It is likely that these next two elections will determine what America will be. Will it be the land of the free and the home of the brave? Will it be the land of opportunity, the land of freedom to be all that you can dream of and are willing to work to be? Or is it going to be a Marxist state where we are all subjects to the government.
Personally, my goal is to work to try to communicate a message to the many different factions within the conservative movement that have emerged today in protest to the progressive movement under Obama. I am confident that I am not going to be able persuade those 20 some percent who are progressives, but if we can get the 42% who consider themselves to be conservatives, and enough of those in the middle to vote together as a block, we can right this ship.
There are some very disturbing things starting to show themselves within the conservative movement. Things that can derail all the positives in several ways. Some are out of a combination of passion and ignorance, others are much more deeply disturbing.
1. There are many who are new to the political arena, they have become passionate advocates for the Constitution, for liberty, and for our American values they see under attack. This is wonderful, and long overdue, but with this newness there is a lot of misinformation, or lack of understanding of how our system of government works. This can be remedied by an outreach to educate them so that they can direct their passions effectively.
2. There are many who are buying into the throw all the bums out mentality, the idea that everyone in office is somehow tainted. What they are not understanding is civics once again, not realizing that their are many good men and women who as elected officials are on the front line of this fight, but are powerless to do much by their being grossly outnumbered in the House and Senate, and that the media refuses to cover the opposition. Again, this can be improved through education.
3. There are many who say that they will not support the Republican Party until it "changes" and endorses more conservative candidates. This is also a lack of education. My next blog will be about this topic in detail, however, for a short answer. What is the party, but a collection of people. It is not some far away place or organization, it is you and I. If we want to change it all we have to do is change it. It is ripe for a change right now as well. Nearly half of the precincts across the country do not even have a GOP precinct committeeman. If conservatives or tea partiers run, it would probably be unopposed for those posts, you would be the ones voting to determine which candidate the party supports. So you would then be the "them" you're complaining about. If you want to fix it, fix it.
4. Then there is another group that I am running into that are frightening to me. They are the new anarchists. There are a surprising and disturbing amount of people who believe that it is time to start anew. There is a loud voice for nullification of Federal laws by states, and even a strong call for their states to secede from the Union. Often when I am debating them they will condemn Lincoln as a tyrant and dictator, it is obvious that they are emotionally still fighting the Civil War. In debating them, it is clear that their history is fuzzy, if not outright erroneous. It seems that they are so emotionally tied to their beliefs, maybe even generational, that there is no way to get logic past their emotions.
A friend of mine taught me an example of these strong emotions overcoming logic year ago. Fritz is the president of a large pharmaceutical and medical device company in Germany. He is a brilliant man, he holds seven doctorate degrees including an MD. He also speaks five languages fluently. Yet, this intelligent, educated man reverts to the little boy who during W.W. II would climb up on street lamps to see whose house or apartment building was burning after a bombing. He truly believes in his heart that the Americans tried to poison the German citizens after the end of the War by feeding them corn bread. That somehow it was designed to suck the nutrients and cause malnutrition in the German people. Of course this is absurd, and this man if told this today would reject it out of hand, yet that little boy who lives inside still believes what he was told by those around him at that time.
I have no idea how to penetrate these long held emotional and illogical beliefs. If anyone has any ideas, please share them. Will you join me in reaching out to the different groups to bring them together under one banner to vote as a block this fall and in 2012?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Gerrymandered No More????
Several weeks ago there came a movement to change the way Indiana draws their Senate and Congressional districts. The idea was to abandon the long held tradition of the party in power Gerrymandering the districts by contorting them into bazaar territories to best assure that a solid majority of the voters would vote for the party that is in power assuring their power stays protected.
When I heard this, I have to admit that I laughed, thinking there was no way this could get accomplished. That politics as usual would prevail. The idea of Gerrymandering is anything but a new idea, or practice. If you understand where the name came from you will understand how long and entrenched this practice is in American politics.
In 1812, Elbridge Gerry was governor of Massachusetts. He signed a redistricting bill into law, that rearranged state Senate and Congressional districts in such a way as to give the Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Party a huge advantage over the Federalists. One district was stretched into such a tortuous shape in order to make sure to lock in a majority of voters for the Jeffersonian Republicans. Federalists threw a fit at that abuse of power. Political observers joked that the odd-shaped district looked like a salamander. Engraver Elkanah Tisdale seized on that idea, added claws, wings, and fangs, and published a cartoon in the Boston Gazette showing the monster that Gerry created. "The Gerrymander."
This redistricting kept the Jeffersonian Republicans in power for years, but many in Massachusetts were outraged, the political backlash defeated Gerry in the next election. However, the party was thankful and James Madison made him his Vice President.
With that kind of history, who would have guessed it could be done. It isn't done yet, but yesterday the Indiana Senate voted for bills that could lead to dramatic changes in how legislative districts are drawn in the future.
Senate Bill 136, which was approved 45-3, creates a commission of eight legislators and eight citizens, with Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard as the chairman.
In addition to SB 136, sponsored by Sen. Sue Landske, R-Cedar Lake, the Senate also voted 47-1 for Senate Bill 80, laying out new standards for the Indiana House, Senate and Congressional maps the legislature must draw next year, based on this year’s census numbers.
SB 80, sponsored by Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville, puts into state law guidelines that include protecting minority voting rights while trying to draw districts that are compact, do not divide communities and follow existing boundaries, including counties, as much as possible.
Both bills now move to the Indiana House for consideration.
This could actually make the districts much more easily access able for those in Congress to serve their constituents, campaign, and keep the cost of keeping offices down. If these districts were drawn along blocks of counties it would make a lot of sense. Just look at the 5th District that runs from Greenwood to Wabash, the 6th that is in Muncie and Columbus. Hopefully, this gets done. It has cleared the Republican controlled Senate, now to the House where Democrat Pat Bauer holds court.
Keep your fingers crossed.
When I heard this, I have to admit that I laughed, thinking there was no way this could get accomplished. That politics as usual would prevail. The idea of Gerrymandering is anything but a new idea, or practice. If you understand where the name came from you will understand how long and entrenched this practice is in American politics.
In 1812, Elbridge Gerry was governor of Massachusetts. He signed a redistricting bill into law, that rearranged state Senate and Congressional districts in such a way as to give the Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Party a huge advantage over the Federalists. One district was stretched into such a tortuous shape in order to make sure to lock in a majority of voters for the Jeffersonian Republicans. Federalists threw a fit at that abuse of power. Political observers joked that the odd-shaped district looked like a salamander. Engraver Elkanah Tisdale seized on that idea, added claws, wings, and fangs, and published a cartoon in the Boston Gazette showing the monster that Gerry created. "The Gerrymander."
