Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800

Pivotal Moments in American History

by John Ferling

It was a contest of titans: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two heroes of the Revolutionary era, once intimate friends, now icy antagonists locked in a fierce battle for the future of the United States. The election of 1800 was a thunderous clash of a campaign that climaxed in a deadlock in the Electoral College and led to a crisis in which the young republic teetered on the edge of collapse.
Adams vs. Jefferson is the gripping account of a turning point in American history, a dramatic struggle between two parties with profoundly different visions of how the nation should be governed. The Federalists, led by Adams, were conservatives who favored a strong central government. The Republicans, led by Jefferson, were more egalitarian and believed that the Federalists had betrayed the Revolution of 1776 and were backsliding toward monarchy. The campaign itself was a barroom brawl every bit as ruthless as any modern contest, with mud-slinging, scare tactics, and backstabbing. The low point came when Alexander Hamilton printed a devastating attack on Adams, the head of his own party, in "fifty-four pages of unremitting vilification." The stalemate in the Electoral College dragged on through dozens of ballots. Tensions ran so high that the Republicans threatened civil war if the Federalists denied Jefferson the presidency. Finally a secret deal that changed a single vote gave Jefferson the White House. A devastated Adams left Washington before dawn on Inauguration Day, too embittered even to shake his rival's hand.
With magisterial command, Ferling brings to life both the outsize personalities and the hotly contested political questions at stake. He shows not just why this moment was a milestone in U.S. history, but how strongly the issues--and the passions--of 1800 resonate with our own time.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Politics, Biography, Presidents, American Revolution

287 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

John E. Ferling is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia. A leading authority on American Revolutionary history, he is the author of several books, including "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic", "Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence", and his most recent work, "The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon". He has appeared in television documentaries on PBS, the History Channel, C-SPAN Book TV, and the Learning Channel.

Reviews

[Jason Koivu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ferling brings these two larger-than-life icons of American history back to life in a big way. Reading Adams Vs. Jefferson you feel as if you're actually getting to know them, not only their public personas as politicians, but also as men.

Personally I'm not sure I'd like either of them 100% through and through. I guess that can be said about most everyone to some extent. There's always one niggling quality about a person that doesn't jell with your own outlook on life, but in this case both of these guys rubbed me the wrong way in a sizable manner.

Jefferson's soft-spoken, intellectual approach is fantastic. His passive-aggressive way of getting what he wanted is not.

Adams moralistic way of life set him up admirably upon a fine high horse. But high horses shit just like any other horse and frankly it all smells like bullshit.

If only the best parts of Jefferson and Adams could've been combined they would have made Superman incarnate, the sort of superhuman needed to endure revolution and creation. They are truly incredible men, living through incredible times. It takes the best of an individual to do what these two accomplished in their lifetimes. Sometimes the worst comes out in an individual forced into such trying times. My hat's off to John Ferling for the fact that I'm now able to consider either of these dusty old men in such a here-and-now lively light.

[Ostap Bender · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great account of an historic election and critical moment in the American experiment. Why? Well, as Ferling points out, this was the first time in history, anywhere, that power transferred bloodlessly and calmly from one party to another which had opposing views. It was without precedence and worked. And these were not just two happy political parties, glad to be rid of George III, and led by co-authors of the Declaration of Independence that saw eye to eye. No. They were bitter political rivals.

Over a good part of the 215 page text, Ferling builds up to the election with a summary of the history between 1786 to 1800, and he does this very effectively, keeping it concise and painting portraits of the people involved, beyond Jefferson and Adams to the others of the time. The mudslinging, backroom politics, and vicious behavior make you realize that politics has always been ugly, it’s not a function of today’s Washington, and it will make you pause when handling a $10 bill, with Alexander’s Hamilton’s mug on it.

On the other hand, despite all of that negativity, there was passion in the views because both sides ‘had a point’, and the stakes in forming a new country were high.

