Publication
Free Press (2008), Edition: Reprint, 352 pages
Original publication date
2007
Collections
Subjects
Description
The 1800 presidential election, the last great contest of the founding period, was so convulsive and so momentous for American democracy that Jefferson would later dub it "America's second revolution." America's first true presidential campaign gave birth to our two-party system and etched the lines of partisanship that have shaped American politics ever since. The contest featured two of our most beloved Founding Fathers, once warm friends, facing off as the heads of their two still-forming parties--the hot-tempered but sharp-minded John Adams, and the eloquent yet enigmatic Thomas Jefferson. Blistering accusations flew: Adams and his elitist Federalists would squelch liberty and impose a British-style monarchy; Jefferson and his radically democratizing Republicans would throw the country into chaos and debase the role of religion in American life. Historian Larson vividly re-creates the tension as Congress was forced to meet in closed session to resolve the outcome.--From publisher description.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member themulhern
This book is fascinating but...
1) It is repetitive, probably since the author believes that the reader will have to be reminded of events and people which have already been described. Probably this is true in many cases, but I found the repetition a bit boring.
2) It makes excessive use of
3) It is depressing because it suggests very strongly that presidential elections then were like presidential elections now, driven more by perception than by actuality.
However, it is also funny and teaches us that the political parties were just as hostile and likely to engage in personal attacks as they are today. The various churches were always eager to get into the political fray, just as they are today. And the way they went about it was just as ludicrous as it is today.
1) It is repetitive, probably since the author believes that the reader will have to be reminded of events and people which have already been described. Probably this is true in many cases, but I found the repetition a bit boring.
2) It makes excessive use of
Show More
cliches.3) It is depressing because it suggests very strongly that presidential elections then were like presidential elections now, driven more by perception than by actuality.
However, it is also funny and teaches us that the political parties were just as hostile and likely to engage in personal attacks as they are today. The various churches were always eager to get into the political fray, just as they are today. And the way they went about it was just as ludicrous as it is today.
Show Less
LibraryThing member cyderry
The first true presidential campaign took place in 1800 when President John Adams running for re-election was opposed by his former friend, and Vice President, Thomas Jefferson. The difficulty of the era was that many of the states still had not determined a permanent method of electing their
The death of George Washington created additional problems for the Federalist party since many members at the tie were try to draft Washington back into public office.
Many future occupants of the White House were drawn into the controversy. (James Madison, James Monroe, as well as Supreme Court Justices John Marshall and John Jay.)
The book went to great detail explaining all the issues of the day and how the temporary governmental provisions for the election could result in different results.
Show More
electoral college members making for tremendous battles behind the scenes.The death of George Washington created additional problems for the Federalist party since many members at the tie were try to draft Washington back into public office.
Many future occupants of the White House were drawn into the controversy. (James Madison, James Monroe, as well as Supreme Court Justices John Marshall and John Jay.)
The book went to great detail explaining all the issues of the day and how the temporary governmental provisions for the election could result in different results.
Show Less
LibraryThing member foof2you
If you believe that we have partisan elections today then you must read this book to see what was happenning at the beginning of this country. It is interesting to read that many issues involved in 1800 are still with us today. There was much more back room dealing than we have today. The
Show More
partisanship is just as bad and the influence of money and power is similar. This book is a good look at the election and how the electoral college had its flaws and detractors even then. Show Less
LibraryThing member dhmontgomery
Larson's book was published in 2007, but it's never seemed more timely.
An election that bitterly divided the American people? That ended in a disputed fashion? One marked by bitter division among party elites that helped to undermine the candidates? One ticket composed of an experienced,
These are just a few of the parallels that leap to mind between what Larson dubs "America's first presidential campaign" and the bizarre 2016 campaign. The two elections aren't one-to-one comparisons, of course, but understanding history can help put the present into much-needed perspective.
It's also striking how modern much of it FEELS, aside from the specific (and often superficial) parallels to a specific election. Despite the major cultural differences between 2016 and 1800, the candidates and political operatives behave recognizably. There are no polls, but newspapers at the time still engaged in political prognostication: predicting which states will go to which candidate (which map colors for Jefferson and Adams?) and how many electors. Operatives plot and scheme. Aaron Burr single-handedly invents political canvassing. Political junkies earnestly follow the latest developments. Pastors fulminate about the decline of America and godless candidates — who genuinely exist. There are debates about whether one side's maneuver is intended as a deliberate provocation and such whether it should be ignored or responded to in kind. People debate to what degree ends justify the means. Many other books about this time period, for good reason, highlight the different mindsets: the affairs of honor, the Roman Republican ideals, limited views on the role and capabilities of women and blacks. But this book does a good job of highlighting the similarities — human nature may change, but slowly.
The book is well-researched and well-written on top of that, a breezy read I finished in two days. The author is generally sympathetic to Jefferson and Adams and not to Hamilton and Burr; Hamilton's faction of "High Federalists" in particular come as close to villains as any in Larson's book. (His decision to label them as "conservatives" seemed an odd, a-historic choice that at best only partially described the Hamiltonian party — but that's a rare quibble in an otherwise enjoyable book.) Certainly anyone lamenting how politics has degenerated from disinterested debates of yesteryear to today's partisan mudslinging should chapters like "Caucuses and Calumny."
An election that bitterly divided the American people? That ended in a disputed fashion? One marked by bitter division among party elites that helped to undermine the candidates? One ticket composed of an experienced,
Show More
ideologically consistent steady hand and a cipher seen as malleable, ambitious and unreliable? Vitriolic personal attacks? Nasty, sometimes factually iffy partisan news articles being shared around the country? Concern that candidates might be beholden to the interests of foreign countries? Predictions that the wrong outcome could destroy the nation? A campaign that seemed to go on forever, starting well more than a year before the final votes were cast in November?These are just a few of the parallels that leap to mind between what Larson dubs "America's first presidential campaign" and the bizarre 2016 campaign. The two elections aren't one-to-one comparisons, of course, but understanding history can help put the present into much-needed perspective.
It's also striking how modern much of it FEELS, aside from the specific (and often superficial) parallels to a specific election. Despite the major cultural differences between 2016 and 1800, the candidates and political operatives behave recognizably. There are no polls, but newspapers at the time still engaged in political prognostication: predicting which states will go to which candidate (which map colors for Jefferson and Adams?) and how many electors. Operatives plot and scheme. Aaron Burr single-handedly invents political canvassing. Political junkies earnestly follow the latest developments. Pastors fulminate about the decline of America and godless candidates — who genuinely exist. There are debates about whether one side's maneuver is intended as a deliberate provocation and such whether it should be ignored or responded to in kind. People debate to what degree ends justify the means. Many other books about this time period, for good reason, highlight the different mindsets: the affairs of honor, the Roman Republican ideals, limited views on the role and capabilities of women and blacks. But this book does a good job of highlighting the similarities — human nature may change, but slowly.
The book is well-researched and well-written on top of that, a breezy read I finished in two days. The author is generally sympathetic to Jefferson and Adams and not to Hamilton and Burr; Hamilton's faction of "High Federalists" in particular come as close to villains as any in Larson's book. (His decision to label them as "conservatives" seemed an odd, a-historic choice that at best only partially described the Hamiltonian party — but that's a rare quibble in an otherwise enjoyable book.) Certainly anyone lamenting how politics has degenerated from disinterested debates of yesteryear to today's partisan mudslinging should chapters like "Caucuses and Calumny."
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
ISBN
0743293177 / 9780743293174
Physical description
352 p.; 5.5 inches
Pages
352