1800 United States presidential election

The 1800 United States presidential election was the fourth quadrennial presidential election. It was held from October 31 to December 3, 1800. In what is sometimes called the "Revolution of 1800",[2][3] the Democratic-Republican Party candidate, Vice President Thomas Jefferson, defeated the Federalist Party candidate, incumbent president John Adams. The election was a political realignment that ushered in a generation of Democratic-Republican leadership. This was the first presidential election in American history to be a rematch.

1800 United States presidential election
  • October 31 – December 3, 1800
138 members of the Electoral College
70 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout32.3%[1] Increase 12.2 pp
 
Nominee Thomas Jefferson John Adams
Party Democratic-Republican Federalist
Home state Virginia Massachusetts
Running mate Aaron Burr Charles C. Pinckney
Electoral vote 73[lower-alpha 1] 65
States carried 9 7
Popular vote 45,467 29,621
Percentage 60.5% 39.4%
Presidential election results map. Green denotes states won by Jefferson and burnt orange denotes states won by Adams. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes cast by each state.
President before election

John Adams
Federalist

 Elected President

Thomas Jefferson
Democratic-Republican

1801 contingent U.S. presidential election
February 17, 1801 (36th ballot)
16 state delegations of the House of Representatives
9 state votes needed to win
 
Candidate Thomas Jefferson Aaron Burr
Party Democratic-Republican Democratic-Republican
States carried 10 4
Percentage 62.5% 25.0%
1801 Contingent Election Results. Green denotes states voting for Jefferson and blue denotes states voting for Burr. States in grey cast blank ballots.

Adams had narrowly defeated Jefferson in the 1796 election. Under the rules of the electoral system in place before the 1804 ratification of the 12th Amendment, each member of the Electoral College cast two votes, with no distinction made between electoral votes for president and electoral votes for vice president. As Jefferson received the second-most votes in 1796, he was elected vice president. In 1800, unlike in 1796, both parties formally nominated tickets. The Democratic-Republicans nominated a ticket consisting of Jefferson and Aaron Burr, while the Federalists nominated a ticket consisting of Adams and Charles C. Pinckney. Each party formed a plan by which one of their respective electors would vote for a third candidate or abstain so that its preferred presidential candidate (Adams for the Federalists and Jefferson for the Democratic-Republicans) would win one more vote than the party's other nominee.

The chief political issues revolved around the fallout from the French Revolution and the Quasi-War. The Federalists favored a strong central government and close relations with Great Britain. The Democratic-Republicans favored decentralization to the state governments, and the party attacked the taxes the Federalists imposed. The Democratic-Republicans also denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts, which the Federalists had passed to make it harder for immigrants to become citizens and to restrict statements critical of the federal government. The Democratic-Republicans were well organized at the state and local levels, while the Federalists were disorganized and suffered a bitter split between their two major leaders, Adams and Alexander Hamilton. According to historian John Ferling, the jockeying for electoral votes, regional divisions, and the propaganda smear campaigns created by both parties made the election recognizably modern.[4]

At the end of a long and bitter campaign, Jefferson and Burr each won 73 electoral votes, Adams won 65, and Pinckney won 64. The Federalists swept New England, the Democratic-Republicans dominated the South, and the parties split the Mid-Atlantic states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

The Democratic-Republicans' failure to execute their plan to award Jefferson one more vote than Burr resulted in a tie, which necessitated a contingent election in the House of Representatives. Under the terms laid out in the Constitution, the outgoing House of Representatives chose between Jefferson and Burr. Burr was accused of campaigning for the presidency himself in the contingent election despite being a member of Jefferson's party. Each state delegation cast one vote, and a victory in the contingent election required one candidate to win a majority of the state delegations. Neither Burr nor Jefferson was able to win on the first 35 ballots of the contingent election, as most Federalist representatives backed Burr and all Democratic-Republican representatives backed Jefferson. Hamilton favored Jefferson over Burr, and he convinced several Federalists to switch their support to Jefferson, giving Jefferson a victory on the 36th ballot. Jefferson became the second consecutive incumbent vice president to be elected president. This is one of two presidential elections (along with the 1824 election) that have been decided in the House.

Candidates

Both parties used congressional nominating caucuses to formally nominate tickets for the first time. The Federalists nominated a ticket consisting of incumbent President John Adams of Massachusetts and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina. Pinckney had fought in the American Revolutionary War and later served as the minister to France. The Democratic-Republicans nominated a ticket consisting of Vice President Thomas Jefferson of Virginia and former Senator Aaron Burr of New York. Jefferson had been the runner-up in the previous election and had co-founded the party with James Madison and others, while Burr was popular in the electorally important state of New York.[5]

Federalist candidates

Democratic-Republican candidates

General election

Campaign

While the 1800 election was a re-match of the 1796 election, it ushered in a new type of American politics, a two-party republic and acrimonious campaigning behind the scenes and through the press. On top of this, the election pitted the "larger than life" Adams and Jefferson, who were formerly close allies turned political enemies.[6]

