fourteen, or practically one-half of the
entire number.
He was born at Centre, Perry County, Pennsylvania, on the 9th of
January, 1828. Spending his youth on his father’s farm, he became a
tanner’s apprentice at fifteen, and remained at this trade for three
years. His schooling was very limited, and his mental equipment
was almost wholly the rich endowment nature had given him and the
attainments which his extraordinary intellectual force brought
in after-years. At nineteen he became the editor of the Juniata
_Sentinel_, and his natural ability and vigorous pen soon gave him a
recognized position and a distinct influence. Before he was twenty-one
he served as a conferee for Andrew G. Curtin in his Congressional
candidacy, and laid the foundations of his long and intimate friendship
with the great War Governor. Speedily called to the editorship of
a more important paper at Chambersburg, his impress broadened, and
in 1853, at the age of twenty-five, he was nominated by the Whigs
for Auditor-General, the youngest man ever named by any party in
Pennsylvania for a State office. Four years later he was elected to the
Legislature, serving in the House and then in the Senate for several
years. His career in that body was brilliant and distinctive. He was
independent, fearless, and aggressive, a ready and trenchant debater,
and he displayed political and parliamentary abilities of the highest
order.
In the Republican National Convention of 1860 he played a prominent
part. He and Curtin were potential in leading the Pennsylvania break
from Cameron to Lincoln, and in promoting the nomination of the
latter. With that success he accepted the chairmanship of the State
Committee, and made a dashing and energetic campaign, which resulted
in the October State victory that assured and portended the election
of Lincoln. This relation to the contest and subsequent service with
Governor Curtin, in directing Pennsylvania’s part in the war, placed
him on an intimate footing with the President, and during those
dramatic and trying years he was a commanding figure in the State.
Later he settled in Philadelphia in the practice of the law; became
one of the leading spirits in the Republican revolt of 1872 which led
to the Greeley movement; returned to the Legislature, where, free from
party shackles, he waged unsparing war against jobbery and wrong,
and where his forensic talent, his bold attacks, and rare powers of
invective and sarcasm made him at once respected and feared. Finally,
he found what was to prove his higher and truer place, and entered
upon what was to be his main life-work in the establishment of the
Philadelphia _Times_, where he has had an ample and conspicuous arena
for the editorial genius which has ranked him among the foremost
journalists of the country. Here, for twenty-five years, with ripened
experience and mellowed spirit, but with unabated passion for political
movements, Colonel McClure has been both the actor and the critic in
the great and constantly changing drama of public events. Standing
between both parties, bound by neither, but in the counsels of each,
he has been exceptionally informed on all the currents of political
activity. No one has had a broader acquaintance with the public men of
his time, or has been more thoroughly behind the scenes in the shifting
transformations of public action. From his earliest years politics has
had an extraordinary fascination for his fertile mind, and his taste
and talent for it have been equally marked. There has been no national
convention of either party for years that he has not attended, and the
episodes and influences which have turned the decision of the hour have
been as familiar to him as the broader principles which have moulded
the general course of action.
Colonel McClure is thus peculiarly qualified, not only to present the
large history of Presidential contests, but to illuminate it with
the instructive side-lights which are as entertaining as they are
suggestive. Comprehensive in its treatment, infused with the very life
and spirit of political action, prepared with complete knowledge, and
written in a style of singular charm and force, this work is not only a
labor of love, but a valuable contribution to the historical literature
of American politics.
CHARLES EMORY SMITH
WASHINGTON, _April, 1900_
PREFACE
I have endeavored in this volume to supply a want in our political
history by giving not only a detailed and reliable report of the
nomination and election of every President of the United States, but by
giving with it many important sidelights relating to the selection and
character of our Chief Magistrates.
With a personal knowledge of national conventions covering over half
a century, and an intimate acquaintance with the chief actors of both
parties in selecting Presidential candidates, I am able to give the
inside movements of some of our important national struggles which are
imperfectly understood. The inspiration and organization of all the
various political parties, great and small, are concisely presented,
and the personal reminiscences of the struggles of the great men of the
country have been most carefully prepared.
Absolute accuracy in the preparation of political history covering
a period of one hundred and twelve years is not to be expected, as
record evidence is at times either imperfectly preserved or entirely
destroyed; but no pains have been spared to make this volume a complete
and reliable history of our Presidents and how we make them.