This redistricting kept the Jeffersonian Republicans in power for years, but many in Massachusetts were outraged, the political backlash defeated Gerry in the next election. However, the party was thankful and James Madison made him his Vice President.
With that kind of history, who would have guessed it could be done. It isn't done yet, but yesterday the Indiana Senate voted for bills that could lead to dramatic changes in how legislative districts are drawn in the future.
Senate Bill 136, which was approved 45-3, creates a commission of eight legislators and eight citizens, with Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard as the chairman.
In addition to SB 136, sponsored by Sen. Sue Landske, R-Cedar Lake, the Senate also voted 47-1 for Senate Bill 80, laying out new standards for the Indiana House, Senate and Congressional maps the legislature must draw next year, based on this year’s census numbers.
SB 80, sponsored by Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville, puts into state law guidelines that include protecting minority voting rights while trying to draw districts that are compact, do not divide communities and follow existing boundaries, including counties, as much as possible.
Both bills now move to the Indiana House for consideration.
This could actually make the districts much more easily access able for those in Congress to serve their constituents, campaign, and keep the cost of keeping offices down. If these districts were drawn along blocks of counties it would make a lot of sense. Just look at the 5th District that runs from Greenwood to Wabash, the 6th that is in Muncie and Columbus. Hopefully, this gets done. It has cleared the Republican controlled Senate, now to the House where Democrat Pat Bauer holds court.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Did the Republican Party Start As A Third Party?
It seems to be a very popular belief that the Republican Party won the 1860 presidential election with Abraham Lincoln as the third party. That is one of the most common arguments I hear from Libertarians when I am debating with them that third party candidates only succeed in assuring that the candidate that you most dislike is elected. The Libertarian Party must teach this, I hear it a lot. It sounds great, however, there is no truth to it at all.
If that isn't true what happened? Let's start with a very significant development when Democrat Senator Stephen Douglas brokered the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This was because Douglas saw the importance of a transcontinental railroad that Asa Whitney was trying to build. Douglas knew it would make his own Chicago a major hub for the entire middle of the United States. With very little controversy the congressional delegations from Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois introduced the bill to organize a Nebraska Territory, the northern part of the old Louisiana Purchase, and , once again, illegally erase Indian claims to the lands there.
However, the South realized that their balance of power was about to be usurped. Since the Northwest Ordinance and Missouri Compromise, the understanding was that for every free state added to the Union, there would be a new slave state. Now this proposal would soon add at least one new free state, with no sectional balance. This state of Nebraska would be free because it was north of the Missouri Compromise 36-degree 30-minute line. To appease his concerned Southern Democrats, and hopefully court them for his presidential run coming up soon, recrafted the Nebraska Bill into the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It assuaged the South by revoking the thirty-three-year-old 36/30 Missouri Compromise line and replacing its restriction of slavery with popular sovereignty, a vote on slavery by the people of the territory. In the stroke of a pen, Douglas abolished a thirty year covenant and opened the entire Louisiana Purchase to slavery.
Douglas naively believed that this would win him more political friends than enemies and gain his home state a Chicago railroad empire in the process. He soon learned however that he was horribly mistaken about the Kansas-Nebraska Act. After its passage, a contagion swept the country every bit as strong as the one sparked by Uncle Tom's Cabin, Free-Soilers, now including many Northern Democrats, arose in furious protest. The Democrat Party shattered over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Douglas was stunned what he thought would win him the White House only succeeded in fracturing his own party and starting a national crisis. The final straw to the divide among the Democrats came at the National Convention in 1860 were the pro-slavery Southern Democrats walked out called their own convention and nominated their own separate candidate for president.
While the Democrats were fighting over slavery whatever was left of the Whigs withered away in the South after the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Whigs had always been a party tied to the American system, but were unwilling to take as stand on the major moral issue of the day, and that was its downfall. Failing to address slavery, their major differences over the tariff, a national bank, and land sales did not separate the two parties as much as had been assumed in the past. While these differences were important on one level, nothing was as important as the single issue that was truly separating Americans.
As the Democrats grew stronger in the South, the Whigs, rather than growing stronger in the North, slipped quietly into history. The Whigs disintegrated, and two new parties dismembered them. One, the American Party, arose out of negative reaction to an influx of Irish and German Catholic immigrants. The American Party tapped into the anti-immigrant perceptions that still burned within large segments of the country. Based largely in local lodges, where secrecy was the by-word, the party became known as the Know-Nothings. The Know-Nothings were also very strongly anti-Masonic. However, the Know-Nothings were also still born, they also failed to see that slavery constituted a far greater threat to their constituents than did foreign immigrants.
Abraham Lincoln perceived that a fundamental difference in principle existed between antislavery and nativism, between the new Republican Party and the Know-Nothings, asking, "How can anyone who abhors the oppression of Negroes be in favor of degrading classes of white people?" He warned, "When the Know-Nothings get control, the Declaration will read, 'All men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.'"
A second party, however, picking up the old Liberty Party and Free-Soil banners, sought to unite people of all stripes who opposed slavery under a single banner. Originally called the Anti-Nebraska Party, the new Republican Party bore in like a laser on the issue of slavery in the territories. Foremost among the new leaders was Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, a former Liberty Party man who won the gubernatorial election as a Republican in Ohio in 1855. Along with William H. Seward Chase provided the intellectual foundation of the new party.
The Republicans, unlike the Democrats and Whigs, recognized that every other issue in some way touched on slavery, and rather than ignore it or straddle it, they attacked it head on, elevating it to the top of their masthead.
In 1860 the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln. The Democrats, who split into two, the Northern Democrats ran Stephen Douglas, the Southern Democrats ran John Breckinridge, and a "third" party the Constitutional Party ran John Bell. The Republican Abraham Lincoln won with 39.8% of the vote, the Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas carried 29.5%, Southern Democrat John Breckinridge carried 18.1% while the Constitutional Party's John Bell carried only 12.6%
As much as our Libertarian friends want to believe Republicans did not win as a third party. They also won a governorship within their first two years, and the White House in six years.
