thank.

and thanks for joining for our american history tv series historic presidential elections during this election season. we'll at past presidential. and this week it's the election of 1800. it's been called the revolution of 1800. thomas jefferson defeated president john adams in a rematch, a tumtuous white house campaign decided by the us house of representatives. our guest is historian siegel, author of the book making the presidency john adams and the precedents that forged the

republic. and she's also director of the george washington presidential library at, mt. vernon lindsay chervinsky. why was it called the revolution of 1800? well, that's a great place to start. this was a phrase that jefferson coined to and make the argument that the american people had rejected the federalist administration and the federalist agenda. and it was the second coming of the spirit of 1776. but like so other things that i'm sure we'll discuss today, a lot of what jefferson said was brilliant propaganda and what i think was actually revolutionary was not so much the outcome of the election, but the fact that it took place then the peaceful transfer of power actually occurred. and this was a rematch. 1796. correct? it was. and both elections were quite nasty. of course, the election of 1800, i was even nastier because they had already faced off against

one another before, although i should say that in the 18th century, none of the candidates actually actively campaigned themselves. they certainly had ideas and they often knew what was happening, but typically they stayed at home as they were expected to do, and instead of their supporters travel old and tried to build support and wrote of horrible things about the other person in the newspapers. well, now, thomas jefferson was with the democratic republic and party, and john adams, the federalist party. what did that mean back then? that's a great question. so these were baby parties. they weren't really like we would think of today with the huge apparatus and they were the first two emerging parties to exist after the u.s. constitution was that was written and then ratified. and the democratic party emerged really out of the anti-federalist coalition. so people who had initially been unsure of the us constitution, who opposed administration

typically, they found their support in the south in the western regions among, immigrants and some of the working class the federalist party was the party that had initially supported the u.s. constitution was you know, claimed washington as their first candidate, although he wasn't as as some of the people that came after. they believed in a stronger central government, a stronger military they wanted to ally themselves with britain because of the importance of trade. and they typically support in city areas new england and among the merchant and banking class. now, lindsay stravinsky, you said that there was opposition to washington. that's kind of a something we never hear how much opposition was to george washington in 1800. nothing compared to what we see today course. washington won both of his elections unanimously, which had never been done before and will never be done again.

he was so popular even when he decided to retire that thomas jefferson wanted him to serve a third term. so jefferson at this point was the head of the democratic republicans. he, you know, serving as the figurehead. this party that was opposing washington. and yet he still wanted a third washington term. but there were a number of policies that the washington had supported, whether was the bank of the united states, which was alexander hamilton's creation or the jay treaty, which increased close relationships between the united states and great britain, or even neutrality in, the global war between france and great britain that many americans had and washington did not like that criticism, even if it was sort of mild in comparison to two later contests. well, here's a snapshot of america in 1800. john adams, president the vice president was thomas. the population was about.

5.3 million people. there were 16 states and it was an agricultural based upon in a general sense what was it like to live in the united states at that time? well, on one hand, i think people were really excited and enthusiastic that this new nation had survived first couple of administrations. but on the other hand, there was a tremendous amount of and sometimes sounds hyperbolic to us when we read their language that they were worried that any misstep could really lead to the end of the republic. and that sounds just a little silly because we know what happened. we know that the nation survived. but didn't know that. and so 1800, they knew that the constitution was already the country's second constitution. and most countries get second chances. they knew that there was this global war and both britain and france were not all that upset. if the united failed, because then they could pick off some of

the territories. they knew that there were these incredible internal divisions and battles over citizenship and immigration and pandef mix and the threat of partizan violence was was constant. the partizan tensions were only increasing as the days when. and so they were worried about the future, the nation and whether it would actually survive this very important election. now, we mentioned the democratic party in the federalist party. were there other parties and how big were they? how important were they? there weren't really any other parties. one thing to note, however, was by hundred, the federalist party was internally divided. so there was a faction sometimes the arch federalists or the hi federalists, one group of the federalists were called the essex, june 12 because a lot of them had originated essex county, massachusetts, and they were the more radical wing of

the federalist party. they to pursue war with france. they wanted a strong army that they could use for domestic political purposes. they really opposed john adams efforts at diplomacy. and so that those divisions within that party did really come to be a problem in. the election for the federalists and almost served as a third candidate. spoiler because there were such intense internal divisions. and what did the democratic republican party stand for? the democratic republican party generally opposed the close relationship with great britain. they had opposed the treaty. they wanted a more friendly relationship with france. that had been the ideological of the united states, especially after the french revolution. they were suspicious of a strong central. they were suspicious of cities as places where corruption and sin tended to fester. they really blamed a lot of the corruption in europe on the