I am indebted to Edward Stanwood’s “History of Presidential Elections”
and to Greeley’s “Political Text-Book of 1860” for valuable data
of the earlier conflicts for the Presidency. Many of the personal
and political reminiscences given are an elaboration of a series of
articles originally prepared for the _Saturday Evening Post_, of
Philadelphia.
A. K. M.
PHILADELPHIA, March 1, 1900.
THE WASHINGTON ELECTIONS
1789–1792
The first election for President of the United States was held on the
first Wednesday of January, 1789, and it was an election in which the
people took no part whatever in most of the States. The election should
have been held in November, 1788, but the Constitution of 1787, that
required ratification by nine States to make it the supreme law of
the nation, did not receive the approval of the requisite number of
States until the 21st of June, 1788, when New Hampshire made up the
ninth State approving it. Vermont followed five days later, and New
York, after a bitter struggle, ratified the Constitution on the 26th
of July. There was then ample time for Congress to make provisions for
a Presidential election in November, but many weeks were wasted in a
struggle for the location of the national capitol, and it was not until
the 13th of September that Congress was prepared to pass a resolution
declaring the ratification of the Constitution, and directing the
election of Presidential electors.
[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON]
Communication was at that time very slow and uncertain between the
several States, and as Congress did not fix the time for an election
until the middle of September, the first Wednesday of January,
1789, was deemed the earliest period at which an election could be
had. Considering the length of time required to communicate with
the different States, and the extreme difficulty in the States
communicating with their people and Legislatures, it was practically
impossible to have a Presidential election in which the people of the
country generally could participate.
None of the States had made any preparation for an election, and the
only practical method for choosing electors was by the Legislatures, as
the Constitution provided then, as it does now, that each State shall
appoint Presidential electors “in such manner as its Legislature may
direct.” Attempts were made to hold popular elections in New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, but even in New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, after elections had been held after a
fashion, the Legislatures of those States finally chose the electors.
There were next to no votes cast in Pennsylvania,[1] Maryland, and
Virginia, as there was no contest, the election of Washington being
conceded by all; and whatever votes were cast in the States have never
found their way into the political statistics of the country. Rhode
Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution and did
not choose electors, and in New York a bitter contest arose in the
Legislature between the friends and opponents of the Constitution,
resulting in a disagreement between the Senate and House that was not
adjusted in time for the Legislature to choose electors. Thus, New
York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina gave no votes for President in
the Electoral College of 1789.
[1] Imperfect returns at Harrisburg show 5930 votes cast in
Pennsylvania for Washington in 1789 and 4576 in 1792.
There had been no formal nomination of Washington for President
and Adams for Vice-President in any part of the country. In later
Presidential elections it was common for Legislatures and mass-meetings
to present candidates for President, but I cannot find a record of
any formal presentation of either the name of Washington or Adams
as candidates at the first Presidential election. Washington was
accepted as the logical ruler of the Republic, whose sword had won its
independence, and Massachusetts, the State of Lexington and Bunker
Hill, was conceded the second place on the ticket by general assent.
Both were pronounced Federalists, and Washington was much more positive
in his partisanship than is now generally believed. He was consulted
about the choice of a Vice-President, and he answered that while he
took it for granted that “a true Federalist” would be elected to the
Vice-Presidency, he was unwilling to indicate any preference; but it
was generally known that he and his immediate friends preferred John
Adams, who had been one of the committee with Jefferson to prepare
the Declaration of Independence, and who had written a very vigorous
pamphlet in favor of the adoption of the Constitution.
It is now generally assumed that there was no shade of opposition to
Washington’s election to the Presidency, but the anti-Federalists, many
of whom were opposed to the Constitution, made several ineffectual
efforts to defeat him. It is known that Franklin was approached on the
question of being Washington’s competitor, but there is little doubt
that he peremptorily refused. At that time the Presidential electors
did not vote directly for President and Vice-President as they do now.
Each elector voted for two men for President, both of whom could not be
a resident of the same State, and the candidate receiving the largest
vote, if a majority, was chosen President, and the candidate receiving
the second largest vote for President became Vice-President. Several
movements were made, without ever attaining the dignity of importance,
to have votes quietly taken from Washington and given to Adams, and
other movements were made to defeat Adams for Vice-President, but all
of them were signal failures. It is understood that Hamilton, the
closest friend of Washington, was not friendly to Adams. There is some
reason to believe that he would have seconded the movement of the
anti-Federalists to make George Clinton Vice-President had it given any
promise of success.