If that isn't true what happened? Let's start with a very significant development when Democrat Senator Stephen Douglas brokered the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This was because Douglas saw the importance of a transcontinental railroad that Asa Whitney was trying to build. Douglas knew it would make his own Chicago a major hub for the entire middle of the United States. With very little controversy the congressional delegations from Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois introduced the bill to organize a Nebraska Territory, the northern part of the old Louisiana Purchase, and , once again, illegally erase Indian claims to the lands there.
However, the South realized that their balance of power was about to be usurped. Since the Northwest Ordinance and Missouri Compromise, the understanding was that for every free state added to the Union, there would be a new slave state. Now this proposal would soon add at least one new free state, with no sectional balance. This state of Nebraska would be free because it was north of the Missouri Compromise 36-degree 30-minute line. To appease his concerned Southern Democrats, and hopefully court them for his presidential run coming up soon, recrafted the Nebraska Bill into the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It assuaged the South by revoking the thirty-three-year-old 36/30 Missouri Compromise line and replacing its restriction of slavery with popular sovereignty, a vote on slavery by the people of the territory. In the stroke of a pen, Douglas abolished a thirty year covenant and opened the entire Louisiana Purchase to slavery.
Douglas naively believed that this would win him more political friends than enemies and gain his home state a Chicago railroad empire in the process. He soon learned however that he was horribly mistaken about the Kansas-Nebraska Act. After its passage, a contagion swept the country every bit as strong as the one sparked by Uncle Tom's Cabin, Free-Soilers, now including many Northern Democrats, arose in furious protest. The Democrat Party shattered over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Douglas was stunned what he thought would win him the White House only succeeded in fracturing his own party and starting a national crisis. The final straw to the divide among the Democrats came at the National Convention in 1860 were the pro-slavery Southern Democrats walked out called their own convention and nominated their own separate candidate for president.
While the Democrats were fighting over slavery whatever was left of the Whigs withered away in the South after the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Whigs had always been a party tied to the American system, but were unwilling to take as stand on the major moral issue of the day, and that was its downfall. Failing to address slavery, their major differences over the tariff, a national bank, and land sales did not separate the two parties as much as had been assumed in the past. While these differences were important on one level, nothing was as important as the single issue that was truly separating Americans.
As the Democrats grew stronger in the South, the Whigs, rather than growing stronger in the North, slipped quietly into history. The Whigs disintegrated, and two new parties dismembered them. One, the American Party, arose out of negative reaction to an influx of Irish and German Catholic immigrants. The American Party tapped into the anti-immigrant perceptions that still burned within large segments of the country. Based largely in local lodges, where secrecy was the by-word, the party became known as the Know-Nothings. The Know-Nothings were also very strongly anti-Masonic. However, the Know-Nothings were also still born, they also failed to see that slavery constituted a far greater threat to their constituents than did foreign immigrants.
Abraham Lincoln perceived that a fundamental difference in principle existed between antislavery and nativism, between the new Republican Party and the Know-Nothings, asking, "How can anyone who abhors the oppression of Negroes be in favor of degrading classes of white people?" He warned, "When the Know-Nothings get control, the Declaration will read, 'All men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.'"
A second party, however, picking up the old Liberty Party and Free-Soil banners, sought to unite people of all stripes who opposed slavery under a single banner. Originally called the Anti-Nebraska Party, the new Republican Party bore in like a laser on the issue of slavery in the territories. Foremost among the new leaders was Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, a former Liberty Party man who won the gubernatorial election as a Republican in Ohio in 1855. Along with William H. Seward Chase provided the intellectual foundation of the new party.
The Republicans, unlike the Democrats and Whigs, recognized that every other issue in some way touched on slavery, and rather than ignore it or straddle it, they attacked it head on, elevating it to the top of their masthead.
In 1860 the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln. The Democrats, who split into two, the Northern Democrats ran Stephen Douglas, the Southern Democrats ran John Breckinridge, and a "third" party the Constitutional Party ran John Bell. The Republican Abraham Lincoln won with 39.8% of the vote, the Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas carried 29.5%, Southern Democrat John Breckinridge carried 18.1% while the Constitutional Party's John Bell carried only 12.6%
As much as our Libertarian friends want to believe Republicans did not win as a third party. They also won a governorship within their first two years, and the White House in six years.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Did Our Founders Play Party Politics?
Today's Tea Party, and many of the Third Party advocates site that the Founding Fathers were against political parties as one of their battle cries to abandon both the Republicans as well as the Democrats today. They seem to believe that these magical third parties are in some way closer to the way the founders did their own politics. Partly this is true, and much is simply fantasy from their overwhelming misunderstanding of history.
It is hard to believe that you would find anyone who more admires our founding fathers more than I. For decades I have gone into deep dives into their world through their words and writings, along with some wonderful and not so great biographies of them and their times. Some authors holding them up like marble statues of the gods of Olympus, others painting them as near demons, while some brought them to life in such a way that you got the feeling that you knew them as people not dusty historic figures. If you want to read some who did this brilliantly check out McCullough's, Ron Chernow's, and Joseph Ellis's writing to name but a few.
One of the comments that I often hear is "The Founders would never play politics like they do today." Or another, "The Founders would never compromise like that." Often I hear that the Founders were against party politics or made up many different parties instead of just two major ones. How true is any of this?
Let's begin from the ratification of the Constitution and the first presidency of George Washington. In his first administration's cabinet, the most impressive cabinet yet assembled by the way, he and his Vice President, John Adams, were both Federalists, at least were classified as such. They were the only two presidents in history who were not fond of the ideas of parties. They were classified Federalist because they advocated ratifying the Constitution and transferring more power to the Federal Government from the States, they were part of a small group of leaders who knew that the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to survive long. Each of those who were to be called Federalists, except James Madison, were involved directly in the Revolutionary War effort and knew first hand that too many States refused to send their quota of men, arms, food, and supplies, and knew that the central government needed to have the strength to compel them to.
Just because Washington and Adams were unhappy with the "factions" or parties emerging, the heads of each opposition party formed within that very cabinet. The Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, was the founder and leader of the Democratic Republican Party in opposition to Washington. Jefferson was smart enough to not fight openly against Washington, anyone foolish enough to was ruined politically. So he targeted the leader of the Federalist Party, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson believed in a small central government, much stronger states rights, he was against the Constitution of The United States, he believed it opened the door to tyranny. Jefferson believed in the purity of rural America and hated the cities and banks. Hamilton wanted a stronger central government, thought the Constitution didn't go far enough, believe strongly in national debt and a national bank. Beyond their political differences Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other.