emergence of big cities. and they believed the ideal american was a yeoman farmer, which meant a farmer that had a big enough farm that he could provide for his family and be financially independent. that was their vision of what the united states should be. and lindsay chervinsky of course, were just talking about white men here. is it fair to say that there was an urban rural divide between these two parties? there was definitely urban rural divide. there was also a class divide both within rural spaces and, urban spaces. so workers to prefer the democratic party or laborers, people who had a lot more wealth tended to be federalists, although those are imperfect categories because there was that urban divide. there's also a little bit of a north-south divide, although that is not as stark as we would come to see later decades. was slavery an issue in the election of 1800? it was not discussed issue in terms a pro-slavery party or, an

anti-slavery party. however, absolutely contributed to the result because of the 3/5 clause. the 3/5 clause gave the southern states an additional boost in the representation both in congress and in the electoral college. because for every five enslaved individuals, they counted three in the population. and so from the very beginning, as soon as results started, roll in a lot of observers noted that thomas jefferson's numbers as the democratic republican were inflated by this 3/5 clause. well, john adams had been elected in 1796. he born in 1735. and braintree, harvard lawyer, member of the continental congress, senior diplomat in europe he was the first vice president to george washington and. obviously the second u.s. president. had he been popular in his four

years? it's a great question. popularity sort of ebbed and waned. one of, i think his greatest contribution options was his understanding that whoever came second after washington was going to have a really, really difficult time because no one was going to be able to stack against washington's unparalleled stature. and yet adams did it anyway. and that took a great deal. political courage and stubbornness, which is something that he had maybe an extra dose of. so initially i do think there was a little bit of a honeymoon period where people were very excited by that first transition, which often gets overshadowed by what happened four years later. but at the time people really recognized it, this historic event in one president stepped down and another took over and it was peaceful and bloodless. so initially, he did have that honeymoon period. there was then of a lull in his popularity as people waited for his diplomatic to play out when

was an initial threat of war with. what's known as the x-y-z. he became extremely popular in sort of a rally round flag effect. but then that started to wane as federalists in congress passed bills to pay for the army to increase taxes as they passed the alien and sedition, which were very unpopular and adams was really tarnished by a lot of that legislation. so by the election of 1800, he wasn't incredibly unpopular. but he wasn't necessarily at the height of his popularity. and it was definitely by a lot of the friendly fire he was receiving fellow federalists. well, his vice president was thomas jefferson, seven years younger. born in virginia, matriculated william and mary. seen as the primary author of the declaration of independence, he was the secretary of state to george washington, the vice president, john adams. how was that? john adams and thomas jefferson served together and.

they weren't necessarily a ticket. well the way that the constitution set presidential elections, initial was that the electors would cast two votes and one had to be for someone outside of their state. and the idea was that you didn't want someone to only pick candidates from your own home state at a time when your home location was your primary loyalty. so the electors went to electoral college. they cast their votes. and what basically happened is they thought that the top two most expert or knowledgeable or maybe perhaps desired candidates would win. and this was, of course before they had any idea that political parties would emerge. well, they had emerged by 1796 when the first real competitor of election took place and the top two candidates were the federalist candidate, john adams and, the democratic republican candidate, thomas jefferson.

and so what happened was that thomas jefferson then became the vice president in this federalist administration. and that's important because later amendments, the 12th amendment in particular, basically removed that loophole and made it impossible for the vice president to essentially be in the same running as the president. but at that time, they hadn't yet made that choice to the constitution and was a real constitutional question about can the vice work if it's from a different party? can the administration work or will it be torn apart from the inside out? and i do have to say that it various moments, i think jefferson, did his very best to see if he could it apart, inside out. well, lindsay chervinsky, you mentioned something and i don't think it can be overstate the loyalty to your home rather than to the republic. that's right. so at this point, you know, the

united states had only been in existence in 1776. it takes a long time for identities, for nationalism, for emotional ties between citizens and the nation to emerge. that doesn't happen slowly. it takes repetition of practices and the passing of generations. and so in 1800, most people referred to themselves first as either virginians or new yorkers, and then as america and second and partly that was a byproduct of, the colonial connection to great britain. one of my favorite facts is when continental congress first met in 1774 in philadelphia, here, more of the delegates had been to london than had been to philadelphia. and i think that demonstrates where their emotional connections, their intellectual connections, their financial connections were really targeted. and that was london as to some center within the united. and while that had started shift

