32 pages • 1 hour read
Edward J. LarsonA Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2007A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Allocating Power to the Federal Government
Republicanism in the late 1790s was characterized by a belief in limited government, out of the hope that this limitation would protect civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of the press. Republicans of this era believed that the power of the government should derive directly from the people, with as few intermediaries as possible. They favored direct elections and other procedures that empowered voters to have a direct say in national politics.
Federalism in the late 1790s was founded on a suspicion of the common man: Federalists from John Adams to Alexander Hamilton believed (to differing degrees) that the federal government should be centralized and endowed with expansive powers. They believed in the value of experienced civil servants and favored electoral procedures that involved expert representatives standing between the voters and the appointment of government officials, such as the electoral college.
In 1798, Federalists in Congress used their power to consolidate power in the federal government, when they authorized the organization of additional troops to protect America in the case of an invasion by Jacobin France. “Always fearful that Hamilton might use the force against them, Republicans naturally denounced it as a ‘standing army,” (75) a term which was still unpopular for its associations with the British standing army commanded by King George III at the time of the American Revolution. Aware that this unpopular moniker was becoming a campaign liability in the 1800 election, Adams disbanded the army in 1800.
In 1798, Congress also consolidated federal power when they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which authorized the detainment of foreigners and outlawed the criticism of government: “These acts ‘were war measures,’ Adams later explained, ‘intended altogether against the advocates of the French and peace with France’” (35). Federalists agreed with Adams, arguing that these measures protected national security interests. Republicans rose in outcry, especially about the Sedition Act, which they considered an unlawful curtailment of the right to free speech, and the freedom of the press. Repealing these acts would become a priority for Jefferson in his ultimate efforts as President, with the aim to redistribute power from centralized institutions to more democratic processes.
Ambition as a Force in Politics
Larson suggests throughout the book that personal ambition was one of the defining forces of American politics at the end of the 18th century. He portrays each of the main players in the election of 1800 as an ambitious man. Adams, he notes, wrote in his diary reflections of his ambition: “Reputation ought to be the perpetual subject of my thoughts, and the aim of my behavior [...] I am not ashamed to own that a prospect of an immortality in the memories of all the worthy to [the] end of time would be a high gratification to my wishes” (11). Jefferson, for his part, saw advantage in life-long education, and so pursued a “disciplined program of self-education throughout his long life” (11).
Larson shows how ambition also defined the careers of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton showed his ambition through his frequent overreaches on behalf of the High Federalists, including his attempt to install Pinckney as President in 1796 and his gambit for High Federalist electors in the New York state house election of 1800. Burr’s ambition emerged slightly differently: “In contrast to Hamilton, who remained a principled High Federalist and accumulated power through ideological purity, Burr saw his path to glory through pragmatic politics” (90). Burr’s ambition led him to an effective strategy in the New York elections of 1800, but ultimately his pragmatic politics, which made him so repugnant to Hamilton, spurred Hamilton to support Jefferson over Burr. In this way, the ways these men expressed and pursued their personal ambitions shaped the politics of the entire nation.
Social Order and Civil Liberty: Scare Tactics as Campaign Strategy
The often-debated tension between preserving social order and preserving civil liberties is the central theme that animated the dialogue between Federalists and Republicans: the tension is a way to understand the stakes in their broader debate about the proper allocation of power to the federal government.
Federalists, who were politically conservative and repelled by the unrest they saw in France during the French Revolution, emphasized the value of social order repeatedly throughout the election of 1800. They made it the central theme of their campaign and tried to gin up fear in the body politic by describing scenarios of unrest. They used this fear, whenever they could generate it, to turn voters against Republican candidates.
The Republicans, for their part, were not above fear-mongering tactics either. They simply highlighted a different threat—namely, Federalist restrictions on civil liberties—to frighten the public. Federalists threatened anarchy, and Republicans threatened despotism, both attempting to convince voters to support their broader platform. Larson describes the overall result of the election as a “Republican surge” (250), suggesting that at this time, the national culture favored the rhetoric appealing to the value of civil liberty over the rhetoric wielding threats of civil disorder.
