A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign

3.8 of 5 stars 3.80 · rating details · 284 ratings · 57 reviews

"They could write like angels and scheme like demons." So begins Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward Larson's masterful account of the wild ride that was the 1800 presidential election -- an election so convulsive and so momentous to the future of American democracy that Thomas Jefferson would later dub it "America's second revolution." This was America's first true presidential...more "They could write like angels and scheme like demons." So begins Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward Larson's masterful account of the wild ride that was the 1800 presidential election -- an election so convulsive and so momentous to the future of American democracy that Thomas Jefferson would later dub it "America's second revolution." This was America's first true presidential campaign, giving birth to our two-party system and indelibly etching the lines of partisanship that have so profoundly 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 -- flanked by the brilliant tacticians Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, who later settled their own differences in a duel.

The country was descending into turmoil, reeling from the terrors of the French Revolution, and on the brink of war with France. Blistering accusations flew as our young nation was torn apart along party lines: 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. The stakes could not have been higher.

As the competition heated up, other founders joined the fray -- James Madison, John Jay, James Monroe, Gouverneur Morris, George Clinton, John Marshall, Horatio Gates, and even George Washington -- some of them emerging from retirement to respond to the political crisis gripping the nation and threatening its future.

Drawing on unprecedented, meticulous research of the day-to-day unfolding drama, from diaries and letters of the principal players as well as accounts in the fast-evolving partisan press, Larson vividly re-creates the mounting tension as one state after another voted and the press had the lead passing back and forth. The outcome remained shrouded in doubt long after the voting ended, and as Inauguration Day approached, Congress met in closed session to resolve the crisis. In its first great electoral challenge, our fragile experiment in constitutional democracy hung in the balance."A Magnificent Catastrophe" is history writing at its evocative best: the riveting story of the last great contest of the founding period.(less)

Hardcover, 320 pages

Published September 18th 2007 by Free Press (first published 2007)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Beads on a String-America's Racially Intertwined Biographical... by Ey Wade

Best Books Concerning American History

72nd out of 172 books — 83 voters

The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore H. White

The Making of the President 1968 by Theodore H. White

The Selling of the President 1968 by Joe McGinniss

Books about U.S. Presidential Elections

13th out of 40 books — 10 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 585)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Feb 27, 2009 HBalikov rated it 4 of 5 stars

Though a slow read because of the wealth of detail, it is very worthwhile. He does an excellent job of bringing together the political, historical, and cultural events that shaped the campaign and events leading up to the election. If you have devoted much time to recent campaigns, you will be aware of all the parallels among them. Some things change and some do not. The 1800 campaign may have been the most crucial in our history and what we learned in school about it was only a sip of what we s...more

like · see review

May 12, 2013 Louise rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: us-history, us-politics

This was, given the consensus for Washington to be President, our first national election. Its result re-oriented the country in its promised direction and solidified the two party system.

Larson tells the saga of this 16 month pre-media electoral slog. The Constitution had not anticipated political parties. It called for electors (today, our vestigial electoral college) to cast the presidential ballots and left each state to determine its own election rules. The parties studied the rules, did th...more This was, given the consensus for Washington to be President, our first national election. Its result re-oriented the country in its promised direction and solidified the two party system.

Larson tells the saga of this 16 month pre-media electoral slog. The Constitution had not anticipated political parties. It called for electors (today, our vestigial electoral college) to cast the presidential ballots and left each state to determine its own election rules. The parties studied the rules, did the math, and attempted to manipulate rules, events and perceptions to change the outcome before and after the fact.

The story is reported with facts and quotes. By nature of its content, there is a lot of technical detail. Slavery, which gave the south disproportionate electoral influence due to the Constitution's specified population count, was not an issue for the participants, and perhaps not the rank and file free male voter either. It faintly emerged when the Republicans need to show their "toughness" in response to a slave revolt.