The electoral colleges met on the first Wednesday of February, 1789,
and elected Washington President, he receiving 69 votes, being the full
number of electors, and John Adams received 34 votes for President,
which made him Vice-President, although he did not receive a majority
of the electoral votes. The following table shows the vote in detail
as cast by the Electoral College, all of the men having been voted for
only as Presidential candidates:
══════════════╤═══════════╤══════╤═══════════╤════╤════════╤═════════╤════════╤═════════╤═══════╤══════════╤════════╤════════
│ George │ John │ Samuel │John│ John │Robert H.│ George │ John │ John │ James │ Edward │Benjamin
STATES. │Washington.│Adams.│Huntington.│Jay.│Hancock.│Harrison.│Clinton.│Rutledge.│Milton.│Armstrong.│Telfair.│Lincoln.
──────────────┼───────────┼──────┼───────────┼────┼────────┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────────┼────────┼────────
New Hampshire │ 5 │ 5 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Massachusetts │ 10 │ 10 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Connecticut │ 7 │ 5 │ 2 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
New Jersey │ 6 │ 1 │ ―― │ 5 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Pennsylvania │ 10 │ 8 │ ―― │ ―― │ 2 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Delaware │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Maryland │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Virginia │ 10 │ 5 │ ―― │ 1 │ 1 │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
South Carolina│ 7 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 1 │ ―― │ ―― │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Georgia │ 5 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 2 │ 1 │ 1 │ 1
├───────────┼──────┼───────────┼────┼────────┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────────┼────────┼────────
Total │ 69 │ 34 │ 2 │ 9 │ 4 │ 6 │ 3 │ 6 │ 2 │ 1 │ 1 │ 1
══════════════╧═══════════╧══════╧═══════════╧════╧════════╧═════════╧════════╧═════════╧═══════╧══════════╧════════╧════════
The Congress of the Confederation had provided that the new Congress
chosen under the Constitution should meet in New York on the first
Wednesday of March to declare the result of the Presidential election
and inaugurate the new Republic, but a quorum of the Senate did not
appear until the 6th of April, and on that day the electoral vote was
counted in the presence of the two Houses, and Washington and Adams
declared elected. They were notified of their election as speedily
as possible, but it was not until the 30th of April that they were
inaugurated.
* * * * *
Washington’s second election was quite as unanimous as the first,
both at the polls and in the electoral colleges. No opposition
electoral tickets were formed in any of the States, as the re-election
of Washington and Adams was universally accepted. The Presidential
electors of that day were appointed in accordance with the obvious
spirit of the Constitution, that meant to provide an entirely
dispassionate and independent tribunal in the Electoral College to
exercise the soundest discretion in the choice of a President and
Vice-President. No pledges were asked or given by any one named as an
elector, and each one was free to vote according to the dictates of his
own judgment. Had there been opposition electoral tickets, they would
have logically run on opposing lines with distinct obligations on the
part of each side as to how their votes would be cast, but no such
question arose until the first battle between Adams and Jefferson in
1796.
There was no organized opposition to the administration of Washington
at the close of his first term, but the Democratic sentiment, so
ardently cherished by Jefferson, had been steadily growing, and
with two such able and aggressive opposing partisans as Jefferson
and Hamilton in the Washington Cabinet, it was only natural that
opposition to the Federal policy would gradually take shape to be
effective when the overshadowing personality of Washington became
eliminated from the politics of the country. Jefferson and Hamilton
often had serious differences in the Cabinet, and Washington uniformly
sided with Hamilton. Washington had little personal and no political
sympathy whatever with Jefferson, and only one of Jefferson’s rare
tact and sagacity could have remained in the Washington Cabinet and
fashioned the great opposition party that carried him triumphantly
into the Presidential chair four years after Washington’s retirement.
As opposition to the re-election of Washington and Adams would have
been entirely fruitless, it was wisely not attempted, and the election
passed off in almost as perfunctory a manner as did the first election
in 1789.
Rhode Island and North Carolina had ratified the Constitution, and
Vermont became a State on the 4th of March, 1791, and Kentucky on the
1st of June, 1792, giving fifteen States to participate in the second
Presidential election. In nine of the States Presidential electors
were chosen by the Legislatures, and by popular vote in New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia,
but there were very few votes polled, and what were cast indicated
nothing politically, as there were no opposing electoral tickets.