This nonstop infighting was driving Washington to distraction when he couldn't even get them to be in the same room together for cabinet meetings without full blown wars. Jefferson resigned and went back to Monticello saying that he wanted out of politics, but as Adams predicted he would be working from the shade to advance his own political clout.
There was a time that these two men did in fact find a way to reach a compromise. Madison had moved from the Federalists as the architect of the Constitution to the number one most close follower of Thomas Jefferson. Madison was standing in the way of Hamilton's plan to have the Federal Government absorb the debt of all 13 states from the Revolutionary War, a sum of about twenty five million dollars. Madison, Jefferson, and his followers were against this believing that you become enslaved to the banks you owe money. That the states would lose all their independence and power to the central government once they owed it money. Hamilton's entire economic system he was putting in place rested on this action, he was nearly ready to resign his position as Secretary of the Treasury over it. Jefferson, as much as he hated Hamilton, and this idea, believed that Hamilton was the only one who could do that job at the time and set a meeting over dinner at his home. Over dinner Hamilton was able to give Jefferson and Madison something that they wanted dearly, they feared that the Capital of the Unites States would stay in New York and would cost the South too much power due to distance and difference in thinking. As Virginians first and Americans second, the agreement to put the capital city in part of what was Virginia made the compromise. That is how we got our banking system and Washington, D.C.'s location.
We now know that our founders were willing to compromise, there are many more examples just through the summer of 1787 in writing the Constitution. One that 13 states, large and small, slave holding and not could all agree upon. That is a story for another time, but it explains how and why we have a bicameral government, what each branch is for and why. How and why we valued slaves as 3/5 of a person, and much more. This was a summer of unending compromise and very hot tempers as well as temperatures. Now let's look at how they conducted their politics and let's just stay with Jefferson and Hamilton.
These were both brilliant men, without question the two most along with Franklin, of the founders. Jefferson was more esoteric than Hamilton who was almost a savant in his understanding of economics and monetary systems. It is said that he would sit down and pour out dozens of pages of text without ever having to correct a stroke, the same as Mozart did with music, that it was already done in their heads and just poured out of them. They debated in the press, Hamilton was a forceful and prolific writer and was always selling his case in print. Jefferson liked to lurk in the shadows, he had Madison do his writing for him against Hamilton. This was all above board, much like the blogs we see written today by both sides.
There was a darker side to their politics as well. Jefferson hired a scandalmonger named James Callander to write despairing things about Hamilton. Callander dug up a real scandal on Hamilton, and wrote of Hamilton making pay offs to a shady character named James Reynolds. The allegations that Callander brought forth in his writings were that Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury was bribing Reynolds not to tell about Hamilton using his office to embezzle or profiteer. The Democratic Republicans under Jefferson came to Hamilton to try let him know that they had "caught" him and to ask him to resign. What Hamilton did completely caught them unaware. He confessed that he was paying extortion money to James Reynolds, but not for anything to do with the Treasury, but to buy his silence on Hamilton's affair with Reynolds wife Maria. Then Hamilton, being Hamilton, instead of resigning wrote a book about the entire affair and published it putting it out for all to read diffusing any accusations of missteps at Treasury. Hamilton's wife Eliza learned of the affair through the book.
Thomas Jefferson turned his ire on his long time dear friend John Adams when Jefferson wanted to win the presidency from Adams in 1800. He went back to James Callander and hired him to vilify Adams in a book called "The Prospect Before Us." It was a slander piece attacking John Adams and the Federalists, Thomas Jefferson never acknowledged that he had anything to do with it, and though people told Adams that the did, Adams defended his dear friend to them saying no matter what political differences Jefferson would not do such things. However later on Callander became angry at Jefferson for not giving him the Postmaster's job after Jefferson became president. He then proved that Jefferson had paid to have "Prospect" written with papers, letters to and from Jefferson. That ended the friendship with John Adams for years, with Abigale forever. Jefferson also learned an important lesson when you play with a snake like Callander, you often get bit yourself. It was Callander who started the Sally Hemmings rumor, even though no evidence appears to this day, it persists.
Alexander Hamilton was no innocent in dirty politics either. In the 1796 presidential elections Hamilton came out deriding Jefferson and his love affair with his slave Sally Hemmings, and the false accusations from the Jefferson camp about John Adams. He heartily and glowingly endorsed Adams as a man, a patriot, and a leader. It at first glance appeared to be sincere. However, his intent was to drive some of Jefferson's support in the South away from Jefferson fearing that he would be sympathetic to emancipation and knowing that it wouldn't go to the strong abolitionist Adams. He hoped it might fall to his own candidate who he knew he could control and almost be president behind the curtain with Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina. This little trick didn't work, Adams won. During this next four years Adams and Hamilton became enemies since Adams wouldn't bend to Hamilton's will.
Adams would attack Hamilton at his most emotionally vulnerable with his illegitimate birth obsessively and heartlessly. He also railed on Hamilton's womanizing continuing to cast him as a rake and a reprobate, even so far as accusing Hamilton's brilliant mind to drug addiction. Hamilton angry at being shoved from the center of power where he held sway over Washington lashed out at Adams. He wrote a document that helped to destroy Adams politically making the case of Adams as insane. Their feud effectively ended the Federalist Party.
The point I want to make is this. These were brilliant men, my favorites to ever live other than one born in Bethlehem. However, they were men, not marble statues, and as such had the strengths and frailties of men. If you think politics is dirty and partisan today. It is very polite compared to our Founding where it could and did lead to death by duels. I read a historian once that explained the ferocity of the political fights in that time. Until the 1800 election when Jefferson took over as our third president, no time in human history had power changed hands from one political faction to another without bloodshed. No one knew that if they lost they could regain it at the next election until it had actually happened a few times.
Our founders built a system of government that functions as a two party system. No time from theirs until now has a third party been an effective alternative. We need to study our history, learn from it, make improvements where we can, but not get caught up in fantasies that never happened.
It is hard to believe that you would find anyone who more admires our founding fathers more than I. For decades I have gone into deep dives into their world through their words and writings, along with some wonderful and not so great biographies of them and their times. Some authors holding them up like marble statues of the gods of Olympus, others painting them as near demons, while some brought them to life in such a way that you got the feeling that you knew them as people not dusty historic figures. If you want to read some who did this brilliantly check out McCullough's, Ron Chernow's, and Joseph Ellis's writing to name but a few.