by 1800, it was nowhere near the type of american identity we associate with today. well, thomas jefferson and john adams had history as founders of this country. here's historian edward larson talking about their relationship. over 62 inches tall with high cheekbones and deep set eyes, adams towered above most of his time, even when he slouch which he often did especially when seated standing, he typically folded his arms tightly across his chest and often had a faraway look. here, jefferson's body language betrayed his character as someone who avoided direct conflict, even with himself. although adams is proud, combativeness competed with jefferson's detached coldness in putting off new acquaintance. both men gained the respect of friend and foe alike for their

intense self-discipline, studied brilliance and seriousness of purpose. along with franklin and george washington, they were the central figures in the american revolutionary leadership. on that fateful july four john hancock speaking as president of the continental congress and the nearest thing to an elected leader for the aligned but not yet amalgamated states warned his fellow delegates, we must be unanimous. there must be no pulling different ways. we must all hang together. wise and worldly. franklin reportedly added, yes. must indeed all hang together? or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately for two decades. adams and jefferson followed advice of hamilton and franklin. they pulled together in war and peace, became and helped to form a sovereign nation from 13 dependent colonies.

the common goals of independence and sovereignty that united patriot leaders during the revolutionary era gave to differing views on domestic and foreign policy during washington's second term as president. however, after 1797, when adams succeeded in washington as president and jefferson became leader of the opposition as vice president, these differences widened into open antagonisms fed by intense fed, by tensions home and war abroad. the factions led by adams and jefferson crystallize into two distinct political parties with competing visions for america's future. they became the public personifications of the warring camps. by 1800, the remnants of their former friendship had ended in a of mutual suspicions and partizan animosities. adams and many in his federalist party feared that jeffersonian

would bring political, social, religious upheaval. jefferson and, his most ardent followers in the republican party, doubted whether the nation's democratic institutions could survive another four years. with adams at the helm both for both sides freedom as they conceived it hung in the balance. america's two greatest surviving revolutions leaders had separated, and the was coming apart. one election took on extraordinary meaning. partizans worried that it might be the young republic's last. and that was the c-span archives. historian edward larson talking about the relationship between john adams and thomas jefferson. lindsay chervinsky how would you describe the philosophies or their approach? governance. gosh, that's a good and a big one. so thomas jefferson initially really espoused a more

centralized approach to governance. he wasn't necessarily in favor of strong executive power. but once he got into office, first as secretary of and then as president himself, he was very willing to be encouraged of executive power, which a lot of people forget as secretary state. he was really, really encouraging of washington's executive authority and quite defensive of it when congress tried to intervene. and then as president, he oversaw the purchase of the louisiana purchase, which was an increase in executive. so i would say that he had a very rational approach to governing although i think where they differ, perhaps is who they thought governing or what they thought governing should be on. and so, of course jefferson did not want the government to be focusing on trade and industry, culture and industry. whereas adams who also believed in the importance executive authority did those things.

adams was in particular very focused on the need be he as a good new englander, was very familiar with the importance of what's called the merchant marine. basically the merchant ships that carried u.s. goods back and forth europe and to the. most of the trees that built ships came from new england. most of the sailors that worked on ships came from new england. so he had a really good sense of the importance of trade. and he wanted a navy both to protect that, but also to boost any sort of diplomatic efforts because. he knew negotiating would best when, you know, coming from a position of strength. so given what you just said, were those some of the issues that were discussed or debated during the election of 1800. to a certain extent, yes. there was definitely a question of how strong the federal government would be and what it would be doing. so jefferson argued, well, i should say jefferson's supporters argued that the federal government was trying to

impede a citizen's rights so first amendment rights to free speech was trying to assert a heavy taxation burden was trying to expand a standing army to march across the states and with citizens daily lives. the adams administration argued that the the democratic republicans and jefferson wanted to bring anarchy. they wanted to bring violence and rebellion that had first been seen in paris during the french revolution, and then in haiti during the haitian revolution. and because of the democratic republicans, with those ideas and a lot of the people that had lived in those places, the federalist argued that jefferson wanted to bring those things to import them to the united states. they also got a little bit extreme with some of their arguments. so, for example, jefferson said, you know, adams was going to create a monarchy and he wanted to instill, install his son, john quincy adams, as his heir. and, you know, one of the i