Washington again received the unanimous vote in the electoral
colleges—132 in number—and Adams became Vice-President by receiving
77 votes for President. When the two Houses met to declare the
vote, Vice-President Adams presided in the House, opened and read
the certificates of the votes of the several States, and declared
Washington and himself elected President and Vice-President. The
following is the official vote in the electoral colleges as cast in
1792:
══════════════╤══════════╤═════╤═══════╤═════════╤════
STATES. │Washington│Adams│Clinton│Jefferson│Burr
──────────────┼──────────┼─────┼───────┼─────────┼────
New Hampshire │ 6 │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Vermont │ 3 │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Massachusetts │ 16 │ 16 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Rhode Island │ 4 │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Connecticut │ 9 │ 9 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
New York │ 12 │ ―― │ 12 │ ―― │ ――
New Jersey │ 7 │ 7 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Pennsylvania │ 15 │ 14 │ 1 │ ―― │ ――
Delaware │ 3 │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Maryland │ 8 │ 8 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Virginia │ 21 │ ―― │ 21 │ ―― │ ――
North Carolina│ 12 │ ―― │ 12 │ ―― │ ――
South Carolina│ 8 │ 7 │ ―― │ ―― │ 1
Georgia │ 4 │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ――
Kentucky │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ 4 │ ――
├──────────┼─────┼───────┼─────────┼────
Total │ 132 │ 77 │ 50 │ 4 │ 1
══════════════╧══════════╧═════╧═══════╧═════════╧════
THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON CONTEST
1796
While it was generally accepted that Washington would not be a
candidate for a third term, he gave no definite expression on the
subject until he issued his farewell address a short time before the
election of 1796. Washington was an extremely reticent man, and it
is possible that, in view of the serious complications between this
country and France, he may have anticipated a contingency that would
make him accept a third election to the Presidency, but it seems to
have been well understood by those nearest to him in official circles
that he earnestly desired to retire to private life at the expiration
of his second term. He was then the richest man in the country, his
wealth being almost wholly composed of land and slaves, and for twenty
years he had been unable to give any attention to his large business
interests. While his election and re-election to the Presidency by a
unanimous vote were very gratifying to him, he greatly preferred the
life upon his plantation, where he gave most careful attention to all
the details of its management.
As early as 1793 it was generally accepted by the public that
Washington would not be a candidate for re-election, and that Jefferson
and Adams would be the logical competitors for the succession.
Jefferson had cleared his decks for the battle by resigning his office
as Secretary of State early in 1794. He was not in harmony with the
severe Federal policy of Washington, and was very positively hostile
to the policy of the administration in failing to support the French
Revolution. Jefferson led the Democratic forces of the country;
Washington, and Adams as his logical successor, led the Federal forces,
and between them there was an irreconcilable dispute as to the form
of government the new Republic should assume. Washington, Adams,
Hamilton, and their associates did not believe in the capacity of
the people for self-government. They favored the strongest possible
government, with checks and balances which could effectually restrain
what they regarded as positive and dangerous ebullitions of public
sentiment. They would have made Senators for life and given only the
semblance of government to the people. Jefferson, on the other hand,
took the broad ground that the people were sovereign and should rule.
He logically supported the French Revolution against the Bourbon Kings,
and cherished the strongest prejudices against England. As Secretary
of State he could not well have remained in the Washington Cabinet the
last two years of the administration, but he doubtless resigned to be
entirely free to make his great battle for the Presidency in 1796.
Neither Jefferson nor Adams was nominated for the Presidency in 1796
by any Legislature or mass-meeting of which there is any record as far
as I have been able to ascertain. Adams was the choice of Washington,
and the logical successor to Washington as the Federal candidate
for President, and Jefferson stood head and shoulders over all the
Republicans of that day. The title of Republican was adopted by the
friends of Jefferson, and the Democratic party was founded in 1796 by
Jefferson under the name of Republican, established as the majority
party of the nation four years later, and it fought and won the
Democratic battles under that name until 1824, when the Jackson party
changed the title to Democracy.
If the overshadowing individuality of Washington could have been
eliminated from the contest of 1796, Jefferson would have defeated
Adams by a decided majority, but Washington was earnestly enlisted
in the support of Adams, and all the power of the administration was
wielded in favor of the Federal candidate. While Washington was not
charged with violent partisanship in his appointments, it is none the
less true that when the issue came between Adams and Jefferson, every
Federal official of the country felt bound to support, with all the
power he possessed, the candidate preferred by Washington. Had Grover
Cleveland lived in that day, he would have had ample opportunity to
denounce the “pernicious activity” of office-holders with as much
reason as he denounced them a century later in his support of civil
service reform.