The author does a good job of cataloging, state by state, the electioneering. The actual votings, by the electors and by the the House of Representatives, could have had a more detailed and interpretive treatment.

After having recently read Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr I am sensitive to the portrayal of Burr. Larson, like others, refers to Burr's negative qualities (such as extreme ambition or untrustworthiness) without evidence. There is mention of his potential profiting from founding a NY bank, but other banks, oriented towards Hamilton, favored the American aristocrats and essentially cut out the average person in lending decisions. In the absence of hard data showing that that Burr profited, should he not be celebrated for this? (Did Andrew Jackson accomplish this much?)

The treatment of Hamilton differs from that in Chernov's Alexander Hamilton To Larson he is an extremist schemer, to Chernov, an achiever, albeit an contentious one. John Adams is portrayed as learning too late that he had been used by this party's extremists. The detail in the treatment here, defines the limitations of drama, such as the recent HBO series on John Adams, in portraying this time.

To me, the book does not have a fitting title. What was catastrophic about this election? Chaos, tumult or even pandemonium are better nouns than "catastrophe" which implies ruin or destruction. One of its participants calls it a catastrophe, but what was destroyed? (less)

like · see review

Nov 10, 2012 Michael Austin rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: read-in-2012

If you are still upset, for any reason, about the 2012 elections, you should read this book immediately. It contains a wonderful tonic called "historical perspective" that will cure what ails you. If you think that our political climate today is especially toxic, divisive, or mean spirited, you should read it too. You will learn that most important of all lessons: that you are wrong. America is not more divided today than it has ever been. We are not even close.

Edward Larson does a good job of e...more If you are still upset, for any reason, about the 2012 elections, you should read this book immediately. It contains a wonderful tonic called "historical perspective" that will cure what ails you. If you think that our political climate today is especially toxic, divisive, or mean spirited, you should read it too. You will learn that most important of all lessons: that you are wrong. America is not more divided today than it has ever been. We are not even close.

Edward Larson does a good job of explaining all of the reasons that the Election of 1800 was such a disaster. It all boils down to this: the people who wrote the Constitution did not envision permanent political parties who would run candidates for public office. Men such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were suspicious of parties, and they crafted a Constitution that would minimize the possibility of permanent factions emerging. And then, two of America's most brilliant and dedicated statesmen ruined it all by creating political parties anyway. Their names? Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

From George Washington's first term in office, it was clear that there were two basic ideas about how America should work. Hamilton believed that the Constitution provided for a robust national government with near-absolute taxing powers and the ability to do anything that needed to be done to build America's economy and its infrastructure. Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, believed that the national government should be small, that taxes should be low, that states should make most of the major decisions, and that America did not need any economic development beyond a lot of new land to farm. By 1798, those who held the first set of views were called "Federalists," while those who held the second were called "Republicans." And, before the election of 1800, both Federalists and Republicans caucused together (secretly) to select their nominees for President and Vice President. The Federalists chose the incumbent president, John Adams, and South Carolina's Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Republicans chose their hero, Thomas Jefferson, to run for President, and the New York Senator Aaron Burr to run for Vice President.

Well, sort of. As a matter of fact, there was no way under the Constitution to run candidates for President or Vice President. Presidents were chosen bv electors, rather than by popular votes, and electors where chosen however states wanted to choose them: some were appointed by state legislatures and others were elected in general plebiscites. Electors were required to cast two equal votes for President; they could not specify that one was for Vice President. Whoever got the most votes became the President, and whoever came in second became the Vice President.

What this really means, then, is that all four men--Adams, Jefferson, Pinckney, and Burr--were running for President, and they all knew it. A number of "High Federalists" (i.e. really conservative Federalists) tried to engineer a victory for Pinckney, viewing Adams as too moderate and politically unreliable--a Federalist in Name Only, or FINO, who could not be trusted to keep the forces of Republicanism at bay. They were playing a very dangerous game, though, since any vote against Adams could have the unintended consequence of electing Jefferson. Of course, nobody on either side thought that anybody other than Jefferson from the Republican side could become President--nobody, that is, except Aaron Burr, who actively schemed to make sure that no Republican voted for Jefferson but against him. He played hard for a tie, and he won, throwing the election into turmoil for months while the House of Representatives tried to come up with a President.