One of the comments that I often hear is "The Founders would never play politics like they do today." Or another, "The Founders would never compromise like that." Often I hear that the Founders were against party politics or made up many different parties instead of just two major ones. How true is any of this?
Let's begin from the ratification of the Constitution and the first presidency of George Washington. In his first administration's cabinet, the most impressive cabinet yet assembled by the way, he and his Vice President, John Adams, were both Federalists, at least were classified as such. They were the only two presidents in history who were not fond of the ideas of parties. They were classified Federalist because they advocated ratifying the Constitution and transferring more power to the Federal Government from the States, they were part of a small group of leaders who knew that the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to survive long. Each of those who were to be called Federalists, except James Madison, were involved directly in the Revolutionary War effort and knew first hand that too many States refused to send their quota of men, arms, food, and supplies, and knew that the central government needed to have the strength to compel them to.
Just because Washington and Adams were unhappy with the "factions" or parties emerging, the heads of each opposition party formed within that very cabinet. The Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, was the founder and leader of the Democratic Republican Party in opposition to Washington. Jefferson was smart enough to not fight openly against Washington, anyone foolish enough to was ruined politically. So he targeted the leader of the Federalist Party, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson believed in a small central government, much stronger states rights, he was against the Constitution of The United States, he believed it opened the door to tyranny. Jefferson believed in the purity of rural America and hated the cities and banks. Hamilton wanted a stronger central government, thought the Constitution didn't go far enough, believe strongly in national debt and a national bank. Beyond their political differences Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other.
This nonstop infighting was driving Washington to distraction when he couldn't even get them to be in the same room together for cabinet meetings without full blown wars. Jefferson resigned and went back to Monticello saying that he wanted out of politics, but as Adams predicted he would be working from the shade to advance his own political clout.
There was a time that these two men did in fact find a way to reach a compromise. Madison had moved from the Federalists as the architect of the Constitution to the number one most close follower of Thomas Jefferson. Madison was standing in the way of Hamilton's plan to have the Federal Government absorb the debt of all 13 states from the Revolutionary War, a sum of about twenty five million dollars. Madison, Jefferson, and his followers were against this believing that you become enslaved to the banks you owe money. That the states would lose all their independence and power to the central government once they owed it money. Hamilton's entire economic system he was putting in place rested on this action, he was nearly ready to resign his position as Secretary of the Treasury over it. Jefferson, as much as he hated Hamilton, and this idea, believed that Hamilton was the only one who could do that job at the time and set a meeting over dinner at his home. Over dinner Hamilton was able to give Jefferson and Madison something that they wanted dearly, they feared that the Capital of the Unites States would stay in New York and would cost the South too much power due to distance and difference in thinking. As Virginians first and Americans second, the agreement to put the capital city in part of what was Virginia made the compromise. That is how we got our banking system and Washington, D.C.'s location.
We now know that our founders were willing to compromise, there are many more examples just through the summer of 1787 in writing the Constitution. One that 13 states, large and small, slave holding and not could all agree upon. That is a story for another time, but it explains how and why we have a bicameral government, what each branch is for and why. How and why we valued slaves as 3/5 of a person, and much more. This was a summer of unending compromise and very hot tempers as well as temperatures. Now let's look at how they conducted their politics and let's just stay with Jefferson and Hamilton.
These were both brilliant men, without question the two most along with Franklin, of the founders. Jefferson was more esoteric than Hamilton who was almost a savant in his understanding of economics and monetary systems. It is said that he would sit down and pour out dozens of pages of text without ever having to correct a stroke, the same as Mozart did with music, that it was already done in their heads and just poured out of them. They debated in the press, Hamilton was a forceful and prolific writer and was always selling his case in print. Jefferson liked to lurk in the shadows, he had Madison do his writing for him against Hamilton. This was all above board, much like the blogs we see written today by both sides.
There was a darker side to their politics as well. Jefferson hired a scandalmonger named James Callander to write despairing things about Hamilton. Callander dug up a real scandal on Hamilton, and wrote of Hamilton making pay offs to a shady character named James Reynolds. The allegations that Callander brought forth in his writings were that Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury was bribing Reynolds not to tell about Hamilton using his office to embezzle or profiteer. The Democratic Republicans under Jefferson came to Hamilton to try let him know that they had "caught" him and to ask him to resign. What Hamilton did completely caught them unaware. He confessed that he was paying extortion money to James Reynolds, but not for anything to do with the Treasury, but to buy his silence on Hamilton's affair with Reynolds wife Maria. Then Hamilton, being Hamilton, instead of resigning wrote a book about the entire affair and published it putting it out for all to read diffusing any accusations of missteps at Treasury. Hamilton's wife Eliza learned of the affair through the book.
Thomas Jefferson turned his ire on his long time dear friend John Adams when Jefferson wanted to win the presidency from Adams in 1800. He went back to James Callander and hired him to vilify Adams in a book called "The Prospect Before Us." It was a slander piece attacking John Adams and the Federalists, Thomas Jefferson never acknowledged that he had anything to do with it, and though people told Adams that the did, Adams defended his dear friend to them saying no matter what political differences Jefferson would not do such things. However later on Callander became angry at Jefferson for not giving him the Postmaster's job after Jefferson became president. He then proved that Jefferson had paid to have "Prospect" written with papers, letters to and from Jefferson. That ended the friendship with John Adams for years, with Abigale forever. Jefferson also learned an important lesson when you play with a snake like Callander, you often get bit yourself. It was Callander who started the Sally Hemmings rumor, even though no evidence appears to this day, it persists.
Alexander Hamilton was no innocent in dirty politics either. In the 1796 presidential elections Hamilton came out deriding Jefferson and his love affair with his slave Sally Hemmings, and the false accusations from the Jefferson camp about John Adams. He heartily and glowingly endorsed Adams as a man, a patriot, and a leader. It at first glance appeared to be sincere. However, his intent was to drive some of Jefferson's support in the South away from Jefferson fearing that he would be sympathetic to emancipation and knowing that it wouldn't go to the strong abolitionist Adams. He hoped it might fall to his own candidate who he knew he could control and almost be president behind the curtain with Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina. This little trick didn't work, Adams won. During this next four years Adams and Hamilton became enemies since Adams wouldn't bend to Hamilton's will.
Adams would attack Hamilton at his most emotionally vulnerable with his illegitimate birth obsessively and heartlessly. He also railed on Hamilton's womanizing continuing to cast him as a rake and a reprobate, even so far as accusing Hamilton's brilliant mind to drug addiction. Hamilton angry at being shoved from the center of power where he held sway over Washington lashed out at Adams. He wrote a document that helped to destroy Adams politically making the case of Adams as insane. Their feud effectively ended the Federalist Party.