Not only were the Federal officials aggressively enlisted in favor
of Adams, but the personal influence of Washington, that was greater
than that ever wielded by any other official or citizen of the Republic
down to the present time, was a serious obstacle to Jefferson’s
success. The people loved Jefferson as the author of the Declaration
of Independence, and a large majority of them sympathized with his
liberal ideas of popular government, but the name of Washington was
sacred to a large majority, and his wishes were paramount in deciding
their political action. Such were the conditions under which Jefferson
entered the contest against Adams in 1796.
In this contest, for the first time, there were two candidates
distinctly declared as competitors for the Presidency, and other
candidates as distinctly declared as competitors for Vice-President,
although all had to be voted for as candidates for President in the
Electoral College. At that time Aaron Burr was in the zenith of
his power. He was one of the most astute politicians of that day,
inordinately ambitious, unscrupulous in his methods, and he was
generally accepted by the friends of Jefferson as the candidate for
Vice-President.
New York was a Federal State, but it was hoped that by the masterly
ability of Burr the electoral vote of New York might be won for
Jefferson, although while there was entire unanimity among the
Republicans in support of Jefferson, there was not equal unanimity in
the support of Burr. He failed to carry New York for Jefferson, but
succeeded in carrying it for Jefferson and himself in 1800, and his
victory was won so early in the contest by the election of a Republican
Legislature in that State in May, 1800, that he practically decided the
battle against Adams.
The Presidential contest between Jefferson and Adams developed into
the most defamatory campaign ever known in the history of American
politics, unless the second campaign of 1800 between the same leaders
may be accepted as equalling it. In no modern national campaign have
candidates and parties been so maliciously defamed as were candidates
and parties when Jefferson and Adams fought for power in the contest of
the Fathers of the Republic. Jefferson was denounced as an unscrupulous
demagogue, and Adams was denounced as a kingly despot without sympathy
with the people, and opposed to every principle of popular government.
There were few newspapers, but it was the age of the pamphleteer, and
the political pamphlets of those days, if compared with the political
asperities of the present age, would make the partisan vituperation of
the evening of the nineteenth century appear as tame and feeble. Nor
were political leaders of that day any less unscrupulous than are the
political leaders of the present. The struggles of mean ambition were
as common then as now, and political leaders jostled each other in the
most vituperative assaults to give victory to their cause.
The contest ended in November, when the elections were held in the
various States. Tennessee had been admitted to the Union on the 1st of
June, 1796, making sixteen States to participate in the choice of a
President. Of these, six States held some form of popular elections,
while ten chose their electors by the Legislature. The popular vote
cast at these elections had no material significance. There was but one
ticket voted for in nearly or quite all of the six States which assumed
to choose electors by popular vote, as the New England States were
solid for Adams, and the Southern States, where elections were held,
were strong in the support of Jefferson. The result was the election of
Adams in the Electoral College by a vote of 71 to 68 for Jefferson, who
thereby became Vice-President. The following is the vote in detail, as
cast in the Electoral College, the electors voting only for President:
══════════════╤══════╤══════════╤═════════╤══════╤══════╤══════════╤════════╤═════╤════════╤═══════════╤═════════╤══════╤══════════
│ John │ Thomas │ Thomas │Aaron │Samuel│ Oliver │ George │John │ James │ George │ Samuel │ John │Charles C.
STATES. │Adams,│Jefferson,│Pinckney,│Burr, │Adams,│Ellsworth,│Clinton,│ Jay,│Iredell,│Washington,│Johnston,│Henry,│Pinckney,
│ Mass.│ Va. │ S. C. │ N. Y.│Mass. │ Conn. │ N. Y. │N. Y.│ N. C. │ Va. │ N. C. │ Md. │ S. C.