I learned a lot from this book about the intraparty intrigues on both sides. Much more interesting (to me, at least) was the absolute certainty on the part of both Federalists and Republicans that American democracy would be destroyed if the other side won. It all sounded so modern to me. Republicans believed that Adams and the Federalists had designs to destroy the Constitution, appoint a president-for-life, and return the nation to monarchy. Politicians and pundits argued that America was at a crossroads that would lead, if Jefferson were not elected, to the end of everything that the Constitution and the Revolution stood for. Federalists, for their part, saw Jefferson and his fellow Republicans as lawless, degraded, atheistic Jacobins (French Revolutionary rabble) bent on destroying both religion and the upper classes. Nothing, they believed, could be more important than defeating Jefferson.

As the election played out, both sides worked themselves into a frenzy of hatred and anger against the other side (sound familiar). At the same time, the High Federalists worked hard against their own ostensible candidate for President, while the second Republican on the ticket schemed to replace his boss. And he almost did. Throw into the mix a plot to disqualify Republican electors, an attempt to change the way New York's electors were chosen, a few high-profile show trials under the Alien and Sedition Acts, a slave rebellion, a secession threat secretly written by one of the candidates, a few high-profile, high-sleaze campaign books--and what do you get? Business as usual in the early American republic.

Since writing That's Not What They Meant!: Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America's Right Wing, I have often been asked what the Founding Fathers would have thought about political civility in our day. They would have thought, I reply, that we have entirely too much of it.(less)

like · see review

Nov 06, 2012 Doug Clark rated it 5 of 5 stars

Presidential elections in the United States have seemed to become angry, contentious, and bitter affairs. We only have to look at the debacle in Florida in 2000 to see the partisanship. Whether one agrees with the US Supreme Court’s actions or not, the Court did effectively determine the outcome. Was it always this way? Many would like to say, “No.” However, any in-depth study of American presidential politics would reveal that campaigns and elections are nearly always contentious and divisive f...more Presidential elections in the United States have seemed to become angry, contentious, and bitter affairs. We only have to look at the debacle in Florida in 2000 to see the partisanship. Whether one agrees with the US Supreme Court’s actions or not, the Court did effectively determine the outcome. Was it always this way? Many would like to say, “No.” However, any in-depth study of American presidential politics would reveal that campaigns and elections are nearly always contentious and divisive forums for our system of government.

In Edward J. Larson’s new book, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign, he returns us to our forefathers’ times and ideals to lucidly and clearly explain that once political parties were formed, then the elections became extremely partisan. Larson takes up the election of 1800 pitting the Federalists against the Republicans for the future of the Constitution and the United States. Briefly, the Federalist Party stood for a strong central government, closer ties with Britain, possible war with France, a standing army, support for the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, a national economy, and among the High Federalist, a permanent presidency, possibly a monarch, and an elite group of leaders. The Republicans on the other hand stressed states’ rights, a weak central government, low taxes, no standing army, distrusted the British, and supported the French Revolution.