The point I want to make is this. These were brilliant men, my favorites to ever live other than one born in Bethlehem. However, they were men, not marble statues, and as such had the strengths and frailties of men. If you think politics is dirty and partisan today. It is very polite compared to our Founding where it could and did lead to death by duels. I read a historian once that explained the ferocity of the political fights in that time. Until the 1800 election when Jefferson took over as our third president, no time in human history had power changed hands from one political faction to another without bloodshed. No one knew that if they lost they could regain it at the next election until it had actually happened a few times.
Our founders built a system of government that functions as a two party system. No time from theirs until now has a third party been an effective alternative. We need to study our history, learn from it, make improvements where we can, but not get caught up in fantasies that never happened.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Scott Brown Wins! Now We Find Out For Sure Who We Are Fighting.
Congratulations patriots We Did It! Against unbelievable odds, Republican Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat. The very seat that was held for over 46 years by Ted Kennedy, the Liberal Lion. That seat has been held by a Democrat for 100 years, the last time a Republican held the other Massachusetts Senate seat was nearly forty years ago. This is the bluest of blue states, yet a Republican is now Senate elect.
Brown was over 20 points down in the polls one month ago today. However, his campaign caught fire all across the country. They did a "money bomb" one day fundraiser that brought in over one million dollars from the grass roots to Brown in just one day!
There couldn't be a single Democrat across the country in either the House or Senate who has to run in 2010 who isn't terrified right now. We will likely start seeing more and more "retire" before this coming election. Any who want to save their jobs will have to seriously consider if they will be willing to walk the plank by continuing to vote for Obama's agenda on Health Care, Cap and Trade, and other big government take overs.
We will soon find out who exactly we are up against with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and their core team. If we are dealing with politics as we have since the founding, we will see them back off on their unpopular programs they have been trying to ram down the American people's throats. Good politics would tell you that they will realize that they over reached, they misread their mandate, and they need to move to a more central position to protect their own careers and their party's future. If that happens then We the People have already won a huge victory, won a major battle, and have great momentum to win the war during these next two elections in 2010 and 2012.
There is another much more frightening option. We may well learn that we are now fighting against a different type of political regime than at any time in American history. We could be fighting against Marxists Progressives who are totally committed to making fundamental changes to America, dismantaling our Constitution and system of government and economy. If we see the Saul Alinsky aproach to this in the next few weeks where Obama, Reid, and Pelosi go behind closed doors with the other Democrats and force their hands to make Health Care go through as is, or with Reconcillation with 51% in the Senate something that has never been done and isn't Constitutional for anything but an emergency budget bill.
If they do push their agenda forward, spitting in the face of the American people's obvious will, we know they no longer fear or care about reelection. If that is true, they don't care about their own party either. They would show that they are willing to destroy their party maybe forever if they can push their Marxist agenda into place and doing so with that poison pill that is in it now that once in it will take a 3/4 vote of the Senate to overturn it.
In the next few days or weeks we will know if we are competing with Democrats, I hope so. Or we are competing against Marxist Totalitarians. Pray it is the first. Stay vigilulant to be sure it isn't the last.
We have won a HUGE battle, a game changer if we are dealing with Democrats. If not, it will smoke out who our real competition truly is. Either way we will prevail.
Never get weary in well doing!
Brown was over 20 points down in the polls one month ago today. However, his campaign caught fire all across the country. They did a "money bomb" one day fundraiser that brought in over one million dollars from the grass roots to Brown in just one day!
There couldn't be a single Democrat across the country in either the House or Senate who has to run in 2010 who isn't terrified right now. We will likely start seeing more and more "retire" before this coming election. Any who want to save their jobs will have to seriously consider if they will be willing to walk the plank by continuing to vote for Obama's agenda on Health Care, Cap and Trade, and other big government take overs.
We will soon find out who exactly we are up against with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and their core team. If we are dealing with politics as we have since the founding, we will see them back off on their unpopular programs they have been trying to ram down the American people's throats. Good politics would tell you that they will realize that they over reached, they misread their mandate, and they need to move to a more central position to protect their own careers and their party's future. If that happens then We the People have already won a huge victory, won a major battle, and have great momentum to win the war during these next two elections in 2010 and 2012.
There is another much more frightening option. We may well learn that we are now fighting against a different type of political regime than at any time in American history. We could be fighting against Marxists Progressives who are totally committed to making fundamental changes to America, dismantaling our Constitution and system of government and economy. If we see the Saul Alinsky aproach to this in the next few weeks where Obama, Reid, and Pelosi go behind closed doors with the other Democrats and force their hands to make Health Care go through as is, or with Reconcillation with 51% in the Senate something that has never been done and isn't Constitutional for anything but an emergency budget bill.
If they do push their agenda forward, spitting in the face of the American people's obvious will, we know they no longer fear or care about reelection. If that is true, they don't care about their own party either. They would show that they are willing to destroy their party maybe forever if they can push their Marxist agenda into place and doing so with that poison pill that is in it now that once in it will take a 3/4 vote of the Senate to overturn it.
In the next few days or weeks we will know if we are competing with Democrats, I hope so. Or we are competing against Marxist Totalitarians. Pray it is the first. Stay vigilulant to be sure it isn't the last.
We have won a HUGE battle, a game changer if we are dealing with Democrats. If not, it will smoke out who our real competition truly is. Either way we will prevail.
Never get weary in well doing!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
We Have A Once In A Generation Opportunity, Let's Not Waste It.
This summer a long held dream was playing out on my television set. To watch a groundswell of Americans wake up from their Rip Van Winkle nap and get mad enough to show up at town halls and tea parties all across America truly brought tears to my eyes. After years of wondering if anything would ever get the people's attention away from their entertainments long enough to save America from her own government, here they were, awake, and passionate!
Our family had, at my father's request, kept him away from any news or any conversations about what Obama and his regime were doing. Dad is fighting cancer and it simply upset him too much, he wanted to do everything he could to keep his attitude up and positive. One day he was crying because he had this vivid dream about a movement that was beginning coming from the people fighting back for their country. It was then we told him that, thought it might have been a dream that he learned this, it was a dream that was coming true. It was the day of the 9/12 march on Washington and we turned on the coverage so he could see for himself, this was a very special day indeed!