Ironically in those days the Federalists were the conservative party and the Republicans were the liberals. The Federalists were in general pro-monarchy, elitist, supporters of established church, and used the Sedition Act to destroy the concept of a free press … all leaning back to the biggest of big government, monarchy. They were the party of the rich, and favored maintaining the status quo. They were pro-English. This was the party of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton.

Republicans by contrast wanted a much smaller government, as today’s republicans do, but were quite liberal for their day in wanting all citizens to be treated equally, separation of church and state, and freedom of the press. They wanted to create the world anew. Blurring class distinctions was viewed as favorable. They were pro-French, and notably pro-French Revolution, which the Federalists were aghast over. This was the party of Jefferson, Madison, and Paine. Jefferson and Paine are personal heroes of mine.

Aside from this clash, the mechanics of the election were fascinating. In these early elections each party put forth two presidential candidates, then each electoral college member voted for two of them, with the rule that one of those votes couldn’t be for a candidate from the state they represented. The one with the most votes was president, and the runner-up was vice-president; this was how following the election of 1796, Adams was president and Jefferson was vice-president, despite having very different political views.

The election of 1800 was extraordinarily close – Jefferson tied with Aaron Burr with 73 votes, Adams had 65, and Pinckney had 64, all within easy reach if things had swung slightly differently (e.g. if slaves had not counted as 3/5 of a person, Adams would have won). The election was then decided in the House of Representatives after protracted and vitriolic debate. Adams left town, simply, at dawn, without shaking Jefferson’s hand. Jefferson, eschewing pomp, walked to the Inauguration. Ferling includes an epilogue that captures their reconciliation which started with Adams reaching out to Jefferson, some of their personal difficulties such as Jefferson’s debt, and then their simultaneous demise on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration.

A fascinating tale, and well told. History books can sometimes suffer from being dry or verbose, and this was neither.

Quotes:
“Jefferson and Adams harbored different dreams for the American Revolution. Whereas Adams envisioned the people, through government, fostering a greater good, Jefferson wished to ensure that individuals would be liberated from governments. He sought the least possible government – ‘energetic government is … always oppressive,’ he remarked – and was ever more distrustful of government the further removed it was from local control.”

Adams’ view, and no matter what your politics are, you can see eerie overtones of this in today’s America, to its detriment:
“Finally, as was true of most Federalists, Adams was alarmed by signs that the United States was democratizing. Before political parties existed in the 1790s, Adams had published warnings of how partisan electioneering – what he called the ‘Cankerworm’ that had brought down every previous republic – would corrupt the American political system. When caught between powerful rival interests, democratic politicians inevitably would be driven to deceit, he had predicted. Virtue and integrity would vanish. Revenge and malice would prevail. Voters would be duped and the press misled, pushing the system toward an unsavory end: a democratic tyranny in which the majority plundered the minority. For Adams, the notion that government could realize the will of the people was disingenuous. Society was divided into so many competing interests that a single popular will seldom existed. … Instead, Adams favored system in which the brightest and most virtuous men could be drawn into public life but then be insulated from the necessity to pander to the popular thirst. If somehow the independence of good men could be preserved so that they could govern prudently and judiciously, the result would be good government for the greatest number.”

Jefferson’s view:
“Jefferson was appalled by the powerlessness of most inhabitants in Europe. … in Jefferson’s mind monarchical rule symbolized all that was wrong with the venality, exploitation, and despair that he encountered throughout Europe. But he understood too that widespread misery also sprang from a privileged aristocracy that crushed the peasant’s opportunity for self-betterment, and from the church, the vehicle used by kings and noblemen to bind the citizenry in the shackles of ignorance, superstition, and subservience.”

“He told a European observer who sought to understand politics in the United States that two American political parties existed: ‘One which fears the people the most, the other the government.’”