The election involved four candidates: John Adams, the President; Thomas Jefferson, the Vice President; Aaron Burr, a leading New York politician who supported the Republicans; and finally, Charles Cotesworth Pickney, a Revolutionary War hero from South Carolina who was the High Federalists’ candidate. Adams, as the President, was heavily criticized both within his own party as not being enough of a Federalist, especially when he began negotiations with the French to achieve neutrality in the European wars, and also by the Republicans who suspected him of being too close to the British and wanting to convert the presidency into a monarchy. This left Adams in an especially bad position which wasn’t helped by his irritable and irascible temperament. Jefferson, as the leader of the Republicans was greatly feared by the Federalists. Since he favored the French Revolution, the Federalists feared that if elected president, Jefferson would lead the United States down the same bloody path the French took. They also felt Jefferson was too idealistic and dreamy to handle the duties of national governance. Burr, initially wanting to be Vice President, convinced the Republicans to support him in exchange for his bringing New York over to the Republicans. This, he astonishingly was able to do in April, 1800. And finally, Pickney was put forward as a vice presidential candidate by Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the High Federalists. Hamilton despised Adams and did not want him elected president. However, he could not visibly break with Adams, so instead he schemed behind Adams’ back to try and get Pickney elected over Adams. It wasn’t until late in the campaign that Hamilton openly broke with Adams, effectively splitting the Federalist Party. Also, it should be noted that early in the campaign, Hamilton attempted to persuade George Washington to come out of retirement and run again. This movement ended with Washington’s death in December, 1799.

The election, besides being complicated by all the intrigue among the parties, was fueled by the newspapers of the times. Newspapers were partisan papers then. So the news of the campaign and candidates was biased by the paper reporting it. Further difficulties appeared from within the states themselves. The states had elections at different times and had different methods of electing the presidential electors. These different election times and methods led to both parties meddling in state politics. In the summer of 1800, there was also a threat of a slave revolt in Virginia. Federalists used it to point out the Republican consequences of supporting the French Revolution. There was even the possibility that Pennsylvania would not be able to agree on a method for choosing the electors, thus not supplying any electors.

By December 3, the date the presidential electors voted, it was felt that Jefferson and Burr would end up in a deadlock since the Republican Party electors held firm with their two votes (Each elector had two votes, but there was no provision in which to designate who was to be president or vice president). Although it was generally conceded the Republicans had won, the votes wouldn’t be officially counted until February 11, 1801. On that day, with Jefferson presiding over the Senate, Jefferson and Burr both received 73 votes, Adams 65, Pickney 64, and John Jay, governor of New York and former Chief Justice, 1. This threw the election into the House of Representatives. In there, each state had 1 vote. Since at the time there were 16 states, in order to win, a candidate needed 9 votes. With all the scheming, the votes ended up Jefferson 8, Burr 6, and two states (Maryland and Vermont) split along party lines and didn’t vote. Four days and 33 ballots later, the results did not change. Finally, James Bayard of Delaware, along with some other Federalists, decided to abandon Burr (especially since Burr made no overtures to the Federalists). The final vote was Jefferson 10, Burr 4 with Delaware and South Carolina not voting.

Upon his inauguration on March 4, 1801, Jefferson’s speech was conciliatory. However, the High Federalists in New England remained suspicious. Jefferson, of course, was left with a Federalist legacy in the courts. Adams and the Federalists in Congress had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (later repealed by the Republicans with the repeal upheld by the Court) greatly expanding the judiciary and filling the positions with Federalist judges. However, most importantly was Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. With Marshall serving for 35 years, there was a Federalist presence long after the party itself died.

After Jefferson’s presidency, in 1812, Adams and Jefferson reconciled and began an amazing correspondence that lasted until their deaths in 1826, in particular, July 4, 1826. This remarkable series of letters between these two men discussed all things and presented their views to each other and posterity.

Larson’s book is a thorough recounting of the events and personalities of the campaign and election. It’s well-researched and fully documented. However, don’t let the scholarly aspect detract from reading the book. Larson has written an extremely fascinating and readable book. My only complaint, and it is minor, is that in some places there is some redundancy and unnecessary padding. However, it is minor. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in American history, our forefathers, politics, or presidential elections. It will satisfy one’s appetite. The book will easily take it place among the best volumes on presidential elections.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 27, 2011 Bob Schmitz rated it 3 of 5 stars

A Magnificent Catastrophe describes in excruciating detail the elections for legislators and then electors in the 1800 election vote by vote, state by state, machination by machination, slander by slander, letter by letter, between Federalists John Adams and Charles Pinckney, and Republican T. Jefferson and Arron Burr.

