The First Presidential Contest: 1796 and the Founding of American Democracy

American Presidential Elections

by Jeffrey L. Pasley

This is the first study in half a century to focus on the election of 1796. At first glance, the first presidential contest looks unfamiliar—parties were frowned upon, there was no national vote, and the candidates did not even participate (the political mores of the day forbade it). Yet for all that, Jeffrey L. Pasley contends, the election of 1796 was “absolutely seminal,” setting the stage for all of American politics to follow.

Challenging much of the conventional understanding of this election, Pasley argues that Federalist and Democratic-Republican were deeply meaningful categories for politicians and citizens of the 1790s, even
if the names could be inconsistent and the institutional presence lacking. He treats the 1796 election as a rough draft of the democratic presidential campaigns that came later rather than as the personal squabble depicted by other historians. It set the geographic pattern of New England competing with the South at the two extremes of American politics, and it established the basic ideological dynamic of a liberal, rights-spreading American left arrayed against a conservative, society-protecting right, each with its own competing model of leadership.

Rather than the inner thoughts and personal lives of the Founders, covered in so many other volumes, Pasley focuses on images of Adams and Jefferson created by supporters—and detractors—through the press, capturing the way that ordinary citizens in 1796 would have actually experienced candidates they never heard speak. Newspaper editors, minor officials, now forgotten congressman, and individual elector candidates all take a leading role in the story to show how politics of the day actually worked.

Pasley’s cogent study rescues the election of 1796 from the shadow of 1800 and invites us to rethink how we view that campaign and the origins of American politics.

Genres: History, American History, Politics, Presidents

528 pages, Hardcover

First published May 9, 2013

About the author

Jeffrey L. Pasley is professor of history at the University of Missouri.

Reviews

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before America could develop a two-party system and hold contested Presidential elections, the nation had to endure an often bizarre, nearly completely opaque, and incredibly nasty election in 1796 when John Adams bested Thomas Jefferson by just three electoral votes. From the intellectual pinnacles of the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution, the United States decided the best way to pick a new president was for two men to have their operatives throughout the country sling mud at each other.

In other words, it wasn't too much different from today.

Jeffrey Pasley recounts in interesting detail all the machinations that went on to creating a political culture in the United States where people could take sides and pick a candidate they wanted. (It helped a lot to be a property owning white male to do this.) George Washington was chosen as the nation's first president because it was just assumed that he was the only man with the stature to hold the job.

But, it didn't take many years for a good chunk of the country to realize that perhaps George Washington wasn't as God-like as his supporters made him out to be. (This is not an exaggeration, there are contemporary paintings of Washington rising to heaven as an otherworldly figure.) The young United States soon split into two camps over items such as national finance, relations with France after its revolution, and, most notoriously, the terms of a treaty between the U.S. and Britain negotiated by Chief Justice John Jay.

When Jay returned to the U.S. in 1795 with a treaty that was favorable to the British (mostly because he had a poor negotiating position and Britain was the preeminent naval power in the world), the country was in an uproar. The treaty was approved by the Senate, which met in secret at the time. However, the treaty's terms were eventually leaked to a nascent partisan press. Everybody started taking sides. Opponents of the treaty even started to throw blame at Washington. And if George Washington had a personnel file, it would have in its performance evaluation "Does not take criticism well."

Washington decided not to run for a third term in 1796. His vice president, John Adams, was the heir apparent. Or was he?

Adams could not say that he actually wanted to be president because that was considered ill-mannered at the time. Thomas Jefferson wanted to be president, but he was in the same bind. In fact, Alexander Hamilton tried to campaign for Adams, by spreading the word that Jefferson wanted to be president, making Adams look more virtuous and Jefferson like an overly ambitious man.

Since the process of choosing electors was different in every state (they pretty much just made up the laws as they went along back then), it was hard to figure out just how to become president. To complicate matters, at the time, there was no separate balloting for president and vice president. Electors just wrote down two names. The person with the majority of the votes was president and the runner up was vice president.

Each side in the election, which didn't have formal names but are generally referred to as Federalist (Adams) and Republican (Jefferson) didn't wish to campaign on the issues. So each side just slung mud.

Federalists accused Jefferson of being an effete snob, who spent too much time engaged in scientific debates. And Jefferson was accused of cowardice because he had to flee the Virginia state capital to avoid capture by British troops during the Revolution.

Adams, who helped Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence, was accused by Republicans of being a royalist, who wanted to start a hereditary monarchy in the United States. And since Adams had a son, he could start a dynasty! (Jefferson could not because he only had daughters.)

States chose electors on different dates in different methods. Some states had direct election statewide. Some used districts. Some had the state legislature pick. When it came time for the electors to vote, nobody was quite sure who was going to win because many states slates were up in the air.

In the end, Adams nosed out Jefferson by three votes, picking up key votes in Maryland and one each in Virginia and North Carolina, to put him over the top. Although the New Englander Adams did not wish to garner support from slave states, his plan for a strong central government appealed to a certain type of Southern plantation owner.