The campaign was bitter and characterized by slander and personal attacks on both sides. Federalists spread rumors that the Democratic-Republicans were radical atheists[7] who would ruin the country (based on the Democratic-Republican support for the French Revolution). In 1798, George Washington had complained "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a professed Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country".[8] Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans accused Federalists of subverting republican principles with the Alien and Sedition Acts, some of which were later declared unconstitutional after their expiration by the Supreme Court, and relying for their support on foreign immigrants; they also accused Federalists of favoring Britain and the other coalition countries in their war with France in order to promote aristocratic, anti-democratic values.[9]

Adams was attacked by both the opposition Democratic-Republicans and a group of so-called "High Federalists" aligned with Alexander Hamilton. The Democratic-Republicans felt that the Adams foreign policy was too favorable toward Britain; feared that the new army called up for the Quasi-War would oppress the people; opposed new taxes to pay for war; and attacked the Alien and Sedition Acts as violations of states' rights and the Constitution. "High Federalists" considered Adams too moderate and would have preferred the leadership of Alexander Hamilton instead.[10]

Hamilton had apparently grown impatient with Adams and wanted a new president who was more receptive to his goals. During Washington's presidency, Hamilton had been able to influence the federal response to the Whiskey Rebellion (which threatened the government's power to tax citizens). When Washington announced that he would not seek a third term, the Federalists and Adams regarded himself as next-in-line.[11]

Hamilton appears to have hoped in 1796 that his influence within an Adams administration would be as great as or greater than in Washington's. By 1800, Hamilton had come to realize that Adams was too independent and thought the Federalist vice presidential candidate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, more suited to serving Hamilton's interests. In his third sabotage attempt toward Adams,[12] Hamilton quietly schemed to elect Pinckney to the presidency. Given Pinckney's lack of political experience, he would have been expected to be open to Hamilton's influence. However, Hamilton's plan backfired and hurt the Federalist party, particularly after one of his letters, a scathing criticism of Adams that was fifty-four pages long,[13] fell into the hands of a Democratic-Republican and soon after became public. It embarrassed Adams and damaged Hamilton's efforts on behalf of Pinckney,[4] not to mention speeding Hamilton's own political decline.[13]

The contemporarily unorthodox public campaigning methods employed in 1800 were first employed by Jefferson's running mate and campaign manager, Aaron Burr, who is credited by some historians with inventing the modern electioneering process.[14] Yet, throughout this entire process, the candidates themselves were conspicuously missing from the campaigning, at least publicly, due to fears that they may otherwise be tagged as "demagogues." Even a visit John Adams made to Washington was made into a public point of contention.[15]

Selection method changes

Partisans on both sides sought any advantage they could find. In several states, this included changing the process of selecting electors to ensure the desired result. In Georgia, Democratic-Republican legislators replaced the popular vote with selection by the state legislature.[16] Federalist legislators did the same in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This may have had some unintended consequences in Massachusetts, where the makeup of the delegation to the House of Representatives changed from 12 Federalists and 2 Democratic-Republicans to 8 Federalists and 6 Democratic-Republicans, perhaps the result of backlash on the part of the electorate. Pennsylvania also switched to legislative choice, but this resulted in an almost evenly split set of electors. Virginia switched from electoral districts to winner-take-all, a move that probably switched one or two votes out of the Federalist column.

Voting
Results by county explicitly indicating the percentage of the winning candidate in each county. Shades of blue are for Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) and shades of yellow are for Adams (Federalist).

Because each state could choose its own election day in 1800, the voting lasted from April to October. In April, Burr's mobilization of the vote in New York City succeeded in reversing the Federalist majority in the state legislature to provide decisive support for the Democratic-Republican ticket. With the two parties tied 65–65 in the Electoral College in the autumn of 1800, the last state to vote, South Carolina, chose eight Democratic-Republicans to award the election to Jefferson and Burr.

Under the United States Constitution as it then stood, each elector cast two votes, and the candidate with a majority of the votes was elected president, with the vice presidency going to the runner-up. The Federalists therefore arranged for one of their electors to vote for John Jay rather than for Pinckney. The Democratic-Republicans had a similar plan to have one of their electors cast a vote for another candidate instead of Burr but failed to execute it, thus all of the Democratic-Republican electors cast their votes for both Jefferson and Burr, 73 in all for each of them. According to a provision of the United States Constitution, a tie in a case of this type had to be resolved by the House of Representatives, with each state casting one vote. Although the congressional election of 1800 turned over majority control of the House of Representatives to the Democratic-Republicans by 68 seats to 38,[17] the presidential election had to be decided by the outgoing House that had been elected in the congressional election of 1798 (at that time, the new presidential and congressional terms all started on March 4 of the year after a national election). In the outgoing House, the Federalists retained a majority of 60 seats to 46.[17][4]