One of the most common laments that those of us who have been in the fight for years was, "How can we get people to pay attention." How can we get people's focus off of "Who shot J.R"., or "The Simpson's", or "American Idol" long enough for them to understand just what was going on in the assault on theirs and their children's freedoms? Most of us, were like me, the guy in the company who "was into politics." You could see people's eyes glaze over if you tried to talk about it, but light up when they talked about last night sitcom. It appears that all it took was for us to be within moments of losing it all. However, thank God it wasn't after it was too late and all was already lost.
As much as I am thrilled by the prairie fire of new converts to the cause, I want to put forth just a bit of caution and a bit of history. I am seeing a very disturbing trend growing within this movement, a growing division among those who have like ideas right when we need to be coming together. On my Facebook friends list I have several hundred conservatives from all over the country. If you are politically conservative, or at least open to civil discussion, you are welcome on my friends list. I have all kinds of factions, GOP, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and more, who cares what label people like, we all need to come together, communicate, and then work together to put those who are most like us in office to take back our country.
For those of you who are new to the fight starting during this last year or so, let me give you a little information. I am hearing a real contempt for anyone who came before to the fight, there is a tendency to see too much painting with a broad brush against everyone in office, or who were part of the party before the tea parties came to life. Let me tell you, there have been many who have been fighting this exact fight for decades before you started paying attention. We have been fighting liberal Democrats, RINOs, and blue blood Republicans for a long time. It is just that we were doing it in a vacuum, because we couldn't get you to pay attention.
For me it started during Jimmy Carter, I joined the Ronald Reagan campaign in 1980 as well as for Dan Quail to unseat ultra-liberal Senator Birch Bayh, Evan's dad, as well as Don Nickles' campaign in Oklahoma. We fought the same type of people who we are fighting today.
I was very involved in fighting a hugely liberal movement during the first two years of Bill Clinton's administration. If you recall we the people defeated the Hilarycare that time without the Internet as a tool, we fought with mass voice mail, faxes, and phones, and shoe leather. We defeated the Omnibus Education Bill that buried deep within would have created an agency to oversee every parent to make sure that you were raising your children in a positive parenting, politically correct environment. If you were a "high risk" parent, someone who owned a gun, worked for a police dept., ever was in the military, was a professed born again Christian, or was building or remodeling a house, you would have mandatory monthly visits, and if they found something "wrong" they could take your children right then. After we defeated these things, we replaced the Democrat majority with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America effectively stopping the Clinton liberal agenda. He then moved to the middle and took credit for the economic turnaround.
What I would like you to consider is that we are thrilled you have joined the fight, now we all can win. There is a great energy right now, people are awake. However, please don't take this as an insult, but our schools have done a very poor job of educating our electorate in civics, history, and economics for decades. It is no wonder most Americans have little or no understanding of any of them. Please start learning and making sure your kids learn them, it is only through an educated electorate can we ever keep our Republic safe from internal destruction. Those who have it under attack have succeeded as far as they have due to Americans not paying attention or understanding when they did.
What we need to do if we want to succeed is to come together. We need to quit eating our own, it is very distressing to see attacks on Palin and Brown. Are either perfect, no, but they are both better than most. We need to find our common beliefs and work on the differences later. We all need to get behind the same candidates next fall, the primary is for trying to get "our guy" in, but after the primary we need to get lockstep behind "our shared guy" and get them in over "their guy." The last thing we need is third parties splitting votes and giving the Democrats a free pass to stay in power.
If Joe Kennedy was truly a patriot who believes what he says he does, he would step down before Tuesday's race and beg his followers to vote for Scott Brown. The 2-5% who are following Kennedy could be the difference if we stop Obamacare or not. If Brown wins we win, if Coakley wins Obama wins.
My favorite analysis for this is too often our own infighting reminds me of a couple standing in the dining room fighting over what color to paint the walls while the house is burning down around them. Wouldn't it be much better if we all came together to put out the fire, then we could argue all you like about what color to paint those walls.
Our family had, at my father's request, kept him away from any news or any conversations about what Obama and his regime were doing. Dad is fighting cancer and it simply upset him too much, he wanted to do everything he could to keep his attitude up and positive. One day he was crying because he had this vivid dream about a movement that was beginning coming from the people fighting back for their country. It was then we told him that, thought it might have been a dream that he learned this, it was a dream that was coming true. It was the day of the 9/12 march on Washington and we turned on the coverage so he could see for himself, this was a very special day indeed!
One of the most common laments that those of us who have been in the fight for years was, "How can we get people to pay attention." How can we get people's focus off of "Who shot J.R"., or "The Simpson's", or "American Idol" long enough for them to understand just what was going on in the assault on theirs and their children's freedoms? Most of us, were like me, the guy in the company who "was into politics." You could see people's eyes glaze over if you tried to talk about it, but light up when they talked about last night sitcom. It appears that all it took was for us to be within moments of losing it all. However, thank God it wasn't after it was too late and all was already lost.
As much as I am thrilled by the prairie fire of new converts to the cause, I want to put forth just a bit of caution and a bit of history. I am seeing a very disturbing trend growing within this movement, a growing division among those who have like ideas right when we need to be coming together. On my Facebook friends list I have several hundred conservatives from all over the country. If you are politically conservative, or at least open to civil discussion, you are welcome on my friends list. I have all kinds of factions, GOP, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and more, who cares what label people like, we all need to come together, communicate, and then work together to put those who are most like us in office to take back our country.
For those of you who are new to the fight starting during this last year or so, let me give you a little information. I am hearing a real contempt for anyone who came before to the fight, there is a tendency to see too much painting with a broad brush against everyone in office, or who were part of the party before the tea parties came to life. Let me tell you, there have been many who have been fighting this exact fight for decades before you started paying attention. We have been fighting liberal Democrats, RINOs, and blue blood Republicans for a long time. It is just that we were doing it in a vacuum, because we couldn't get you to pay attention.
For me it started during Jimmy Carter, I joined the Ronald Reagan campaign in 1980 as well as for Dan Quail to unseat ultra-liberal Senator Birch Bayh, Evan's dad, as well as Don Nickles' campaign in Oklahoma. We fought the same type of people who we are fighting today.