──────────────┼──────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼──────────┼────────┼─────┼────────┼───────────┼─────────┼──────┼──────────
New Hampshire │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Vermont │ 4 │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Massachusetts │ 16 │ ―― │ 13 │ ―― │ ―― │ 1 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 2 │ ―― │ ――
Rhode Island │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Connecticut │ 9 │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 5 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
New York │ 12 │ ―― │ 12 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
New Jersey │ 7 │ ―― │ 7 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Pennsylvania │ 1 │ 14 │ 2 │ 13 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Delaware │ 3 │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Maryland │ 7 │ 4 │ 4 │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 2 │ ――
Virginia │ 1 │ 20 │ 1 │ 1 │ 15 │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ 1 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
North Carolina│ 1 │ 11 │ 1 │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 3 │ 1 │ ―― │ ―― │ 1
South Carolina│ ―― │ 8 │ 8 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Georgia │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Kentucky │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Tennessee │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
├──────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼──────────┼────────┼─────┼────────┼───────────┼─────────┼──────┼──────────
Total │ 71 │ 68 │ 59 │ 30 │ 15 │ 11 │ 7 │ 5 │ 3 │ 2 │ 2 │ 2 │ 1
══════════════╧══════╧══════════╧═════════╧══════╧══════╧══════════╧════════╧═════╧════════╧═══════════╧═════════╧══════╧══════════
It will be seen by the foregoing table that Pennsylvania,[2] Maryland,
Virginia, and North Carolina cast divided electoral votes for the
Presidency between Jefferson and Adams. In Pennsylvania, Adams received
1 electoral vote to 14 for Jefferson. In Maryland, Adams received 7 to
4 for Jefferson. In Virginia, Jefferson’s own State, Adams received 1
to 20 for Jefferson, and in North Carolina the vote was 1 for Adams to
11 for Jefferson. In all of these States the electors were chosen by
popular vote, and they were doubtless selected with reference to their
character and intelligence without pledges as to how they should cast
their ballots in the electoral colleges. One of the Virginia electors
exercised his admitted right to vote against Jefferson, who had the
largest popular following in the State. It was this independent action
of a few electors in 1796 that made both parties draw their lines
severely in the selection of the candidates for electors, and from
that time until the present all electoral tickets have been made up
of men who were accepted as solemnly pledged to vote for their party
candidates in the Electoral College.
[2] The popular vote, as imperfectly preserved at Harrisburg, gives
Adams 11,552 and Jefferson 8373, but as 14 of the 15 electors voted for
Jefferson the vote of record is incomplete and misleading.
THE JEFFERSON-ADAMS-BURR CONTEST
1800–1
The Presidential contest of 1800 was as revolutionary in its aim and
in its accomplishment as was the Republican revolution of 1860. The
Federalists had practically undisputed control of the Government for
twelve years, under Washington and John Adams, and the power of the
Federal party, with the overwhelming individuality of Washington in its
favor, accomplished the election of Adams over Jefferson in 1796. When
the battle of 1800 opened, Washington was dead, and Hamilton, one of
the ablest of the Washington political lieutenants, was not in hearty
sympathy with Adams.
The Federalists held both branches of Congress, and a tidal wave of
partisan bitterness and personal defamation ran riot, both in Congress
and throughout the country. Our foreign complications with France had
become very serious, and Congress approved what was then regarded as
very extensive preparations for a war that was bitterly opposed by the
Republican minority, the followers of Jefferson. So violent were the
political discussions of the country that Adams, acting in accord with
the Federal theory of a strong suppressive government, demanded and
secured the passage of what are known as the Alien and Sedition laws,
which now rank among the most odious legislative acts in the history of
the Republic.
While the Alien and Sedition laws were apparently aimed at those who
were open enemies of the country in war, they were, in fact, intended
to suppress criticism of the administration and to impose the severest
penalties for open hostility to its policy. The first session of the
Congress of 1797–98 lasted eight months, and even in the fierce
passions of civil war the Congressional debates did not equal the
asperities of the Congressional debates of a century ago. The first
Alien law lengthened the period for naturalization to fourteen years,
and all emigrants were required to be registered and the certificate of
registration to be the only proof of residence. All alien enemies were
forbidden the right of citizenship under any circumstances.
[Illustration: JOHN ADAMS]
Another of the series gave the President the power in case of war to
seize or expel all resident aliens of the nation at war with us, and
yet another gave the President power to deport any alien whom he might
think dangerous to the country, and if after being ordered away he
remained in the country, he was subject to imprisonment for three years
and forbidden citizenship. In addition to these provisions, aliens
so imprisoned could be removed from the country by the President’s
order. Such were the general provisions of the Alien law. The Sedition
bill, that was part of the same policy, declared that any who hindered
officers in the discharge of their duties or opposed any of the laws of
the country were guilty of high crime and misdemeanor, punishable by
fine and imprisonment. Those who were guilty of writing or publishing
any false and malicious writings against Congress or the President, or
aided therein, were made punishable by a fine of $2000 and imprisonment
for two years.
