I wrote this five years ago as a response to an individual who asked if American Politics had ever been as nasty as the run up to the 2016 election! Having just watched “Hamilton” and realizing that the finer points of the events portrayed (wonderfully, I might add) were thrown fast and furious although absolutely correctly, I thought maybe it was time to rerun this number. I wrote. “The answer is yeah, pretty much.
The election of 1800 was a mudslinging steel cage match between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and while the language may have been marginally more civil, the rhetoric was as full of innuendo and outright falsehood. Adams was accused by Jefferson supporters of planning to marry off a son to a British princess as a prelude to restoring monarchical rule here. Jefferson was "Godless" (not an insult as I see it, but bad juju back then). Each had their own partisan newspaper just like MSNBC and Fox.
Washington had been elected in what was to be the only non-partisan election in the USA. Washington's siding with Hamilton over several key issues (assumption of state's war debts, establishment of the Bank of the United States (essentially creating a national banking system, excise taxes and other issues, drove a wedge between Sec Treasury Hamilton and Sec State Jefferson, who resigned in protest. In Hamilton’s five plus years as Treasury Secretary, Hamilton, who saw the job as more like a prime minister’s role had Washington’s ear, as he had while serving as The General’s aide during the revolution. That fact was a supreme irritant to both Jefferson and VA. Congressman James Madison who saw Hamilton as creating a far more centralized government than he (Madison) had envisioned as he and Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist papers. The Federalists, of which Hamilton was one, opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, to whom Madison had gravitated feared a strong centralized government and refused to support the Constitution without one. Adams, following 2 terms for Washington, ran as a Federalist in 1800, with Jefferson running as a Democratic-Republican (not the same as today's parties, by a stretch. Hamilton, while still politically influential, was also well aware that several of his own party knew of the Reynolds affair (sex scandal), and he was not a candidate, but campaigned and wrote seriously nasty s**t against Adams even though they were both Federalists.
Adams won, which left second highest vote getter Jefferson as Vice President to a man he seriously disliked. Because the Constitution originally specified the second highest vote getter as becoming Vice President, the nation had, as its top two elected officials, two men from opposite parties who at the time actively disliked each other. Federalists blamed French sympathizer, and former ambassador to France, Jefferson for the violence of the French Revolution, while Dem-Reps accused Federalists of favoring a return to monarchy. Jefferson spent most of his VP term at home at Monticello vice the seat of government.
Considering the role of VP as originally planned, there wasn't a lot to do anyway, since he wasn't actually required to preside over the Senate. Apparently, there is no record of actual days spent by either house for either the 5th or 6th US Congresses (Adam's four years), but Jefferson wasn't there much.
The 1800 election again exposed a defect in the original formula in that if each member of the Electoral College followed party tickets, there would be a tie between the two candidates from the most popular ticket. The emergence of partisan political activity caused the failure of the original constitutional plan. Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian, and New Yorker Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes as Democratic-Republicans, with Adams third. While it was sort of a tacit agreement that Jefferson was the Presidential candidate and Burr the VP candidate, Burr, the political opportunist, saw the flaw in the plan and claimed that he intended to be President as well.
Under the rules in place, the house of Representatives was supposed to vote, each state casting one vote, with the candidate receiving the majority becoming President. Some Northerners voted for Burr, not because they liked him (most didn't) but as an "anti-Jefferson" vote. After 35 ballots over 6 days with a lot of politicking between ballots, there was still no majority.
Finally, Burr's fellow New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, a guy with serious creds as former 6-year Treasury Secretary and Washington confidante, and still a leading and influential Federalist, made the statement that shaped the mindset of the Northern states' Federalist fence sitters. Hamilton referred to Jefferson as being "by far not so dangerous a man" (as Burr) and that Burr was a "mischievous enemy" to the principle measure of the past administration. There were, in retrospect, some who later stated that what Hamilton really feared was Burr's appeal to the members of the Federalist Party and loss of his control over them. On the 36th vote, swayed by Hamilton's opinion, a majority of the states voted to elect Jefferson President. Later, as we know, Burr, royally pissed, managed to goad Hamilton into the famous duel which cost him his life.
And now, the “rest of the story”. By now it had become increasingly apparent that a situation in which the Vice President had been a defeated electoral opponent of the President would severely hinder the ability of the two to effectively work together. By having the Presidential and Vice Presidential elected on a party ticket, this possibility would be eliminated, or at least minimized.
The resultant 12th Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that each elector must cast distinct votes for President and Vice President, instead of two votes for President. Additionally, electors may not vote for presidential and vice-presidential candidates who both reside in the elector's state—at least one of them must be an inhabitant of another state. It also explicitly states that the Vice President must meet the same constitutional requirements as provided for the President. A majority of electoral votes is still required for a person to be elected President or Vice President by the Electoral College.