The book describes how Burr ran a text book, ward by ward, election campaign in NY to win the state for the Republicans. Hamilton says at one point that the stakes are so high the...more

like · see review

Aug 12, 2010 Bruce rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: us-history

The more things change the more they stay the same. Dr. Larson describes the Presidential Election of 1800 but does not mention how much it was like the current political climate. The party that had been in power for three presidential terms lost the popular vote yet during there lame-duck status tried to push through their programs and their people to make it difficult for the next administration. Federalists, having lost tried to co-opt Aaron Burr over Jefferson and would not compromise. It wa...more

like · see review

Jul 03, 2009 Steven Peterson rated it 4 of 5 stars

Think that 2000 featured a strange presidential election? Then, you might be interested in this book. The election of 1800 is termed, in the book's title, "A Magnificent Catastrophe." Because of a mistaken in how the Constitution stated who would be elected president, Thomas Jefferson and his vice-presidential "partner," Aaron Burr, were tied after the electoral votes were counted. Burr being Burr, he did not withdraw and allowed Congressional voting to take place (a churl, as always).

On the ot...more

like · see review

Dec 01, 2008 Amy rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

I'm idealistic, and, like George Washington, I visualize a government not divided by partisan battles but consisting of individuals working for the common good. That may be an impossibility, because in the wake of Washington's death, the two-party system matured in the election of 1800 to be just as divisive as it is today. Larson portrayed this tumultuous time in America in such a vivid light that I could see contemporary parallels throughout. The friendship between John Adams and Thomas Jeffer...more

like · see review

Aug 26, 2010 Ben rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

It might take me awhile to put this book into perspective. It provides a huge insight into partisan politics, from when they began in the US. Conservative bloggers and radio personalities are so irresponsible with their "facts" and theories. The Shirley Sherrod scandal proved that they purposefully distort the truth to attack the other side. The arguement over the Muslim community center in New York was started by a crazy right wing conspiracy theorist blogger who also thinks Malcolm X is Obama'...more It might take me awhile to put this book into perspective. It provides a huge insight into partisan politics, from when they began in the US. Conservative bloggers and radio personalities are so irresponsible with their "facts" and theories. The Shirley Sherrod scandal proved that they purposefully distort the truth to attack the other side. The arguement over the Muslim community center in New York was started by a crazy right wing conspiracy theorist blogger who also thinks Malcolm X is Obama's father. (I understand that I'm biased, isn't everyone?) Even the junior Quayle who used to write for a porn website, Rand Paul who wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act, and the Tea Party which is secretly backed by two billionaire oil industrialist brothers (not a conspiracy theory, look it up, their name is Koch)...Before I get too sidetracked, this book seems to put all of this in perspective because over 200 years ago, the election between Adams and Jefferson had the same type of attacks. Newspapers were very partisan and were about as good with their fact-checking as conservative bloggers. People thought the country would fall apart if the other side won the election.

So what does this all mean? After over 200 years of partisan politics, we haven't learned anything, if anything, we may even be worse at it. That's kind of the point of having two parties. One gains power, the other, in opposition, gains strength until they eventually take over control. Power just goes back and forth. Even with all the federalists who thought the country would fall apart if Jefferson was elected, and all the people who thought the country would go into a terrible recession, be involved in two neverending wars, and lose a lot of the progress we had made towards better environmental responsibilities if George W. was elected for a second term, the country still survives. It makes it all seem somewhat existential. What difference does it all make? At the same time, I don't think apathy is really the answer to our problems.(less)

like · see review

Jan 15, 2012 Brian rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: american-history-early-republic