Defective certificate

When the electoral ballots were opened and counted on February 11, 1801, the certificate of election from Georgia was different than the others. Georgia had sent the original oral ballot. In 2004, David Fontana and Bruce Ackerman asserted that Georgia's certificate did not take the constitutionally mandated form of a "List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each".[18] They claimed that Vice President Jefferson, who was counting the votes in his role as President of the Senate, immediately counted the votes from Georgia as votes for Jefferson and Burr, though they observed that "no objections were raised."[18][19] If the Georgia ballots had been rejected based on these supposed irregularities, Jefferson and Burr would have been left with 69 votes each, or one short of the 70 votes required for a majority, meaning a contingent election would have been required between the top five finishers (Jefferson, Burr, incumbent president John Adams, Charles C. Pickney, and John Jay) in the House of Representatives. With these votes, the total number of votes for Jefferson and Burr was 73, which gave them a majority of the total, but they were tied.[18]

During the controversial 2020 United States presidential election, Jefferson's action to count Georgia's votes was cited as precedent by allies of President Donald Trump such as U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert, White House personnel director Johnny McEntee, and attorney John C. Eastman. Eastman wrote a series of memoranda outlining a theory according to which the Vice President had the power to unilaterally reject or discount purportedly disputed or illegitimate electoral college votes from certain states. [20][21][22] Ackerman himself would later claim in 2020 that "[p]recedents established by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 would permit Pence to invalidate a particular state’s electoral returns on the grounds that the underlying vote-count was generated in an illegitimate fashion — that it was rigged."[23]

Holly Brewer argued that Jefferson's counting of the Georgia ballot did not support this theory, and that Ackerman and Fontana were incorrect, because the ballot did in fact comply with constitutional requirements, since it contained a list of all four electoral college votes for both Jefferson and Burr respectively (and only them); the constitutionally required certification language was contained on the outside of the envelope; and the ballot was not understood to be irregular under the election practices of the day.[24] Holly Brewer's arguments helped to influence Vice President Pence's decision to reject the theory that he had such powers, via Judge J. Michael Luttig.[25][24] [26][27]

In August 2023, for producing the memoranda outlining the proposed legal theory, in addition to making other false statements in support of it, Eastman was indicted under a Georgia racketeering statute for participation in a corrupt conspiracy to overturn President Joe Biden's victory in favor of President Trump (who was himself charged in the same indictment).[28]

Results

Jefferson and Burr carried every state that had supported the Democratic-Republicans in 1796, made gains in Maryland, and picked up Burr's home state of New York. In the six states choosing electors by some form of popular vote, they won a landslide over Adams and Pinckney, polling 15,846 more votes than the Federalist ticket. Adams made gains in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, but these votes were not enough to offset the Democratic-Republican gains elsewhere. Of the 155 counties and independent cities making returns, Jefferson and Burr won in 115 (74.19%), whereas the Adams ticket carried 40 (25.81%). This was the last time that Vermont voted for the Federalists, and the last time a Federalist won electoral votes from Pennsylvania.

Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote(a), (b), (c) Electoral vote
Count Percentage
Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican Virginia 45,467 60.5% 73
Aaron Burr Democratic-Republican New York — — 73
John Adams (incumbent) Federalist Massachusetts 29,621 39.4% 65
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Federalist South Carolina — — 64
John Jay Federalist New York — — 1
Other(d) 54 0.1% 0
Total 75,142 100.0% 276
Needed to win 70

Source (Popular Vote): A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787–1825[29]
Source (Electoral Vote): "Electoral College Box Scores 1789–1996". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 30, 2005.

(a) Votes for Federalist electors have been assigned to John Adams and votes for Democratic-Republican electors have been assigned to Thomas Jefferson.
(b) Only 6 of the 16 states chose electors by any form of popular vote.
(c) Those states that did choose electors by popular vote had widely varying restrictions on suffrage via property requirements.
(d) Eight votes were cast for electors pledged to both Adams and Jefferson; 46 votes were cast for electors of unknown affiliation.

Popular vote
Jefferson
 
 60.5%
Adams
 
 39.4%
Electoral vote
Jefferson
 
 52.9%
Burr
 
 52.9%
Adams
 
 47.1%
Pinckney
 
 46.4%
Jay
 
 0.7%

Electoral College vote by state
State Electoral
votes		 TJTooltip Thomas Jefferson ABTooltip Aaron Burr JATooltip John Adams CPTooltip Charles Cotesworth Pinckney JJTooltip John Jay
Connecticut 9 — — 9 9 —
Delaware 3 — — 3 3 —
Georgia 4 4 4 — — —
Kentucky 4 4 4 — — —
Maryland 10 5 5 5 5 —
Massachusetts 16 — — 16 16 —
New Hampshire 6 — — 6 6 —
New Jersey 7 — — 7 7 —
New York 12 12 12 — — —
North Carolina 12 8 8 4 4 —
Pennsylvania 15 8 8 7 7 —
Rhode Island 4 — — 4 3 1
South Carolina 8 8 8 — — —
Tennessee 3 3 3 — — —
Vermont 4 — — 4 4 —
Virginia 21 21 21 — — —
TOTAL 138 73 73 65 64 1
TO WIN 70

Source: "Tally of Electoral Votes for the 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801". The Center for Legislative Archives. National Archives. August 15, 2016. Retrieved February 15, 2018.