I was very involved in fighting a hugely liberal movement during the first two years of Bill Clinton's administration. If you recall we the people defeated the Hilarycare that time without the Internet as a tool, we fought with mass voice mail, faxes, and phones, and shoe leather. We defeated the Omnibus Education Bill that buried deep within would have created an agency to oversee every parent to make sure that you were raising your children in a positive parenting, politically correct environment. If you were a "high risk" parent, someone who owned a gun, worked for a police dept., ever was in the military, was a professed born again Christian, or was building or remodeling a house, you would have mandatory monthly visits, and if they found something "wrong" they could take your children right then. After we defeated these things, we replaced the Democrat majority with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America effectively stopping the Clinton liberal agenda. He then moved to the middle and took credit for the economic turnaround.
What I would like you to consider is that we are thrilled you have joined the fight, now we all can win. There is a great energy right now, people are awake. However, please don't take this as an insult, but our schools have done a very poor job of educating our electorate in civics, history, and economics for decades. It is no wonder most Americans have little or no understanding of any of them. Please start learning and making sure your kids learn them, it is only through an educated electorate can we ever keep our Republic safe from internal destruction. Those who have it under attack have succeeded as far as they have due to Americans not paying attention or understanding when they did.
What we need to do if we want to succeed is to come together. We need to quit eating our own, it is very distressing to see attacks on Palin and Brown. Are either perfect, no, but they are both better than most. We need to find our common beliefs and work on the differences later. We all need to get behind the same candidates next fall, the primary is for trying to get "our guy" in, but after the primary we need to get lockstep behind "our shared guy" and get them in over "their guy." The last thing we need is third parties splitting votes and giving the Democrats a free pass to stay in power.
If Joe Kennedy was truly a patriot who believes what he says he does, he would step down before Tuesday's race and beg his followers to vote for Scott Brown. The 2-5% who are following Kennedy could be the difference if we stop Obamacare or not. If Brown wins we win, if Coakley wins Obama wins.
My favorite analysis for this is too often our own infighting reminds me of a couple standing in the dining room fighting over what color to paint the walls while the house is burning down around them. Wouldn't it be much better if we all came together to put out the fire, then we could argue all you like about what color to paint those walls.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
How One Vote Saved The Most Important Election In World History.
Arguably the single most important election in human history took place in 1800 where Thomas Jefferson ran against incumbent President John Adams. This was the very first election in history where the reigns of power transferred from one political party to another through peaceful means with no bloodshed. We in America are so cavalier to the miracle of our Constitutional Republic, we seem to think it is always a foregone conclusion that "everything will be just fine as always." That may well explain how little people pay attention to our political process, and why so few who are eligible to vote actually do. We feel too safe in our Republic and don't recognize how close we have often come to losing it.
In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson the leader of the Democratic Republican Party ran against Federalist John Adams, who was suffering in popularity for his stance of avoiding a war with France that most of the Federalists throughout the country wanted. He was vindicated when a truce came from France right before the elections, but not in time to save his presidency.
The way the election process worked at that time, the person who received the most votes won the presidency, and the second most the vice-presidency. This is how the leader of the opposition party, Jefferson, was Adam's own vice-president. In this election a flaw in the process was shown, electorates in the electoral college could only vote for president but they had two votes each. The idea was that everyone for Jefferson would vote for both Jefferson and Aaron Burr, but one person who would withhold his second vote to give Jefferson the presidency and Burr the vice-presidency. However, that one forgot and oops Jefferson and Burr tied for president. Burr being Burr saw an opportunity and didn't demure to his running mate and held out to win the presidency. At the first look Burr actually had won because the electorate from New York cast both of his votes to New Yorker Aaron Burr giving Burr a one vote lead. However that vote was taken from Burr and given to Jefferson due to a Constitutional rule that only one vote can come from one electorate to a candidate from their home state.
The Federalist so hated Jefferson they threw their weight behind Burr. The rules required the House to vote by state. On the first ballot Jefferson had eight states, one short of what he needed. Six states went for Burr and two were tied. Over the next seven days there were 35 more votes, each with the same results.
The tempers were rising, Jefferson supporters threatened to take up arms if he wasn't elected. As President Adams later wrote, "a civil war was expected." Then a sole congressman from Delaware, John Bayard controlled that state's vote. The Federalists had been supporting Burr, but after all of these votes he announced he was going to abstain, which would throw the election to Jefferson. Other Federalists stood up and shouted, "Traitor, traitor," at him, but Bayard said he acted to save the country. The deadlock was broken and Thomas Jefferson became president.
The first bloodless transfer of power from one political party to another in human history was complete, but how close it came to blood on the streets. Our complacency today forgets the miracle of our Republic, this was a luxury our founders never knew.
In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson the leader of the Democratic Republican Party ran against Federalist John Adams, who was suffering in popularity for his stance of avoiding a war with France that most of the Federalists throughout the country wanted. He was vindicated when a truce came from France right before the elections, but not in time to save his presidency.
The way the election process worked at that time, the person who received the most votes won the presidency, and the second most the vice-presidency. This is how the leader of the opposition party, Jefferson, was Adam's own vice-president. In this election a flaw in the process was shown, electorates in the electoral college could only vote for president but they had two votes each. The idea was that everyone for Jefferson would vote for both Jefferson and Aaron Burr, but one person who would withhold his second vote to give Jefferson the presidency and Burr the vice-presidency. However, that one forgot and oops Jefferson and Burr tied for president. Burr being Burr saw an opportunity and didn't demure to his running mate and held out to win the presidency. At the first look Burr actually had won because the electorate from New York cast both of his votes to New Yorker Aaron Burr giving Burr a one vote lead. However that vote was taken from Burr and given to Jefferson due to a Constitutional rule that only one vote can come from one electorate to a candidate from their home state.
The Federalist so hated Jefferson they threw their weight behind Burr. The rules required the House to vote by state. On the first ballot Jefferson had eight states, one short of what he needed. Six states went for Burr and two were tied. Over the next seven days there were 35 more votes, each with the same results.
The tempers were rising, Jefferson supporters threatened to take up arms if he wasn't elected. As President Adams later wrote, "a civil war was expected." Then a sole congressman from Delaware, John Bayard controlled that state's vote. The Federalists had been supporting Burr, but after all of these votes he announced he was going to abstain, which would throw the election to Jefferson. Other Federalists stood up and shouted, "Traitor, traitor," at him, but Bayard said he acted to save the country. The deadlock was broken and Thomas Jefferson became president.
The first bloodless transfer of power from one political party to another in human history was complete, but how close it came to blood on the streets. Our complacency today forgets the miracle of our Republic, this was a luxury our founders never knew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