Edward Larson provides a very detailed and in depth look at the election of 1800 and how the Congress choose a president for the first time in history and the last time where both candidates would be from the same political party. The book looks at the careers of the four contenders in the election focusing on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson but still paying significant attention to Aaron Burr and Charles Pinckney. The electioneering at the time was just getting started and it was rare to see th...more

like · see review

Jun 07, 2013 Jeremy Zilkie rated it 4 of 5 stars

"A Magnificent Catastrophe" was a thorough and will written account of the "tumultuous" election of 1800. Most people are probably not aware of the great constitutional crisis that could have taken place in only America's fourth presidential election. Also, the intransigence of the newly formed political parties of the day (Federalist & Democratic-Republican) is quite enlightening if people think that our current political discourse has lowered over time. In just a few short years human natu...more

like · see review

Apr 27, 2010 Stephen rated it 3 of 5 stars

Ambitious people don't always come off too well in literature, and "Magnificent Catastrophe," shows that our hallowed founding fathers were no exception.

The "Founding Fathers" are usually presented as an archetype of monolithic cohesion; high-minded patriots, with a nascent American polity's well-being the driving force behind their every action.

There is a wistful, almost universal, sentiment that says, “they just don’t make them like that anymore.”

But this book establishes that they were mon...more

like · see review

Jun 21, 2010 David Bales rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2010

A fairly interesting history of the 1800 election, contested by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson with a lot of intrigue involving the New York political operations of Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and others. The attitudes of ordinary people are sort of glossed over in this book and the weight is concentrated on how the powerful manipulated the election of state legislators who then elected or appointed "electors" who then voted for president. The election was not decided until two weeks before...more

like · see review

Apr 21, 2009 Marcus rated it 4 of 5 stars

The presidential election of 1800 is one of those events that is placed on a pedestal. It is considered as the first time in modern history that two parties exchanged power peacefully. This is an excellent retelling of that event.

I really enjoyed that the focus was kept narrow. While, everything impacts and has a reaction, it is sometimes helpful to have the story distilled down to the basics of what happened. Why did this happen in this, rather than this and this were going on and it made this...more

like · see review

Mar 12, 2013 Ryan rated it 4 of 5 stars

Very well written and overall engaging. The major character analyses were the most fascinating for me as we got to learn more about all the different personalities, the conflicts, and their inner turmoils. At times, however, it can get a tad dull with the nuances of the election process, but given that this book is obviously about the election of 1800 it is only fair and conceivable to expect such necessary expansion. The author's organization, writing style, and exhaustive research favorably le...more

like · see review

Nov 26, 2010 Scott Martin rated it 5 of 5 stars

While I read this book in 2009, it could very much apply to 2008 and 2010. The big takeaway from this book is that the first real Presidential election set the stage for the campaigns to follow (There was never really any doubt about Washington's two terms). The partisan bickering, the brutal attack ads, the press taking sides and going after each other in a polarizing manner...this is not anything new, and this involved some of the most venerated men in US history (Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Ha...more

like · see review

Dec 12, 2009 Dan Vock rated it 3 of 5 stars

It's not a bad read and it's certainly well-researched. The amount of scheming Larson details is remarkable. But I just couldn't get over how little attention Larson paid to what happened between the election and Jefferson's inauguration. I had already read "The Failure of the Founding Fathers," which covers that period pretty extensively. I was hoping Larson would provide additional insights and, as good a storyteller as he is, provide a better narrative. Maybe Larson and Ackerman should've col...more

like · see review

May 08, 2013 Eddy Allen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: arts-and-historical

"They could write like angels and scheme like demons." So begins Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward Larson's masterful account of the wild ride that was the 1800 presidential election -- an election so convulsive and so momentous to the future of American democracy that Thomas Jefferson would later dub it "America's second revolution." This was America's first true presidential campaign, giving birth to our two-party system and indelibly etching the lines of partisanship that have so profoundly shaped...more "They could write like angels and scheme like demons." So begins Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward Larson's masterful account of the wild ride that was the 1800 presidential election -- an election so convulsive and so momentous to the future of American democracy that Thomas Jefferson would later dub it "America's second revolution." This was America's first true presidential campaign, giving birth to our two-party system and indelibly etching the lines of partisanship that have so profoundly 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 -- flanked by the brilliant tacticians Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, who later settled their own differences in a duel.