Results by state

Of the 16 states that took part in the 1800 election, six (Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia) used some kind of popular vote. In Rhode Island and Virginia, voters elected their state's entire Electoral College delegation at large; Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee all used some variation of single-member districts. In the rest, electors were chosen by the state legislature. Not until the 1836 presidential election would all states have direct popular selection of electors (except South Carolina, which had its state legislature vote for electors until 1868). Popular vote records for several states are incomplete, and the returns from Kentucky and Tennessee appear to have been lost; states did not print or issue electoral ballots, and most were issued by newspapers that supported a particular party or candidate. Newspapers are also the main source of voting records in the early 19th century, and frontier states such as Tennessee had few in operation, without any known surviving examples. Below are the surviving popular vote figures as published in A New Nation Votes.

Thomas Jefferson
Democratic-Republican		 John Adams
Federalist		 Margin State total Citation
State Electoral
votes		 #  % Electoral
votes		 #  % Electoral
votes		 #  % #
Connecticut 9 No popular vote — No popular vote 9 — — [30]
Delaware 3 No popular vote — No popular vote 3 — — [31]
Georgia 4 No popular vote 4 No popular vote — — —
Kentucky[lower-alpha 2] 4 75 63.03 4 No ballots — 75 63.03 119 [32]
Maryland[lower-alpha 3] 10 10,638 51.35 5 10,068 48.60 5 570 2.75 20,716 [33]
Massachusetts 16 No popular vote — No popular vote 16 — — [34]
New Hampshire 6 No popular vote — No popular vote 6 — — [35]
New Jersey 7 No popular vote — No popular vote 7 — — [36]
New York 12 No popular vote 12 No popular vote — — — [37]
North Carolina[lower-alpha 4] 12 11,593 51.26 8 11,025 48.75 4 568 2.52 22,618 [38]
Pennsylvania 15 No popular vote 8 No popular vote 7 — — [39]
Rhode Island 4 2,159 47.85 — 2,353 52.15 4 -194 -4.30 4,512 [40]
South Carolina 8 No popular vote 8 No popular vote — — — [41]
Tennessee[lower-alpha 5] 3 No data 3 No data — No data No data [42]
Vermont 4 No popular vote — No popular vote 4 — — [43]
Virginia 21 21,002 77.28 21 6,175 22.72 — 14,827 54.56 27,177 [44]
TOTALS 138 45,467 60.51 73 29,621 39.42 65 15,846 21.09 75,142
TO WIN 70

District results

Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee chose each of their electors from specially-drawn single-member districts, the results from which are as follows.

Thomas Jefferson
Democratic-Republican		 John Adams
Federalist		 Margin District total Citation
District #  % #  % #  % #
Kentucky-1 No data No data No data No data [45]
Kentucky-2[lower-alpha 2] 75 63.03 No data 75 63.03 119 [46]
Kentucky-3 No data No data No data No data [47]
Kentucky-4 No data No data No data No data [48]
Maryland-1 68 5.75 1,114 94.25 -1,046 -88.50 1,182 [49]
Maryland-2[lower-alpha 6] 789 31.98 1,669 67.65 -880 -35.67 2,467 [50]
Maryland-3 1,724 45.27 2,084 54.73 -360 -9.46 3,808 [51]
Maryland-4 1,351 50.17 1,342 49.83 9 0.34 2,693 [52]
Maryland-5 2,379 75.45 774 24.55 1,605 50.90 3,153 [53]
Maryland-6 1,640 87.00 245 13.00 1,395 74.00 1,885 [54]
Maryland-7 1,031 58.15 742 41.85 289 16.32 1,773 [55]
Maryland-8 1,022 67.55 491 32.45 531 35.10 1,513 [56]
Maryland-9 629 44.61 781 55.39 -152 -10.78 1,410 [57]
Maryland-10[lower-alpha 7] 5 0.60 826 99.40 -821 -98.8 831 [58]
North Carolina-Edenton[lower-alpha 4] No data No data No data No data [59]
North Carolina-Edgecombe 1,035 44.02 1,316 55.98 -281 -11.96 2,351 [60]
North Carolina-Fayetteville 299 12.32 2,128 87.68 -1,829 -75.36 2,427 [61]
North Carolina-Hilsborough 1,344 63.61 769 36.39 575 27.22 2,113 [62]
North Carolina-Morgan 1,374 73.95 484 26.05 890 47.90 1,858 [63]
North Carolina-New Bern 1,134 54.89 932 45.11 202 9.78 2,066 [64]
North Carolina-Northampton 715 50.49 701 49.51 14 0.98 1,416 [65]
North Carolina-Raleigh 1,319 63.87 746 36.13 573 27.74 2,065 [66]
North Carolina-Rockingham 1,322 53.63 1,143 46.37 179 7.26 2,465 [67]
North Carolina-Salisbury 1,010 43.11 1,333 56.89 -323 -13.78 2,343 [68]
North Carolina-Warren 1,340 79.86 338 20.14 1,002 59.72 1,678 [69]
North Carolina-Wilmington 701 38.18 1,135 61.82 -434 -23.64 1,836 [70]
Tennessee-Hamilton No data No data No data No data [42]
Tennessee-Mero No data No data No data No data [42]
Tennessee-Washington No data No data No data No data [42]