think the funniest arguments in the in the election and was that jefferson's supporters alleged that john adams had sent charles coatsworth pinckney to london to bring back for british women as mistresses adams and pinckney. and retorted, well, if he did, i have not received my two, which i think demonstrates his sense of humor. on other side, federalists allege that jefferson was an atheist and he wanted to destroy religion. this was part of this anarchy and violence concept. and so they told their supporters that if jefferson won, they would need to bury all of their bibles to protect because jefferson was going to come, sees them. so lindsay chervinsky building up to november of 1800. how were the campaigns conducted? were there kickoffs? were there rallies? were there speech ups, etc., etc.? the campaigns really kicked off with sort of secret convention

in which a group of leading democratic republicans or federalists and decided their candidates. these meetings in philadelphia typically the congressman from each party and some of the local elites, perhaps the cabinet secretaries in the case of the federalist party, attended as well. notably, neither jefferson adams attended these meetings where were selected as the candidates then the various supporters from the various parties conducted a newspaper campaign. so newspapers at the time were overtly partizan. there were pro federalist newspapers, pro-democratic republican newspapers, and so they were allied with the various campaigns and printed materials over the next several months, either in favor of their candidate or attacking the other. various supporters also, what we would think of as or campaigns to go meet with other supporters or try and build enthusiasm. so for example, aaron burr was

second democratic, republican, understood as the vice president candidate. he was from new york and he traveled up through new england trying to build up support for he and jefferson's campaign to build up support for the democratic republican ticket and try and encourage electors to cast their votes for the democratic republicans. lindsay chervinsky was a muddy campaign. oh, it was terribly muddy. it was muddy. both because the democratic republicans, the federalists were squabbling with one another and were often covering a lot of the same territory. there was an understanding about which states would be what we think of as swing. so places like maryland and pennsylvania and south carolina would split their votes in the electoral college between the democratic republicans and the federalists. and so a lot of them really, you know, focused their energies. and thomas boylston adams, who

was one of the sons of john adams, wrote that he was living in philadelphia at the time, and he wrote that you could not go to any event, whether it was a local auction whether it was day at court, whether it a market day without standing on a big barrel and proclaiming their political opinions, proclaiming that their position is and either decrying or supporting candidates. so politics infected every element of daily life. and then of once you add in the conflict within the federalist party in, they were sort of yelling at each other and the arch federalists were undermining adams as well as a really essential slave rebellion led by an enslaved man named gabriel in virginia that occurred in the fall of 1800 as well. the entire was incredibly messy and tumultuous and quite scary for the people actually living through it. and from the c-span archives,

his in and author andrew jackson o'shaughnessy had this to say about of the so-called smear tactics from the election of 1800 and jefferson described his opponents as monarchy rats. monarchy and aristocrats. he said he was representing the spirit of 1776. this is how one of his newspapers described john adams a hideous hammer, a different hermaphroditic character, which is over the false and firmness of man, nor gentleness and sensibility. a woman. they nicknamed john adams, the duke of braintree or his lord rotunda, because it was regarded so pompous, and it has to be said, was obsessed with what titles should be used in america and utterly disapproved of the idea that we would talk about mr. president rather than his

excellency. there were stories was circulated that was trying to marry one of his sons while he was ambassador in britain to one of george two thirds daughters. and indeed, adams had got along very well with george at third and later reprimanded when they correspondent late in life he reprimanded jefferson for calling george the third a tyrant. on the other hand, adams called jefferson a mean spirited, low lived fellow, the son of a half breed indian school sod by virginia mulatto. so the popularity on jefferson, the essentially several strategies. one was to link him with the radicalism of the french. so you have someone called writing in the connecticut papers saying murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will

openly appear and be practiced. there will be rent with the cries of the distressed the soil be soaked with blood and. the nation black with crimes. another newspaper editor will warn people perpetual. dwellings in flames. female chastity violated or. children writhing on the pike and then actually of the nastiest attacks were from federalists in virginia writing in jefferson's local papers. i if fellow citizens vote for jefferson he'll all our disorders. he'll relieve us of taxes. he'll make us as rich as croesus. besides he prefers the tempestuous, tempestuous sea of liberty the furious storm of revolution. i vote for mr. jefferson. he'll make us happy. he'll your army and navy adrift. all the federal officers. all the old patriots. he'll play the devil with the --