“The earth belongs to the living and no generation should be bound by the decisions of its predecessors, Jefferson told Adams. Stability is crucial and is reinforced by obedience to old laws and charters so that uniformity ‘becomes a national Habit,’ Adams responded.”

Lastly this one, which the Federalists pounced on and used as ‘evidence’ that Jefferson was an atheist:
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jefferson called the election of 1800 "the second American Revolution." Exaggerated? Perhaps a little, but, as a result of that election, the American Union moved more in the direction of greater democracy. As Ferling shows, it was an extremely polarized nation that held that election. The Republicans of Jefferson ( the forerunners of today's Democrats) charged the Federalists with betraying the Revolution and pushing the country toward monarchy. The Federalists ( the forerunners of today's Republicans) said Jefferson was an atheist and wanted a French Revolution in the US. In the end, the election deadlocked in the Electoral College--and Jefferson won by one vote. A fascinating look at one of the great political turning points of American history and at some very amazing men of that time period-Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Aaron Burr....

[Eric_W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone who believes we are in a period of unprecedented partisanship should read this book. I have always found history to be calming because it's obvious humans have changed little and the issues and enmities repeatedly appear with only minor adulteration. The issue of whether we should have more or less government that we argue about today was a battle royale among the Founders. Adams, Hamilton, and Washington, all having seen the powerlessness and inefficiency of the colonies acting independently in the fight against the King, and then in the Articles of Confederation, America's first Constitution, wanted a stronger, national government that could better defend against outside interests. Jefferson and Madison, romantics both, believed less government was always better. Sound familiar?

The seeds of that dispute lay with disagreements much earlier. Spain was willing to make considerable concessions regarding land if ownership of west Florida and New Orleans could be decided and traffic on the Mississippi ceased. Southern states were furious, while northern ones didn't care and the issue was never resolved, but a failure to have a national policy rankled. Couple that with the inability to get colonies to pay their share to support the troops, who were starving at Valley Forge while monarchists partied in Philadelphia, and you had more impetus for a stronger, more national government. That resulted in the 2nd Constitution of 1789 unfortunately delivering more land mines (the 3/5ths clause and support for slavery) leading to the Civil War. The battles between Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson in the Cabinet presaged the election of 1800, a democratic debacle. Each side mobilized its own social media, buying newspapers which were partisan rags.

The campaign was ugly. War service of the candidates was an issue then as now, with opponents reminding the electorate (white property owners only then) that Thomas Jefferson had sat out the revolution at home in Monticello. Thomas Jefferson had hired James Callender, a British immigrant to write anti-Adams essays. "Calumny dripped from Callender's pen." Jefferson bankrolled many anti-Adams journalists. He unsparingly "flayed Washington," who, he claimed, had wanted to be a dictator, called Hamilton the "Judas Iscariot of our country," and called Adams a war monger and "poor old man who is in his dotage." The Federalists under Adams were no better. Callender was arrested and charged under the Alien and Sedition Acts -- and we thought the USA Patriot Act was bad -- passed during the Adams' administration. Callender later turned on Jefferson when he was not awarded a plum political post in addition to his monetary rewards. He then went on the dig up the story of Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, a charge that seems now not to have been true, the DNA evidence being somewhat inconclusive given the number of other Jefferson males in the area, although I suppose the jury is still out in some minds. But I digress, the only point being that campaigns in the early 18th century were often more bitter than those today.

Thomas Jefferson had hired James Callender, a British immigrant to write anti-Adams essays. "Calumny dripped from Callender's pen." Jefferson bankrolled many anti-Adams journalists. He unsparingly "flayed Washington," who, he claimed, had wanted to be a dictator, called Hamilton the "Judas Iscariot of our country," and called Adams a war monger and "poor old man who is in his dotage." The Federalists under Adams were no better. Callender was arrested and charged under the Alien and Sedition Acts -- and we thought the USA Patriot Act was bad -- passed during the Adams' administration. Callender later turned on Jefferson when he was not awarded a plum political post in addition to his monetary rewards. He then went on the dig up the story of Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, a charge that seems now not to have been true, the DNA evidence being somewhat inconclusive given the number of other Jefferson males in the area, although I suppose the jury is still out in some minds. But I digress, the only point being that campaigns in the early 18th century were often more bitter than those today.