Close states and districts

States and districts where the margin of victory was under 1%:

  1. Maryland's 4th electoral district, 0.34% (9 votes)
  2. North Carolina's Northampton electoral district, 0.98% (14 votes)

States and districts where the margin of victory was under 5%:

  1. Rhode Island, 4.06% (194 votes)

States and districts where the margin of victory was under 10%:

  1. North Carolina's Rockingham electoral district, 7.26% (179 votes)
  2. Maryland's 3rd electoral district, 9.46% (360 votes)
  3. North Carolina's New Bern electoral district, 9.78% (202 votes)

1801 contingent election
Aaron Burr tied Jefferson in the Electoral College vote.

In February 1801, the members of the House of Representatives balloted as states to determine whether Jefferson or Burr would become president. There were sixteen states, each with one vote; an absolute majority of nine was required for victory. It was the outgoing House of Representatives, controlled by the Federalist Party, that was charged with electing the new president. Jefferson was the great enemy of the Federalists, and a faction of Federalist representatives tried to block him and elect Burr. Most Federalists voted for Burr, giving Burr six of the eight states controlled by Federalists. The seven delegations controlled by Democratic-Republicans all voted for Jefferson, and Georgia's sole Federalist representative also voted for him, giving him eight states. The Vermont delegation was evenly split and cast a blank ballot. The remaining state, Maryland, had five Federalist representatives to three Democratic-Republicans; one of its Federalist representatives voted for Jefferson, forcing that state delegation also to cast a blank ballot.[71]

Publicly, Burr remained quiet between mid-December 1800 and mid-February 1801, when the electoral votes were counted. Behind the scenes, he faced mounting pressure from within the party to step aside if he and Jefferson should tie in electoral votes. However, there was confusion as to whether or not Burr could simply concede the presidency to Jefferson and become vice-president, or whether he would have been forced to withdraw entirely and allow one of the Federalist candidates to become vice-president, as the Constitution was unclear on the matter. Regardless, he refused to disavow the presidency, writing in December 1800 to Representative Samuel Smith (R-MD) that he would not "engage to resign" if chosen president, adding that the question was "unnecessary, unreasonable and impertinent." Rumors circulated that Representative James A. Bayard (F-DE) had—purportedly in Burr's name—approached Smith and Edward Livingston (R-NY) with offers of political appointments if they voted for Burr.[72]

True or not, House Democratic-Republicans, who from the start of the 1800 campaign viewed Jefferson as their candidate for president and Burr for vice president, faced two abhorrent possible outcomes when the House met to vote: the Federalists could engineer a victory for Burr; or the Federalists could refuse to break the deadlock, leaving Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall as Acting President.[73] Neither came to pass, however,[74] chiefly due to Hamilton's energetic opposition to Burr. Hamilton embarked on a frenzied letter-writing campaign to get Federalist Representatives to switch votes.[75] He urged the Federalists to support Jefferson because he was "by far not so dangerous a man" as Burr; in short, he would much rather have someone with wrong principles than someone devoid of any.[13]

From February 11 to 17, the House cast a total of 35 ballots; each time eight state delegations voted for Jefferson, one short of the necessary majority of nine.

On February 17, on the 36th ballot, Bayard changed his vote from Burr to no selection,[4] joined by his allies in Maryland and Vermont.[76] This changed the Maryland and Vermont votes from no selection to Jefferson, giving him the votes of 10 states and the presidency. The four representatives present from South Carolina, all Federalists, also changed their 3–1 selection of Burr to four abstentions.

Due to the experiences of this and the previous election, sentiment for a new way of selecting the president and vice president rose significantly, resulting in the 12th Amendment.