These measures were in harmony with the Federal theory of government.
The Federal leaders did not believe the people capable of
self-government, and Adams felt justified in imposing the severest
penalties upon all who severely criticised or violently opposed the
administration. Washington was yet alive and in full mental and
physical vigor when these laws were passed, and it is reasonable to
assume that he approved of them, as he could have defeated them if he
had opposed their enactment. Hamilton vainly protested against the
Alien and Sedition laws as a fatal political blunder, but Federalism
had never suffered defeat, and President Adams never doubted his
re-election until the vote was declared against him.
The contest of 1800 had its lines so well defined from the outset that
candidates for President and Vice-President were as clearly indicated,
although without any formal declaration, as national tickets would be
indicated by a national convention of modern times. There is no record
of the Congressional caucus in 1800, but it seems to be an accepted
tradition that the Federals, who had a majority of the House, first
called a secret caucus to confer about the management of the campaign.
They did not formally name candidates, but by general consent Adams
was accepted as the candidate for President and Charles C. Pinckney,
of South Carolina, for Vice-President. Apparently well-authenticated
reports tell of a Republican Congressional caucus held during the
same year, but there is no preserved record of it. If such a caucus
was held, candidates were not nominated nor was any declaration of
principles made. The chief object of the Republican caucus seems
to have been to harmonize the friends of Jefferson on Burr as the
accepted candidate for Vice-President, but no preference was expressed
in any formal way. When the Federalists held their first caucus the
Republicans denounced it as a “Jacobinical conclave,” and so severe
were the criticisms of the Philadelphia _Aurora_, the leading Jefferson
organ, that its editor was at one time arraigned before the bar of the
Senate.
The contest of 1800 opened early in the year, the reported
Congressional caucuses having been held in February or March, and from
that time until the election the political discussions were acrimonious
to a degree that would surprise the present generation. Jefferson had
cordially united his friends in the support of Burr, and it was Burr’s
magnificent leadership that carried the electoral vote of New York by
winning the Legislature of that State as early as May. New York had
voted for Adams in 1796, and the loss to Adams of one of the leading
States of the Union and its transfer to Jefferson made the battle next
to hopeless for Adams, but he and his friends fought it out to the
bitter end.
No new States had been admitted during the Adams administration,
and the same sixteen States which had elected Adams over Jefferson
were then to pass a second judgment upon the great leaders of the
two opposing political theories of that day. In Pennsylvania the
Federalists controlled the Senate chiefly by hold-over Senators, as
the popular sentiment of the State was strongly for Jefferson. In the
three previous elections for President the Pennsylvania Legislature
had passed special acts authorizing a popular vote for President, but
in 1800, the Federals having control of the Senate, refused to pass a
bill for an election whereby the choice of electors was thrown into
the Legislature, and it required joint action of the Federal Senate
and the largely Republican House to provide for a choice of electors
even by the Legislature. The Federal Senators refused to go into joint
convention except upon conditions which would divide the electoral
vote, and the Republicans of the House were compelled to choose between
disfranchising the State, as New York had been disfranchised in 1789,
or to concede a large minority of the electors to Adams.
It was finally agreed that each House should nominate 8 electors,
and that the Houses should then meet jointly and each member should
vote together for 15 of the 16 thus nominated. The result was that
the Federalists forced the election of 7 Adams electors with 8 for
Jefferson. The Federal Senators, 13 in number, who controlled the
Senate against the 11 Republicans, were heralded by their party papers
and leaders as grand heroes, because by the accident of power in one
body of the Legislature not immediately chosen by the people they had
wrested 7 electors from Jefferson, which would have been given to him
either by a popular vote or by a joint vote of the Legislature.
Rhode Island at this election for the first time chose electors by
popular vote, making 6 States which chose electors by the vote of the
people and 10 which chose electors by the Legislature. As the electoral
colleges could vote only for candidates for President, Jefferson and
Burr received precisely the same vote, 73 in number, and Adams received
65, with 64 for Pinckney and 1 for John Jay. The following is the table
of the vote as cast in the electoral colleges:
══════════════╤══════════╤══════╤══════╤═════════╤══════
│ Thomas │Aaron │ John │ C. C. │John
STATES. │Jefferson,│ Burr,│Adams,│Pinckney,│ Jay,
│ Va. │N. Y. │ Mass.│ S. C. │N. Y.