Hamilton doesn't come off as well as he did in Ferling's earlier books; Jefferson and Adams better. Hamilton is portrayed as power hungry and responsible for the ostensible sins of the Adams administration such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Personally, I admire Adams for his peacefully relinquishing power -- I believe the first instance in history a leader stepped down from power without some kind of violence -- but Hamilton is getting a bad rap. His emphasis on honoring the debts and fiscal stability was very important. You have to feel sorry for Adams, sandwiched between Hamilton and Jefferson.

Adams was chained to the Alien and Sedition Acts which were wildly unpopular, especially following the arrest and imprisonment of Callender for his calumnious broadsides against the Federalists (which eponymous society today appears to have completely abandoned.) Republican (same problem -- it's certainly ironic that the name became associated with abolitionism several decades later even if the pro-slave party of Jefferson and Madison became just the Democratic Party) papers sprang up all over supported by wealthy landowners and even in one case by a corporation that sold shares for just that purpose. Their rhetoric was bitter: The Aurora called Washington's Farewell Address the "loathings of a sick mind," asked whether he was "an impostor or an apostate" and accused him of being traitorous, like Benedict Arnold. Adams was but "old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled and toothless" and, "like polluted water to be cast out the back door, "a repulsive pedant...a gross hypocrite".

Read this with America Afire Jefferson, Adams, and the Revolutionary Election of 1800. There were times when listening to this book was like listening to news programs today. Virginia threatening to secede if Jefferson was not elected, militias formed to storm the Capitol if their candidate was not elected, Jefferson warning that he couldn't control his supporters, extreme politicking and horse trading, and this was just the third election in the nation's history. I think a good case could be made that the 1789 constitution was certainly not worth much and a civil war just a few decades later adds credence to this view. Given the number of times in our history when the winner of the popular vote did not become president, I wonder if it isn't time to dump a system that didn't even work from the start. The story of the friendship and then enmity between these two giants is well known, but Ferling has written a very readable account that sets the scene well.

Revised 6/13/09 and 7/1/2022

[Emilija · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very easy book to read, very informative and a lot more understandable than other historical books concerning the same topic. Ferling is a good writer, and an easy-ish read in general, but his bias towards Adams can be felt in the reading.

[Caleb Hintze · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adams’s and Jefferson both fascinate me. Their friendship, though it experienced tumult, is the kind of friendship I want to have. They experienced complete candor and charity for each other even though they were on opposite sides of political ideology.

It was also interesting to read about how these two men and their families shaped much of American political culture, particularly around elections.

Lastly, I enjoyed reading about these founders’ imperfections. Most of them were true patriots. They were inspired and had different gifts to offer the revolution of America. But they were imperfect and didn’t always see the big picture. Contradictions and hypocrisy in their persons that doesn’t discount the republic and rights America has now. Good to learn about these to appreciate them better.

[Brad Hart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very good book. The author did a good job caturing the punch and counter punch campaigning style of Adams and Jefferson. If you think politics are dirty today, then give this book a chance! You will quickly see that it is nothing new.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adams vs. Jefferson was written by American Revolution historian John Ferling. I have read some of Professor Ferling's books, but I wanted to read this one. We see mudslinging in our elections today, but it is nothing new. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were once friends, had one of the meanest and nastiest presidential elections in our country's history.