Results
1801 Contingent United States presidential election
February 11–17, 1801 – 1st through 35th ballots
Candidate Votes  %
Thomas Jefferson 8 50.00
Aaron Burr 6 37.5
Divided 2 12.5
Total votes: 16 100
Votes necessary: 9 >50
February 17, 1801 – 36th ballot
Candidate Votes  %
Thomas Jefferson 10 62.5
Aaron Burr 4 25.0
Blank 2 12.5
Total votes: 16 100
Votes necessary: 9 >50
State delegation votes for:
Jefferson 000 Burr 000 Blank 000
Delegation 1st
ballot		 2nd–35th
ballots(a)		 36th
ballot
Georgia(b) Jefferson 010 000 Jefferson 010 000 Jefferson 010 000
Kentucky Jefferson 020 000 Jefferson 020 000 Jefferson 020 000
New Jersey Jefferson 030 020 Jefferson 030 020 Jefferson 030 020
New York Jefferson 060 040 Jefferson 060 040 Jefferson 060 040
North Carolina Jefferson 090 010 Jefferson 060 040 Jefferson 060 040
Pennsylvania Jefferson 090 040 Jefferson 090 040 Jefferson 090 040
Tennessee Jefferson 010 000 Jefferson 010 000 Jefferson 010 000
Virginia Jefferson 0160 030 Jefferson 0140 050 Jefferson 0140 050
Maryland Divided 040 040 Divided 040 040 Jefferson 040 000 040
Vermont Divided 010 010 Divided 010 010 Jefferson 010 000 010
Delaware Burr 000 010 Burr 000 010 Blank 000 000 010
South Carolina(c) Burr 000 050 Burr 010 030 Blank 000 000 040
Connecticut Burr 000 070 Burr 000 070 Burr 000 070
Massachusetts Burr 030 0110 Burr 030 0110 Burr 030 0110
New Hampshire Burr 000 040 Burr 000 040 Burr 000 040
Rhode Island Burr 000 020 Burr 000 020 Burr 000 020

Sources: [77][78][79][80]

(a) The votes of the representatives is typical and may have fluctuated from ballot to ballot, but the result for each state did not change.
(b) Even though Georgia had two representatives apportioned, one seat was vacant due to the death of James Jones.
(c) Even though South Carolina had six representatives apportioned, Thomas Sumter was absent due to illness, and Abraham Nott departed for South Carolina between the first and final ballots.

Electoral College selection

The Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, provided that the state legislatures should decide the manner in which their electors were chosen. Different state legislatures chose different methods:[81]

Method of choosing electors State(s)
State is divided into electoral districts, with one Elector chosen per district by the voters of that district

State is divided into two electoral districts and half the electors are chosen from each district.

 Kentucky
Each Elector chosen by voters statewide
Divided the state into three electoral districts and named three persons from each county in each district to elect an elector for each of the three districts (same as in 1796)[82] Tennessee
Each Elector appointed by state legislature (all other states)

The election's story and the eventual reconciliation between Jefferson and Adams was also retold in a second-season episode of Comedy Central's Drunk History, with Jerry O'Connell portraying Jefferson and Joe Lo Truglio as Adams.[83]

The election was featured in the HBO miniseries John Adams.

In the 2015 musical Hamilton by Lin Manuel Miranda, the contest between Jefferson and Burr is recounted in "The Election of 1800."[84] The song focuses on Alexander Hamilton's role in deciding the outcome of the 1801 contingent election. The musical simplifies the complicated multiple elections somewhat, portraying Adams's unpopularity as making the real choice between Jefferson and Burr. Historians wrote that Adams did not lose that badly in the original election, with the musical inflating the size of Jefferson's victory. It implies Hamilton's support for Jefferson over Burr was the catalyst for the Burr–Hamilton duel; in fact, while that helped sour relations between Burr and Hamilton, the duel was ultimately provoked by Hamilton's statements about Burr in the 1804 New York gubernatorial election.[85]

The story of the 1801 contingent election between Burr and Jefferson is told in Gore Vidal's 1973 novel Burr.

See also

Notes
  1. Each elector had two votes before the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Jefferson and Burr both received 73 votes, resulting in a tie. The United States House of Representatives subsequently elected Jefferson as president.
  2. The complete returns for Kentucky appear to have been lost. Partial returns from the 2nd district of Kentucky show 44 votes for an elector of unknown affiliation.
  3. Eight votes were cast in Maryland for electors pledged to both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson; two votes were cast for electors of unknown affiliation.
  4. Results from the Edenton district appear to have been lost. The district chose an elector who voted for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.
  5. The returns appear to have been lost.
  6. Eight votes were cast for electors pledged to both Jefferson and Adams; one vote was cast for an elector of unknown affiliation.
  7. One vote was cast for an elector of unknown affiliation.