The country was descending into turmoil, reeling from the terrors of the French Revolution, and on the brink of war with France. Blistering accusations flew as our young nation was torn apart along party lines: 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. The stakes could not have been higher.

As the competition heated up, other founders joined the fray -- James Madison, John Jay, James Monroe, Gouverneur Morris, George Clinton, John Marshall, Horatio Gates, and even George Washington -- some of them emerging from retirement to respond to the political crisis gripping the nation and threatening its future.

Drawing on unprecedented, meticulous research of the day-to-day unfolding drama, from diaries and letters of the principal players as well as accounts in the fast-evolving partisan press, Larson vividly re-creates the mounting tension as one state after another voted and the press had the lead passing back and forth. The outcome remained shrouded in doubt long after the voting ended, and as Inauguration Day approached, Congress met in closed session to resolve the crisis. In its first great electoral challenge, our fragile experiment in constitutional democracy hung in the balance."A Magnificent Catastrophe" is history writing at its evocative best: the riveting story of the last great contest of the founding period.(less)

like · see review

Jun 03, 2012 Manny rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book details the struggles concerning the elections of 1800. Ironically, I found many parallels with present day politics. The "Federalist" who believed in big government and central power in a sort of monarchical government against the 'republicans' or "anti-federalist" that where big supporters of the original intent of the Constitution, de-centralized government doing battle. This fits the narrative we see today where the two factions are "Big Government" Republicans and Democrats and th...more This book details the struggles concerning the elections of 1800. Ironically, I found many parallels with present day politics. The "Federalist" who believed in big government and central power in a sort of monarchical government against the 'republicans' or "anti-federalist" that where big supporters of the original intent of the Constitution, de-centralized government doing battle. This fits the narrative we see today where the two factions are "Big Government" Republicans and Democrats and the smaller government "republicans" (emphasis on the lowercase 'r') which has members of more "traditional" Democrats and Republicans.

The book covers the elections of 1800 where John Adams (2nd President) seek re-election. However the current Vice President (Thomas Jefferson) also seeks his first win as POTUS. The most interesting information in this book is how two men could have been allies and come together to create the Declaration of Independence yet be so diametrically different in their respective visions for the country. Truth be told, I find it fascinating that so soon after winning are independence from the Crown, that John Adams would be the impetus for the Alien and Sedition acts. Ironically, the President and the House were protected from criticism, but the Vice President (Thomas Jefferson), was not protected.

As you all know, Adams was unsuccessful in retaining a second term as President and was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson which served two terms as President. After their rivalry, Jefferson and Adams remained in contact via mail and talked about religion, politics, to name a few.

It is difficult to ascertain a particular agenda or ideology from the writer. This is important to me as I like to form my own opinions. With that said, the author did take certain liberties and stated "FACTS" that in my opinion where not exactly facts. The one that comes to mind is, that of Jefferson being a deist.

The book flows well and is engaging. I could not put it down. Not necessarily a page turner, but if you enjoy history; more specifically political history, you will enjoy this book.
(less)

like · see review

Jul 23, 2008 Jeffrey rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: biography, current-events, history, war

A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign

Edward Larson has followed up his Pulitzer Prize winning The Summer of the Gods, with a timely look at the first contested election in the United States history. Filled with rich detail and vigor, the book shows that our elections have always been poisonous affairs that can destroy friendships and families. The book is a perfect fit for our current election cycle.
The book chronicles the first part...more

like · see review

Mar 18, 2008 John rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: united-states-history, us-politics, us-revolution-and-early-republic