On Inauguration Day, Jefferson made a conciliatory speech and vowed to work well with Adams. They never did and the two men were estranged for about 20 years.

And the mood of the country was best summed up by New York Governor George Clinton, a staunch Republican, who hated Adams. When he heard Jefferson's speech, he was filled with anger and wrote in his diary, that Jefferson had effectively told his supporters "I am in. Kiss my ass and go to hell."

So, whatever you've seen in American politics in your lifetime is likely nothing that hasn't happened before in some form before. Americans have a long history of hating the people on the other side of the political spectrum. That is the most important thing to take away from this fascinating book.

[Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book under a bit of pressure, as I've been preparing for a presentation on it next Tuesday. As such, I worried it would be difficult, tedious work, but Pasley's book isn't anything of the sort. The First Presidential Contest can be dry at times, but the political story behind it is inherently fascinating. Pasley draws parallels between the election of 1796 and elections today with a light hand, letting readers draw their own conclusions, and is occasionally funny enough that I laughed out loud as I read. That being said, he doesn't shy away from getting into detailed accounts of foreign and domestic policy events leading up to the election, building both a rich history and an easy to feel atmosphere of political change. Beyond that, even if the outcome of the election is a given, there is genuine suspense in seeing how the electoral votes fall.

Most of my reading sessions with The First Presidential Contest were done when I was falling asleep and sick of doing work for my classes. Even under those circumstances, I still eagerly picked it back up each day.

[Earl Ecklund III · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating insight into the early politics of the American Republic. The election of 1796 is like none other, the main names of Washington, John Adams, Jefferson and Madison did very little in the campaign and are mostly silent. Alexander Hamilton attempted to elect Thomas Pickney President instead in hopes of controlling him. As Pasley well documents the real people doing the work are largely forgotten names like William Loughlin Smith of South Carolina, William Vans Murray of Maryland, John Beckley and Benjamin Franklin Bache of Pennsylvania. These men were largely responsible for promoting and attacking Adams and Jefferson as presidential candidates. Also of great interest is the portrayal of the Federalist party's southern wing which is instrumental in Adams's ultimate victory. The other key to Adams's win and defeat of Hamilton's Pickney plot is the determination of New England Federalists in electing a President from their region after eight years of a southerner in that role.

An absolute must read on a vastly overlooked and ignored election for anyone intested in early American history.

[Andrew Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I do not believe that there is another book that is as comprehensive as this one on the Election of 1796. Pasley sets the reader up for the contest by delineating all of the major events and personalities in American history prior to 1796. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, William Loughton Smith, Madison, Thomas Pinckney, and Monroe are all featured. Take your time reading this. Enjoy the scholarship and the witty asides that make this book special.

[Bob Gustafson · Rating 2 out of 5]

There was too much background material on the Whiskey Rebellion, the Jay Treaty, etc., so I put the book aside.

[Riq Hoelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've enjoyed almost every one of these books on the Founding Fathers and this was no exception. It does bring out new views and informative details that were fun to learn and helped me to better understand the personalities and their era.

Maybe it could have discussed a bit how political parties had started to solve the problem that the founders had tried tried to solve using the Electoral College, i.e., ensuring that national notables rather than local notables were elected. Maybe the epilog could have discussed a bit more what happened with the principals in the next four years.

But the only real downside was that at 414 pages it's rather long. Length showed up not just in the number of pages, but also in some of the sections, especially the early ones about the newspapers, where the topics were addressed in far more detail than I really wanted. As I suspect I'm the typical audience for this, probably a lot of others will feel the same way.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m hesitant to point out much of what I learned from reading this book, fearful that disclosure might dampen curiosity for future readers. Suffice to say, though, that negative newspaper comments played a role in George Washington’s decision not to run for a third term. John Adams was much enamored with British system of governance, and anti-intellectualism was just as prevalent in 1790s U.S. society as it is today. Newspapers and handbills were “media” in those days and played a great part in exchanging information, much of it derogatory. For the 1796 election, there was no national vote and no official parties. Each state had its own system of naming electors to the Electoral College. The chapter describing these differences is dull, making my vote for this book four-star, not five.

[David Orphal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, boy! That was some nerdy fun!

While most historians claim is was the next election in 1800 that was America's contested rase for the highest executive office, Pasley makes a strong argument that the 1796 presidential election was no less hotly contested and no less partisan that the following contest between the sitting President and his VP.

Focusing more on the less-remembers men who campaigned for Adams and Jefferson, and campaigned for their own seats as presidential electors, Pasley attempts to bring to the reader the information and feelings that a voter in 1796 might have experienced. In this attempt, he is most successful.

Pasley's book is extremely well-written and readable. Non-scholars of American history will enjoy this as much as academics.

[Jason S · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed account of the political history of the 1796 election

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

And if you think today's politics are partisan and bitter............