References

Primary references

Inline references
  1. "National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789-Present". United States Election Project. CQ Press.
  2. "Thomas Jefferson: The Revolution of 1800". PBS. Archived from the original on October 30, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  3. "A Revolution of 1800 After All: The Political Culture of the Earlier Early Republic and the Origins of American Democracy". Jeffrey L. Pasley University of Missouri-Columbia. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  4. Ferling (2004)
  5. Deskins, Donald Richard; Walton, Hanes; Puckett, Sherman (2010). Presidential Elections, 1789–2008: County, State, and National Mapping of Election Data. University of Michigan Press. pp. 33–34.
  6. Lepore, Jill (September 9, 2007). "Party Time for a Young America". The New Yorker.
  7. Lily, Rothman (2016). Everything you need to ace American history in one big fat notebook. Workman Publishing Co., Inc. ISBN 978-0-7611-6083-0.
  8. Mintz, S. (2003). "Gilder Lehrman Document Number: GLC 581". Digital History. Archived from the original on October 6, 2006. Retrieved September 20, 2006.
  9. Buel (1972)
  10. Sisson, Dan, 1937- (September 15, 2014). The American revolution of 1800 : how Jefferson rescued democracy from tyranny and faction and what this means today. Hartmann, Thom, 1951- (40th anniversary ed.). San Francisco. ISBN 978-1-60994-986-0. OCLC 886106713.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. Taylor, C. James (October 4, 2016). "John Adams: Campaigns and elections". Miller Center. University of Virginia. Retrieved June 26, 2022.
  12. McCullough (2001)
  13. Chernow (2004)
  14. "The Election of 1800 – American History – Thomas Jefferson, John Adams". lehrmaninstitute.org.
  15. Lepore (2018)
  16. Aldrich, John H (2005). "The Election of 1800: The Consequences of the First Change in Party Control". In Bowling, Kenneth R.; Kennon, Donald R. (eds.). Establishing Congress: The Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800. Athens: Ohio University Press. p. 31.
  17. "Party Divisions of the House of Representatives* 1789–Present". Office of the Historian, House of United States House of Representatives. Retrieved February 1, 2015.
  18. Fontana, Bruce Ackerman, David (March 1, 2004). "How Jefferson Counted Himself In". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 16, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. "Table of Contents - Issue 2". Virginia Law Review. 90: [v]. 2004.
  20. Brewer, Holly (January 5, 2021). "No, Thomas Jefferson Didn't Rig the 1800 Vote Count". Washington Monthly.
  21. Karl, Jonathan D. (November 9, 2021). "The Man Who Made January 6 Possible". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  22. Cathey, Libby (November 14, 2021). "Memo from Trump attorney outlined how Pence could overturn election, says new book". ABC News. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  23. Ackerman, Bruce; Khanna, Ro (September 13, 2020). "Op-Ed: Claims of a rigged election? Here's how Congress could save our democracy from vote-count chaos". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 31, 2023.
  24. Brewer, Holly (January 5, 2021). "No, Thomas Jefferson Didn't Rig the 1800 Vote Count". Washington Monthly. Retrieved May 31, 2023.
  25. @earlymodjustice (May 30, 2023). "What was amazing was finding out months later that judge Luttig had relied on my work when he advised Pence" (Tweet). Retrieved June 15, 2023 – via Twitter.
  26. Brewer, Holly (January 5, 2021). "More on this Jefferson nonsense". Backbencher. Retrieved May 31, 2023.
  27. Noah, Timothy (November 7, 2022). "Backbencher Saves the Republic". Backbencher. Retrieved May 31, 2023.
  28. url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-indicted-georgia-election-interference-case-64deb461?
  29. "A New Nation Votes". elections.lib.tufts.edu.
  30. Lampi, Philip. "Connecticut 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  31. Lampi, Philip. "Delaware 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  32. Lampi, Philip. "Kentucky 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  33. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  34. Lampi, Philip. "Massachusetts 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  35. Lampi, Philip. "New Hampshire 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  36. Lampi, Philip. "New Jersey 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  37. Lampi, Philip. "New York 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  38. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  39. Lampi, Philip. "Pennsylvania 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  40. Lampi, Philip. "Rhode Island 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  41. Lampi, Philip. "South Carolina 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  42. Lampi, Philip. "Tennessee 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  43. Lampi, Philip. "Vermont 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  44. Lampi, Philip. "Virginia 1800 Electoral College". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  45. Lampi, Philip. "Kentucky 1800 Electoral College, District 1". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  46. Lampi, Philip. "Kentucky 1800 Electoral College, District 2". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  47. Lampi, Philip. "Kentucky 1800 Electoral College, District 3". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  48. Lampi, Philip. "Kentucky 1800 Electoral College, District 4". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  49. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 1". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  50. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 2". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  51. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 3". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  52. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 4". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  53. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 5". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  54. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 6". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  55. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 7". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  56. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 8". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  57. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 9". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  58. Lampi, Philip. "Maryland 1800 Electoral College, District 10". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  59. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Edenton District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  60. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Edgecombe District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  61. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Fayetteville District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  62. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Hilsborough District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  63. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Morgan District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  64. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, New Bern District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  65. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Northampton District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  66. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Raleigh District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  67. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Rockingham District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  68. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Salisbury District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  69. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Warren District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  70. Lampi, Philip. "North Carolina 1800 Electoral College, Wilmington District". A New Nation Votes. Tufts University. Retrieved July 14, 2021.
  71. Ferling 2004, pp. 175–196.
  72. Van Bergen, Jennifer (Spring 2003). "Aaron Burr and the Electoral Tie of 1801:Strict Constitutional Construction" (PDF). The Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal. 1 (1): 91–130. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 22, 2018. Retrieved July 21, 2018.
  73. Colvin, Nathan L.; Foley, Edward B. (2010). "The Twelfth Amendment: A Constitutional Ticking Time Bomb". University of Miami Law Review. 64 (2): 475–534. Retrieved July 21, 2018.
  74. Roberts (2008)
  75. Roberts (2008)
  76. Noel Campbell and Marcus Witcher, "Political entrepreneurship: Jefferson, Bayard, and the election of 1800." Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy 4.3 (2015): 298-312.
  77. "10 Annals of Cong. 1024–1033 (1801)". A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Retrieved August 28, 2019.
  78. Kalb, Deborah, ed. (2010). Guide to U.S. Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press. p. 275. ISBN 978-1-60426-536-1.
  79. "Election of a President". The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. Washington, D.C. February 13, 1801. Retrieved August 28, 2019 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
  80. "On Tuesday". The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. Washington, D.C. February 18, 1801. Retrieved August 28, 2019 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
  81. "The Electoral Count for the Presidential Election of 1789". The Papers of George Washington. Archived from the original on September 14, 2013. Retrieved May 4, 2005.
  82. "Tennessee 1796 Presidential Election, Note. 4". A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
  83. "Drunk History – John Adams and Thomas Jefferson Had Beef". Comedy Central YouTube channel. Retrieved June 19, 2022.
  84. "The Election of 1800". Hamilton: Original Broadway Cast Recording. Retrieved June 19, 2022.
  85. McCarthy, Bill (July 3, 2020). "PolitiFact: Fact-checking 'Hamilton' the musical". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved July 14, 2021.