banks. the funding system. the bane of democracy. he'll put a stop to commerce. he'll introduce a new order of things such as one as will make every demos short for democrat happy no doubt i'll do it another was jefferson's religious beliefs that he was an atheist and an infidel, and that would cease to be godly. there were winds stories of all cult practices at monticello show of jefferson praying the god of reason and jefferson sacrificing dogs. and then there was newspaper editorial, which the headline the grand question stated the presence, momentous epoch, the only question to be asked by every american laying his hand on heart is shall i allegiance to god. and a religious president or in piously declare jefferson and no

god. so these campaigns all basically privately funded. so for example in philadelphia or excuse me, in pennsylvania, the democratic republicans decided to was to print out written ballots of all of the republican candidates because. the law at the time said that the ballots had to be hand-signed, but that the handwriting printing of the names and printing the signature did not have to match. and in the event that a voter was either not able to remember all the names or, perhaps wasn't great at reading, they would handwrite all of these ballots and then send them out to all of their. and a lot of those efforts supported privately by democratic, what we call maybe boosters at the time. and they occurred in both parties. they were elite men of course, mostly only men could vote at this point. and they supporting these efforts privately. now, did you say mostly men could vote?

yes, that's a very interesting part of this story. so for a very short window of time women, usually propertied in new jersey were actually able to vote and it wasn't after the election of 1800 that that was rescinded. and so for a small little window, women in a couple of pockets of places actually able to cast ballots. you have any idea how many were able vote in 1800? know i don't know the exact number. but i do know that democratic republicans felt like it was significant enough. these women were predominantly voting for federalists, that they oppose women's suffrage in new jersey going forward and that was one of the motivations for that suffrage. well the 1800 presidential election made it into the broadway play hamilton. here's short portion. the people are asking to hear my voice.

you would ask me why? come on. the jefferson has my vote. and that, of course, was the broadway play hamilton by lin-manuel miranda. we're talking about the election of 1800 with his story in lindsay stravinsky, who is also the executive director of the george washington presidential library at vernon and the author of this making the presidency john adams and the precedents that forged the republic. mr. venky, what was alexander hamilton's role? the election of 1800. alexander hamilton had quite the interesting role. so first he had been quite instrumental in undermining john adams election campaign. he had written a pamphlet, which is captured in the musical decrying adams character that he wasn't fit to be president and then kind of includes this little tacked bit at the end

saying, but we actually have to vote for him because jefferson is pretty terrible. and while that may be didn't necessarily swing, a lot of people, it certainly had an impact in south carolina where charles pinckney, who was the other federal test candidate, lived and pinckney felt like he really had to back from that that pamphlet because he had pledged to support adams. he considered himself to be a man of honor. so that was the first big role that hamilton played in the election. once the election was, it turned out to be a tie. and thomas jefferson and aaron burr were tied at 73 electoral votes apiece. it was then thrown to the house of representative and neither candidate had secured enough of the state votes to win the election. hamilton pushed his fellow to support jefferson not because he liked jefferson. he jefferson. and he opposed much everything that jefferson stood for. but he felt like jefferson was

at least a man of principle, whereas burr could not be trusted. he was basically too machiavellian and would do whatever was in his best interest as opposed to the country's best. now, i do think the musical overstates hamilton's a bit because there isn't a whole lot of evidence that hamilton was able to sway a lot of votes initially, but it certainly prevent added, i think, more federal s from supporting burr. it certainly prevented a long term mckinley tions to try and install someone else as president. the national archives has of the original electoral tally sheets. here's how it looks. thomas jefferson 73 electoral votes. burr 73 electoral votes. john adams five electoral votes. and charles. pinckney 64 electoral votes at this point in november of 1800. john adams was a non-factor.

is that fair to say? i think it's mostly fair to say so was clear to everyone by december third when the electoral votes had to be counted that there was this tie that john adams had come in third and would not be president. however, there were two really important considerations. adams had a very important influence. the first was as this determination was made in the house of representative adams had to decide how he was going to respond. was he going to say anything. was he going to support some of the federalists more radical plans to either delay the decision and try and, you know, come up with a new election in which they might a better choice or, a better chance of winning? would they try and install a temporary president. you know what? what sort of constitution all wrongdoing could they actually get up to? and adams decided that he would play no role. he would not support any those plans. he would not say anything in support of it. and that restraint was essential