──────────────┼──────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┼──────
New Hampshire │ ―― │ ―― │ 6 │ 6 │ ――
Vermont │ ―― │ ―― │ 4 │ 4 │ ――
Massachusetts │ ―― │ ―― │ 16 │ 16 │ ――
Rhode Island │ ―― │ ―― │ 4 │ 3 │ 1
Connecticut │ ―― │ ―― │ 9 │ 9 │ ――
New York │ 12 │ 12 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
New Jersey │ ―― │ ―― │ 7 │ 7 │ ――
Pennsylvania │ 8 │ 8 │ 7 │ 7 │ ――
Delaware │ ―― │ ―― │ 3 │ 3 │ ――
Maryland[3] │ 5 │ 5 │ 5 │ 5 │ ――
Virginia │ 21 │ 21 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
North Carolina│ 8 │ 8 │ 4 │ 4 │ ――
South Carolina│ 8 │ 8 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Georgia │ 4 │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Kentucky │ 4 │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
Tennessee │ 3 │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ――
├──────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┼──────
│ 73 │ 73 │ 65 │ 64 │ 1
══════════════╧══════════╧══════╧══════╧═════════╧══════
[3] One Maryland elector did not attend.
It is impossible to give anything like an intelligent presentation of
the popular vote between Jefferson and Adams. In most of the States
which chose electors by popular vote there was practically no contest,
as the New England States voted solidly for Adams, and the Southern
States south of Maryland voted as solidly for Jefferson, with the
exception of North Carolina, where an electoral ticket seems to have
been chosen on the original theory that electors should exercise sound
discretion in the choice of a President, and in the exercise of that
discretion 4 of the North Carolina electors voted for Adams and 8 for
Jefferson. Had Pennsylvania been permitted to give expression either
to the popular will or to the decided Republican majority of the
Legislature, 7 of the Pennsylvania votes would have been taken from
Adams and added to Jefferson, which would have made him 80 electoral
votes to 58 for Adams.
Jefferson had won his election, and there should have been no question
about according it to him. Under the electoral system of that day, by
which each elector voted for two candidates for President, Jefferson
and Burr each received 73 votes for the Presidency, and upon the face
of the returns were equally entitled to claim the highest honor of
the Republic. True, Burr had not been discussed or seriously thought
of as a candidate for President. He was accepted by the Republicans
distinctly as the candidate for Vice-President, and the whole battle
was fought out on the issue between Jefferson and Adams. Had Burr been
honest and manly, he would have ended the struggle at once by declaring
that the people had elected Jefferson to the Presidency, and that Burr
could not consent to be presented to the country and the world as
seeking to wear the stolen honors of the Government; but Burr developed
his true character as soon as he discovered that his vote was equal
to that given to Jefferson. While he did not make any open or visible
effort to elect himself over Jefferson, he silently assented to the use
of his name, and thus made the Presidency hang in uncertainty from the
time of the election in November until the 17th of February, when the
contest was finally decided in favor of Jefferson, and Burr stamped
with infamy. That he wished to be elected over Jefferson cannot be
reasonably doubted. If he had not permitted the use of his name without
protest as a candidate against Jefferson, there would have been no
discussion and no uncertainty, as the House would have chosen Jefferson
on the 1st ballot.
Jefferson could have accomplished his own election without a serious
contest if he had accepted the proposition of the Federalists to
give him the election, to which he was entitled by the vote of
the people, if he would agree not to remove the Federalists who
then filled all the offices of the Government. Under Washington
and Adams, the Republicans were practically proscribed in national
appointments, and Adams had been specially proscriptive in dispensing
the patronage of his administration. One of the most discreditable
acts of his administration was the creation, by his Federal Congress
in the expiring hours of Federal rule, of a number of judges, to whom
commissions were issued by Adams at midnight before his retirement
from office. They were known in political discussions of that day
as the “midnight judges,” and the measure was so odious that it
speedily destroyed itself. Jefferson, while not specially proscriptive
in political appointments, regarded it as inconsistent with his
appreciation of executive duties to give any pledge to the opposition
to retain their friends in office. They naturally assumed that
Jefferson would be as proscriptive as Adams had been, and that their
only safety was in making terms with Jefferson, whose election they
could accomplish without difficulty.