Bibliography
Main article: Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson
  • Ben-Atar, Doron; Oberg, Barbara B., eds. (1999), Federalists Reconsidered, University of Virginia Press, ISBN 978-0-8139-1863-1
  • Beard, Charles A. (1915), The Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy, ISBN 978-1-146-80267-3
  • Bowling, Kenneth R.; Kennon, Donald R. (2005), Establishing Congress: The Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800, Ohio University Press, ISBN 978-0-8214-1619-8
  • Buel, Richard (1972), Securing the Revolution: Ideology in American Politics, 1789–1815
  • Chambers, William Nisbet (1963), Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809
  • Chernow, Ron (2005), Alexander Hamilton, Penguin, ISBN 978-0-14-303475-9
  • Cunningham, Noble E. Jr. (1965), The Making of the American Party System 1789 to 1809
  • Der Linden, Frank Van. (2000) The Turning Point: Jefferson's Battle for the Presidency. (Washington D.C.: Robert B. Luce).
  • Dunn, Susan (2004), Jefferson's second revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, ISBN 978-0-618-13164-8
  • Elkins, Stanley; McKitrick, Eric (1995), The Age of Federalism
  • Ferling, John (2004). Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516771-9.
  • Fischer, David Hackett (1965), The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy
  • Freeman, Joanne B. (2001), Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic
  • Freeman, Joanne B. (1999), "The election of 1800: a study in the logic of political change", Yale Law Journal, 108 (8): 1959–1994, doi:10.2307/797378, JSTOR 797378
  • Goodman, Paul (1967), "The First American Party System", in Chambers, William Nisbet; Burnham, Walter Dean (eds.), The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, pp. 56–89
  • Hofstadter, Richard (1970), The Idea of a Party System
  • Horn, James P. P.; Lewis, Jan Ellen; Onuf, Peter S. (2002), The Revolution of 1800: Democracy, Race, and the New Republic
  • Lepore, Jill (2018). These truths: a history of the United States (1st ed.). New York (N. Y.): W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-63524-9.
  • Pasley, Jeffrey L.; et al., eds. (2004), Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic, University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 978-0-8078-5558-4
  • Roberts, Cokie (2008), Ladies of Liberty
  • Schachner, Nathan (1961), Aaron Burr: A Biography
  • Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, ed. (1986), History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–1984, vol. 1, essay and primary sources on 1800.
  • Sharp, James Roger. The Deadlocked Election of 1800: Jefferson, Burr, and the Union in the Balance (University Press of Kansas; 2010) 239 pages;
  • Wills, Garry (2003), "Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power, Houghton Mifflin Co., pp. 47–89, ISBN 0-618-34398-9 ... also listed (in at least one source) as from Mariner Books (Boston) in 2004
  • Weisberger, Bernard A. (2000) "America Afire: Jefferson, Adams, and the Revolutionary Election of 1800" (New York: William Morrow).

Primary sources
  • Sloan, Herbert. " 'In a Choice of Evils...Jefferson is in Every View Less Dangerous than Burr': Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis on the Deadlocked Presidential Election of 1800." OAH Magazine of History 18.5 (2004): 53-57 excerpt
Wikimedia Commons has media related to United States presidential election, 1800.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.