because it allowed the constitution to work as it was intended to, and it didn't necessarily match up with his past political interests or his party's best political interests. so it was a moment of real civic virtue. the second piece that is really important is, once jefferson was actually elected, you had to have this first transition. and it had never before. and so. adams set the tone for what that should look like. he invited jefferson to the white house to see it, to meet with some of the staff. he reported back to jefferson on was in the stables. what sort of purchases needed to to make. he instruct his cabinet secretaries to provide basically briefings for jefferson to ensure that the transition worked as smoothly as possible. and that was an incredible gift because none of that was written down. today, a lot of that is mandated by statute, but it started adams making the choice that despite

the fact that he had lost would do what was best for the country and lindsay chervinsky part of that is it it wasn't really a stab list as a strong presidency at that correct. well in some ways the president's he was incredibly strong. so when there was a crisis or a domestic rebellion, it was expected that the president would step in and deal with it. and a lot of precedents had been established by george. a crisis had come up. there had been a moment where something unclear. congress was usually of session when anything interesting happened in the 1790s. and so washington had taken decisive action, established the expectation that the president would be the one to step forward, make a plan, and deal with the crisis adams inherited. those expected actions, but so much of the constitution was continuing evolve in real time. it is a extraordinarily short document and article two in particular is very brief, leaves

a lot unsaid. and so how work who has a role in it? who is the sort of the power player or the power broker? none of that had been decided. and so what adams really had to do was to look at the constitution and say, the president has no role here and i refuse to insert myself into this process where it is not constitutionally appropriate and that restraint is, i think, quite commendable. lindsay chervinsky was the spirit of george washington in the election of 1800 at all? it certainly was. you know, the passing of george washington was moment where you can almost see john adams a little bit and breathe a sigh of relief because there was no two presidents in the american. washington's sort of hovering presence during most of john adams administration had been, unlike anything we've ever seen

because there was no former president like washington in terms of the how the people saw. so once he passed away, john adams had the opportunity to i think really lean into making presidency his own. and by the election of 1800 the seat of government had to move from philadelphia to new to the new federal city, which w called washington city. so the you know, the concept of washington was always there. they had already set about passing funds to create what was eventually the washington monument. the city was named after washington. mt. vernon was just across the river and pretty much everyone that visited washington, d.c. went to vernon to pay their respects. so he was always present in the of americans even if he didn't have an actual tangible role in the election. so let's go back to november of 1800 was the first tuesday in november the fact was that in the constitu you know it was not

so the idea of the election being on the first tuesday it's actually first tuesday after the first monday in november or was not a part of the electoral practice and states were states were responsible for deciding when their elections would take place. and usually they took place over a 6 to 8 week period because they actually involved different steps. each state was responsible for deciding how its electors would be chosen. so sometimes it was the state legislature would decide. sometimes states had direct elections for the electors and. sometimes they had a mix. and so, for example, in the case of maryland they had round one of elections in which the citizens went vote for their state legislatures. and then round two was a partial direct election for, the electors. so over several months there were these like layered phases of elections. and it made it really difficult

to track the results at a time when there was not the internet polling, but the big dates to know were that all of the electoral college votes had to be in by december 3rd. so that was when everyone knew that all of the decisions had made and then slowly news began to trickle out to the other, letting people know what happened, who had been the winner or in this case, the tie. how did aaron burr and thomas jefferson end up in a tie and what happened in the house of representatives? there are really two answers to that question. so the reason a tie occurred was because of how votes were cast in the electoral. each elector cast ts. and so all of the democratic republic electors cast a vote for. thomas jefferson. and for aaron. and that was as the constitution specified. now, of course, the constitution was written before two political parties had actually merge and

so a lot of the framers at the constitu tional convention expected that there might be factions amongst the states, that there would be a lot of candidates and it would be much more difficult to actually have a tie between two people. so all of the electors cast their votes. there was this tie. but the second part of the answer is that somehow james madison and thomas and james monroe, three of the leading republicans, all from virginia, had forgot or overlooked to have one elector drop. aaron burr as their selection. now, aaron burr was always intended as the vice presidential candidate, but there were some tensions between. the northern wing of the party, which were which was led by burr and a named governor clinton. and there was some tension in the south because there had been this feeling that maybe in 1796, the southerners had done poorly by, burr and had cast his name aside and.