This book is not bad at all, but it was not great. My biggest problem is Professor Ferling spends too much on the lead up to the election starting with Washington's Presidency. I agree that a summary of events leading up to the election of 1800 is necessary, but I wish it had been shorter. If you need a refresher or are looking to learn more about early America, it is perfect for you. I, on the other hand, found myself skimming at time because I had read about these events. A good portion of the book is not about the election itself and that is a problem. I would have gotten more out of the book if I had no background knowledge about the debates between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, and, of course, most people's disdain for Alexander Hamilton.

The election portion of the book, which I wanted to read about the most, was exciting to read about. I have had discussions regarding professionalism in politics and many of my acquaintances seem to think our earlier elections were more civil. They were not. Politics has always been a dirty game in this country. You read in this book two friends become enemies. However, Adams and Jefferson made up before they died, which was on the same day. Talking about a coincidence. To make it even more interesting, their deaths were on July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

I recommend this to those who wish to learn more about our country's earlier days, or you need a review.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short book that gives an overview of the rise of Adams and Jefferson with a focus on the Adams' presidency and then the Election of 1800. Less than half the actual book is about the Election, but I suppose that makes sense in terms of setting the stage for the story. Also, there is really not enough there for a full book to be just about that one election. I enjoyed the read but at this point in my reading life, there was not a whole lot that was new for me.

[Gary Hoggatt · Rating 2 out of 5]

The United States presidential election of 1800 was a bitterly-contested and wild affair. In historian John Ferling's 2004 book Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, Ferling attempts to chronicle this story, but unfortunately he gets frequently sidetracked and spends much more time setting the scene for the election of 1800 than he does actually discussing it.

The main players in this drama are, naturally, John Adams, second President of the United States after being elected in 1796 and candidate for 1800 for the Federalist party, and Thomas Jefferson, Vice-President of the U.S. after coming in second in 1796 and candidate for 1800 for the Democratic-Republican party. Three others also feature prominently in the narrative. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney is Adams' Federalist running mate, Aaron Burr is Jefferson's Democratic-Republican running mate, and Alexander Hamilton is the leader of the extreme wing of the Federalist party who has his own ambitions heading into 1800.

The trouble Ferling stumbles into is that he spends half the book giving brief biographies of these five politicians up through 1796. That, simply put, is excessive. Yes, Ferling needed to give some background for those less familiar with the cast, but his editor should have cut the first half of the manuscript in half, at least. The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson and the events of Adams' term as president are very relevant to the 1800 election, but knowing the childhood origins of each of these five and their political and personal chronicle is just going back too far. I kept waiting and waiting for Ferling to get to the actual story promised in the title.

When Ferling does get to 1796, the narrative suffers quite a bit from jumping around between the threads of the five different players and the various states, with little concern for chronology or theme. You just move from one political ploy to another, without getting much sense of how it all fits together. Ferling also on several occasions repeats the same point with no additional information, as if he had forgotten he'd already mentioned that in another thread.

When covering 1800 itself, Ferling spends a lot of time repeatedly citing the vicious attempts to influence the election by the various party-affiliated newspapers. While some of that is needed to give the reader an idea of what was going on, eventually it gets tiresome. How many times does he need to cite a Federalist paper calling Jefferson a France-loving anarchist or a Democratic-Republican paper calling Adam's a pro-British monarchist before we can assume the reader gets it?

The last part of the story of the election, when the House of Representatives had to settle between Jefferson and Burr, who tied in electoral votes, bogs down in the number of times the House voted. Ferling does an adequate job of describing the various maneuvers in the Federalist-dominated House to control the outcome. But, despite the extensive earlier biographical sketch, Ferling never really answers why Burr decided to try to make a play for the presidency. There are a few guesses, but nothing concrete.

I listened to Adams vs. Jefferson on audio, as narrated by Jack Garrett. Garrett does little to make the reading lively. The pacing of the book, already problematic in and of itself as outlined above, is seriously hampered by frequent and extended pauses. Either Garrett didn't prepare much, the producer didn't do enough work editing the reading, or both. In any case, it wasn't very satisfying.