So yes, there has been drama galore and hard feelings along the campaign trail almost from the get-go. some elections have been more or less acrimonious that we currently see, but I believe media has fueled this apparent ramping up of hostilities. The immediacy of "sound bite" politicking and the immediate reaction by all forms of communication merely serve to amplify the scope and volume of what's always been a part of American politics. Hope this answers the question. You hit my history professor button, lol.
Washington had been elected in what was to be the only non-partisan election in the USA. Washington's siding with Hamilton over several key issues (assumption of state's war debts, establishment of the Bank of the United States (essentially creating a national banking system, excise taxes and other issues, drove a wedge between Sec Treasury Hamilton and Sec State Jefferson, who resigned in protest. In Hamilton’s five plus years as Treasury Secretary, Hamilton, who saw the job as more like a prime minister’s role had Washington’s ear, as he had while serving as The General’s aide during the revolution. That fact was a supreme irritant to both Jefferson and VA. Congressman James Madison who saw Hamilton as creating a far more centralized government than he (Madison) had envisioned as he and Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist papers. The Federalists, of which Hamilton was one, opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, to whom Madison had gravitated feared a strong centralized government and refused to support the Constitution without one. Adams, following 2 terms for Washington, ran as a Federalist in 1800, with Jefferson running as a Democratic-Republican (not the same as today's parties, by a stretch. Hamilton, while still politically influential, was also well aware that several of his own party knew of the Reynolds affair (sex scandal), and he was not a candidate, but campaigned and wrote seriously nasty s**t against Adams even though they were both Federalists.
Adams won, which left second highest vote getter Jefferson as Vice President to a man he seriously disliked. Because the Constitution originally specified the second highest vote getter as becoming Vice President, the nation had, as its top two elected officials, two men from opposite parties who at the time actively disliked each other. Federalists blamed French sympathizer, and former ambassador to France, Jefferson for the violence of the French Revolution, while Dem-Reps accused Federalists of favoring a return to monarchy. Jefferson spent most of his VP term at home at Monticello vice the seat of government.
Considering the role of VP as originally planned, there wasn't a lot to do anyway, since he wasn't actually required to preside over the Senate. Apparently, there is no record of actual days spent by either house for either the 5th or 6th US Congresses (Adam's four years), but Jefferson wasn't there much.
The 1800 election again exposed a defect in the original formula in that if each member of the Electoral College followed party tickets, there would be a tie between the two candidates from the most popular ticket. The emergence of partisan political activity caused the failure of the original constitutional plan. Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian, and New Yorker Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes as Democratic-Republicans, with Adams third. While it was sort of a tacit agreement that Jefferson was the Presidential candidate and Burr the VP candidate, Burr, the political opportunist, saw the flaw in the plan and claimed that he intended to be President as well.
Under the rules in place, the house of Representatives was supposed to vote, each state casting one vote, with the candidate receiving the majority becoming President. Some Northerners voted for Burr, not because they liked him (most didn't) but as an "anti-Jefferson" vote. After 35 ballots over 6 days with a lot of politicking between ballots, there was still no majority.
Finally, Burr's fellow New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, a guy with serious creds as former 6-year Treasury Secretary and Washington confidante, and still a leading and influential Federalist, made the statement that shaped the mindset of the Northern states' Federalist fence sitters. Hamilton referred to Jefferson as being "by far not so dangerous a man" (as Burr) and that Burr was a "mischievous enemy" to the principle measure of the past administration. There were, in retrospect, some who later stated that what Hamilton really feared was Burr's appeal to the members of the Federalist Party and loss of his control over them. On the 36th vote, swayed by Hamilton's opinion, a majority of the states voted to elect Jefferson President. Later, as we know, Burr, royally pissed, managed to goad Hamilton into the famous duel which cost him his life.
And now, the “rest of the story”. By now it had become increasingly apparent that a situation in which the Vice President had been a defeated electoral opponent of the President would severely hinder the ability of the two to effectively work together. By having the Presidential and Vice Presidential elected on a party ticket, this possibility would be eliminated, or at least minimized.
The resultant 12th Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that each elector must cast distinct votes for President and Vice President, instead of two votes for President. Additionally, electors may not vote for presidential and vice-presidential candidates who both reside in the elector's state—at least one of them must be an inhabitant of another state. It also explicitly states that the Vice President must meet the same constitutional requirements as provided for the President. A majority of electoral votes is still required for a person to be elected President or Vice President by the Electoral College.
So yes, there has been drama galore and hard feelings along the campaign trail almost from the get-go. some elections have been more or less acrimonious that we currently see, but I believe media has fueled this apparent ramping up of hostilities. The immediacy of "sound bite" politicking and the immediate reaction by all forms of communication merely serve to amplify the scope and volume of what's always been a part of American politics. Hope this answers the question. You hit my history professor button, lol.
No comments:
Post a Comment