that had maybe been one of the reasons they hadn't won. and so madison had sworn that the virginians would vote equally for jefferson and for burr. and he his word maybe thinking that someone else would drop that vote, but no one else did. so least two candidates were tied. it was thrown to the house of representatives as dictated by the constitution, in which each would have one vote. so that meant that each state would have to get together and have all of its representatives cast a vote for who they wanted to choose as the next president. so once the once the decision actually went to house, what turned out was that the republicans controlled eight states and the federalists six states. but a candidate it needed nine states in order to have majority, which left a lot of room for maneuvering. between the time it was clear that there was a on december 3rd to the time that the certification process actually

began on february 11th and the certificate nation process came after many rounds in the house of voting. the certification process on february 11th began with thomas jefferson starting a special session of congress and was the president of the senate in his capacity as vice president. and they opened all of the state. they counted them, they processed. we can still see the handwriting on the documents where they were counting the totals. and then it went to the house. and over the next several days, house cast 36 ballots each up until the 36th had sort of deadline locked at that 8 to 6 number. neither side really willing to compromise. and there were a couple of states vermont maryland that were were deadlocked. so they were casting a no vote because they were split between federalists and democratic republicans. and what was john adams doing during this period?

john adams at the white house. he did meet privately with jefferson. he assured jefferson that he believed he should be the next president, that jefferson was clearly the people's choice. other than that he stayed out of it. he believed the president had no role in this constitutional process. he was right about that. he told federalists he would not intervene. he would not support some of their more extreme plans. but he did definitely keep a close eye and was waiting for news of any resolution. at what point was thomas jefferson declared, president of the united states. and when he take office. thomas jefferson was declared the third president of the united states, the 36th ballot, which took several days. they had they at some point have to stop and take some breaks, eat and to sleep and to try and reconvene and figure out how they were going to resolve this conundrum. he then took office on march 4th, 1801, which was about two

weeks after the final had been made. and in those two weeks, he had to figure out how to staff his executive departments to basically create his administration write his inaugural address and manage the entire transition process. the name of your book is making the presidency john adams and the precedents that for the republic. what were some of those precedents that you say? john adams. well, the first thing that i think john adams did that was so essential, he showed up. and as we talked about, you know, whoever came after washington really going to be in a terrible position. and so showed up and he demonstrated that someone else could be president because the american people had never seen anyone else in that office and they genuinely were not sure if it would work for anyone else. so he established that indeed it would be he established that the president had the right to assert his own foreign policy and the president was really the person responsible for

diplomacy. he had to battle his own cabinet, especially the arch in his cabinet and the arch federalist and congress for that authority. he established that the president has the right to remove cabinet secretary without any sort of participé from the senate. washington never done that before, and so it was a theoretical power, but until adams actually did it. it was very much untested. so he gave that power life. and lastly, he demonstrated incredible civic virtue, a moment of real constitutional crisis. he stayed out of it. he refused participate, even when it meant that his own political interests. maybe would suffer. and critically, after lost, he went home. that doesn't sound like much to us today, but at the time was the era of napoleon and the fact that he lost and he went home was a revolutionary thing to do. when did you get interested in this history? well, i've been interested in

history since i was a little kid and to jamestown and wearing the chain and the steel helmets. but this particular book in. but it was really shaped by watching january 6th because i how much i took for granted peaceful transfer of power, how central it is to our democracy and the concept of a peaceful is what makes our republic. and i thought as i was looking back on the first transition and there was a lot there that hadn't been explored and maybe it hadn't been explored because it was subtle. and adams was about it and didn't, you know, make big fuss. and if you weren't looking for it, if you hadn't experi a contested transition, then you wouldn't have thought to ask how these first ones emerge. and so that really what inspired this story. where did you grow up and where did you go to school? i grew up in california and then i moved to the east coast and went to george washington

university and, then got my ph.d., my master's in ph.d. back in california. but then kept coming back because i am east coaster at heart. all of the history that i love to study and write about is here. so it's really nice to be able to see it in person. what are some of the legacies of the election. of 1800s? well, i think of the most important legacy is that we can have a change of party in country, doesn't fall apart, that the and our democratic institution are much bigger than any one person and any political parties interests. i think there was also a sense that the election had come so close to being a catastrophe. the threat of violence was palpable and real. there was a mob that outside of the capitol as ngss was certified in the votes threateng to hang who did not comply with the will of the people who tried to put a different president into.