The presidential election of 1800 was an interesting contest, and I did learn some things from Ferling's book. But overall, Ferling failed to capture the drama inherent in the story, instead allowing himself to be sidetracked and lose control of the narrative as he spends much of the book on biographies, then hops around the dates and states so much that neither Ferling nor the reader can really keep the threads of the story straight. I can't especially recommend this book. There are just too many problems with it, despite the promising premise.

[Colleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Someone needs to tell John Ferling that a history book is supposed to stick to the facts and be free of both bias and conjecture, because evidently he wasn't aware of that. This wasn't so much a lesson in early American political history as it was a fawning love sonnet to Thomas Jefferson and his ideological beliefs, as well as a character assassination of John Adams. The further I got into the book, the angrier I became - Ferling casts aspersions left and right about Adams, from his political decisions to his parenting techniques, yet paints Jefferson, who was arguably the biggest hypocrite of all the Founders, in a saintly, infallible light. At the very end of the book, he finally comes out and says what he had alluded to the entire time, that Jefferson was a better man than Adams. Pretty lofty of him, making a judgement call like that of men who have been dead for almost 200 years. Statements like this about Adams are incredibly disingenuous - the man gave his entire life in service to the country that he helped create, and this yahoo relegates him to second-class status behind Jefferson, Washington and Franklin because he didn't like the way he treated his alcoholic son.
Not recommended - you'll find much better histories about Adams and Jefferson elsewhere.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Felt very long for such a short book, mostly because Ferling padded the book so strongly with information going back much further than 1800 (that might be considered unnecessary). It wasn't a bad book, but I was surprised how little I got out of it considering I didn't know much about the Election of 1800. It's not a bad book - 3 means Average - but it didn't really move me much and I have a feeling I'll have forgotten about it in a few weeks.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

great book about what may have been most important election in american History which still has an affect on our country even today

already learned more about who all the characters were in terms of their personalities, frailties, ambitions and backgrounds as well as their competing political philosophies which still are in play today.

[Jon Gautier · Rating 4 out of 5]

My second Ferling book, and it is clear that he is a must read: scholarly, incisive, and a compelling writer. I hope eventually to read everything by him. This short book is another “inside baseball” type, about, as the title proclaims, post-revolutionary politics. The last part is a detailed recounting (electoral joke!) of the 1800 election, including charts (!), and maps showing states, electoral votes, house votes and so on. I almost felt like I was watching CNN on election night. This is not so much my bag, especially the details of the political nose-counting and dealing to secure this or that person’s vote. But it is short. As a military history buff, I liken it to the many books about specific battles that recount, in great detail, the exact movement of troops. Such tellings can really bog down in detail. It’s the kind of thing you like if you like that kind of thing. Ferling edges toward this, but not over.

But my main takeaway, and it is a downer, is that nothing has really changed in politics, political rhetoric, and the venal and embarrassing conduct of most politicians. Even people’s fears are similar, particularly the one that the other side is bent on betraying the Constitution and imposing dictatorship. Have we really come no further in 220 years?

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2013/...

”Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800″ was written by John Ferling (the author of biographies I’ve already read and reviewed on both George Washington and John Adams). Though “Adams vs. Jefferson” is is not really a presidential biography, I nevertheless decided to read it as part of this journey, wondering if it might serve as a nice bridge between our second and third presidents (it does), and looking forward to reading something a bit “different”.

History well recalls that the presidential election of 1800 was a contentious affair and led to an early test of our electoral process. But despite the book’s premise (the title itself suggests a rather sharp focus on the election), neither the campaign nor the election are discussed in earnest until the last one-third of the book.