How should a political junkie to cope with his withdrawal pangs during the seven week interim between the Texas/Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries? Reading Larson is a pretty good strategy. A Magnificent Catastrophe tells the story of the 1800 election, which established the basic pattern for US presidential elections and nearly undid the country in the process. The election between Adams and Jefferson was the first to feature political parties in a leading role, and all that we've come to know and...more

like · see review

Aug 18, 2008 Tony rated it 5 of 5 stars

I hate to break out the spoilers, but in case you were concerned, Thomas Jefferson does win the presidential election of 1800. But in Edward Larson’s fantastic book, “A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800”, the author manages to keep you on the edge of your seat throughout the whole race. Filled with letters and correspondences, Mr. Larson brings the reader up close and personal to the leaders of the young republic (Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Burr and Hamilton). The truly am...more

like · see review

Oct 16, 2007 John Wiswell rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: History readers, political readers, biography readers who enjoy context

A superb history of the U.S.A.'s first political campaign for the presidency between Aaron Burr, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Larson's best tool is bringing up issues in relation to incidents along the campaign, such as elaborating on their religious views when they became sensationalized in the press, foreign policy during an international crisis with France and Britain, and their views on slavery when an insurrection rose up. Larson's language is succincent and comprehensible, so that if i...more

like · see review

Mar 27, 2008 Joe Conklin rated it 4 of 5 stars

If you thought the primary elections of 2008 were exciting, you should read about the Election of 1800. This book proves that partisan politics in the United States has a deep, two hundred year history. The conservatives (Federalists) in 1800 could be considered today's traditional republicans, and the liberals (Republicans) more closely resemble modern libertarians.

There are quite a few parallels between the election of 1800 and 2008: a close electoral/delegate race, back room deals, religious...more

like · see review

Jan 26, 2012 Dwight Cates rated it 5 of 5 stars

Absolutely fascinating story of the US presidential election of 1800. It demonstrates clearly that in politics, there's nothing new under the sun; the back-room dealing, backstabbing, libeling, gerrymandering...all the things that characterize the current presidential campaign, were being employed over a hundred years ago.

like · see review

Jun 07, 2013 Sean added it

I just did a lite dip into this one. However, it served amiably as a primer for further inquiry into the impact of the great debauchery of the "crazed Corsican" across the Atlantic. I did not make any attempt to process/analyze the political details and significance of those details, though.

like · see review

Feb 25, 2009 James rated it 4 of 5 stars

I've read a bit about the election of 1800 through biographies of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc. but this book was interesting in that it looked at the one event, giving it a better opportunity to provide context.

like · see review

Apr 30, 2012 Pedro Dos rated it 5 of 5 stars

I thoroughly enjoyed this one. A recount of the 1800 presidential campaign between Adams and Jefferson, it shows the roots of partisanship in the United States as well as the political turmoil of early America.

like · see review

Sep 09, 2011 Judy added it

Shelves: listened-on-cd, mostly-skimmed, history

Can't rate the book because my mind completely wonders when hearing about detailed politics. But I did pick up a few interesting tidbits. Only listened because Jeff had it and I was interested in Jefferson & Adams.

like · see review

Apr 27, 2012 David rated it 5 of 5 stars

I enjoyed this book a great deal. It describes the first real presidential "campaign." Interesting are the details regarding the lesser known aspects of the relationship between Adams and Jefferson.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 19 20 next »

Politics

14 users

Non Fiction

12 users

History > American History

10 users

United States

2 users

American > Americana

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Edward J. Larson

Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial & America's Continuing Debate Over Science & Religion

Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Chronicles)

An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science

Evolution's Workshop: God & Science on the Galápagos Islands

The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy (Great Courses)

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About A Magnificent Cat...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign
avg rating	preview: A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign Goodreads rating: 3.80 (284 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/549466.A_Magnificent_Catastrophe?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1256036090l/549466.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/549466.A_Magnificent_Catastrophe?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign by Edward J. Larson[/url]

A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (8)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Edward J. Larson

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About A Magnificent Cat...

A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combineOther Editions (8)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Edward J. Larson

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About A Magnificent Cat...

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (8)