that sounds pretty familiar to a lot of people today. i think. there were militias stationed on the virginia and pennsylvania ready to march into the city to put jefferson in the presidency. if the federalists tried to interfere here and there was, this constant threat, that arson and, political violence would erupted. any. and so once jefferson was inaugurated once. he did become the third president. there was i a big sense of relief and also a sense that that can never again that the country got way too close and it was way too dangerous and the republic have fallen apart and died. and so there was an effort to together to try and build stronger political practices and stronger institutions to ensure that they would continue to survive. was there a real chance at any that aaron burr could become president? i think it was possible that aaron burr could have become president. he interestingly he stayed in new york.

he kind of dilly dallied in at various points. federalists were really calling on him to come washington, d.c. to meet with people, to be willing to make promises, to put certain people in office. and it's very possible that if he had done that, then perhaps the federalists could have picked off enough democratic republicans that they would swing states to their side. but i do think the most likely outcome was always that jefferson would be president, just because he had the full backing his party and he had more states to begin with. well, another one of the legacies of the election of 1800 was the 12th amendment to the constitution is what? the 12th amendment to the constitution and ensures that basically votes are cast for vice president and president. separately. so it doesn't put them necessarily on separate ballots, but it makes very clear that they are running for different positions rather two votes for the same type of position. and it basically a similar such

tie from taking place in the future and c-span toward the national archives. look at the 12th amendment in 2016. here it is we we decided to include this document here the gallery because it's it shows how a specific event directly led to a constitutional amendment in this case 12th amendment and it also shows that most people don't really know anything about the 12th amendment because it did such a good job of solving its targeted problem that we've never really needed to know anything else about it. it solves the problem and it never happened again. you can see the problem pretty clearly when you look at this. this is the elected college vote tally for the 1800 president election and very you see here that the votes the election was a tie vote, 73 to 73 between the

two candidates of the democratic party, thomas jefferson of virginia, and aaron burr of new york. and the reason why this happened in 1800 was because candidates ran for this election differently than they had for any previous election. the electoral college system that the founders create did when they wrote the constitution they thought that it would work such that the candidates would all be running for president. whoever came in first place would become the president and whoever got the second second place votes in the electoral college would become the vice president and. that worked fine when everybody voted for george washington in the first two elections. and it worked okay for john adams in the next after that. but in the hundred presidential election, which was much more contested, it work very well at all. and the difference was that the candidates this election ran for

the first time as a party ticket. so thomas jefferson, aaron burr, together as the presidential vice presidential candidate. so when it came time for the electoral college to vote each, elector gets two votes, one for president and one for vice president. and so they as such, they cast one ballot for thomas jefferson and the other ballot for his running mate, aaron burr, which resulted, of course, in a tie vote. the election wasn't resolved until after 36 ballots in the house of representative ives, which is where an election goes when no candidate gets a majority, the electoral college, that's what it says in the constitution. so they realized after this election, with this tie vote that that was going to continue to keep happening if candidates ran as a party ticket, then they would keep tying like that. so just in time for the next election in 1804, the.

the 12th amendment to the constitution was ratified and it just tweaked the voting just a little bit in the electoral college so that each elector had to specify which of their votes was for president and which of their votes was for vice president. and in doing so, they ensured that there would not be a tie vote again. and this would not happen. and that has worked and that was from c-span archives, a tour of the national archives looking at 12th amendment historian lindsey tur vince, can you draw any parallels between 1800 and contemporary times. well, 1800 would have felt, i think, very familiar to a lot of americans, you know, minus the electricity and the lack of running water. but the parties were intensely hostile to one another. partizan tensions were really extreme. the parties were weak. so there was a lot of intraparty intraparty fighting amongst the federalists. and they were especially nasty

to one another that what we would kind of think of as squishy or soft federalists were often attacked by their more radical members. there were debates over who was a citizen who belonged, who to vote. there was intense xenophobia over new waves, immigration. there were cycling pandemics. the threat of violence. the threat of foreign war. a lot of these experience things would have, i think, felt very familiar what the important thing to take away from that is not that, you know, we haven't been here before because we have but that the republic can survive. and what it requires is civic virtue or putting the constitution above one's own political interests, one's party's interests for the good of the nation and civic virtue of a couple of people, including john adams, really made the difference. ensure that the republic survives through that first big constitutional crisis. lindsay chervinsky is a presidential historian. she is executive director of the george washington presidential

and she is the author of this making the presidency. john and the precedent that forged the republic. and she has been our guest with a look. the election of 1800. we appreciate your being with us on c-span. thank you so