The majority of the book is spent, instead, laying groundwork and setting the stage. Ferling efficiently reviews both Washington’s and Adams’ presidencies, the mood of the United States populace and the state of the electoral system as it then existed. In addition, the author devotes significant care to introducing the other key characters in the campaign and election: Aaron Burr and Charles C. Pinckney (the VP nominees) and Alexander Hamilton (the Federalist antagonist). Happily, these major players received fairly balanced, and interesting, assessments

Discussion of both the campaign and the election is eventually completed in just two chapters before the author moves on to review the protracted resolution of the election in the House of Representatives. That the final decision was thrown into the House was due, of course, to the fact there was an electoral vote tie between Jefferson and his running mate Burr, and that the mechanics of the electoral process at that time made it possible a Vice Presidential candidate could actually win the presidency.

The fact that the author took so long to get to the campaign and the election initially bothered me – until I realized that I actually enjoyed the first part of the book more than the section alluded to by the book’s title. Ferling’s review of Washington’s and Adams’ presidencies was nicely and efficiently consummated, and resulted in an excellent summary of our nation’s history up through the Adams presidency.

But in the end, although the election of 1800 was remarkably antagonistic (and interesting as a consequence), this book feels a bit like two-hundred pages of history in search of a premise, rather than a premise that found the right book.

Nonetheless, for a reader with a passing familiarity with the Washington and Adams presidencies and an appreciation for the caustic political environment of the times, “Adams vs. Jefferson” is a relatively easy and fun read, filling in any major holes in one’s knowledge quite nicely. Without a doubt, this book cannot, and does not attempt, to substitute for more complete studies of Washington, Adams or Jefferson. But for someone with a passing interest and a little free time (perhaps during a long ground delay at O’Hare), “Adams vs. Jefferson” is almost certainly worth the effort.

Overall rating: 4 stars

[Judy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were firm friends when they both served as enovys to Europe--Jefferson to France and Adams to England. However that changed during Washington's first administration as Adams, the first Vice President, and Jefferson, the first Secretary of State, increasingly became identified with rival political factions. In 1796, the first presidential election without George Washington on the ballot, maneuvering in the Electoral College ended with the unholy alliance of John Adams, a Federalist, elected President and Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, elected Vice-President. It was clear from the end of that election that Adams and Jefferson would face each other in the election of 1800. Because of the way the Constitution of 1787 was written, it was relatively easy to try to manipulate electors to influence the results. In both the elections of 1796 and 1800, the pressures on electors was intense as each elector cast two votes with any designation of whether the vote was for President or Vice-President. As a result, in 1796, votes diverted from the Federalist Vice-President candidate, Pinckney, caused Jefferson to come in second in the Electoral College rather than third. And in the election of 1800, while Adams was defeated, Jefferson and Aaron Burr, his running mate, ended up in a tie in the Electoral College. Thus, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives where the Federalists who still controlled that body had the difficult choice of choosing Jefferson, the symbol of the oppostion, or Burr, who seemed to be so overtly ambitious. After days of balloting, a deal was struck and Jefferson was elected President. The Election of 1800 can rightly be called "the Revolution of 1800" because it was the first election in which power was peacefully transferred from one political party to another in the young history of our Republic. It also resulted in the passage of the 12th Amendment to change the voting procedures in the Electoral College to prevent this situation from arising again. A very interesting book about a fascinating period of American History.

[Joanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

As America (and much of the world) endures the obnoxious spectacle that is the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, it is easy to look back in time and believe that previous elections were somehow more civilized. Reading the story of the Presidential election of 1800 between then-President John Adams and his former close friend Thomas Jefferson, one realizes that partisan politics and nasty campaigns are nothing new. Author John Ferling did a reasonable job of attempting to help readers understand the players in history that came together to create the dramatic election of 1800. The Electoral College votes resulted in a tie, and the House of Representatives decided the election in favor of Jefferson thus ousting the incumbent Adams. Despite my love of this period of history, I found myself comparing many of the historical figures in this story to modern day political movers and shakers. For example, Alexander Hamilton's machinations reminded me or Karl Rove, while Charles and Thomas Pinckney reminded me or George W. and Jeb Bush. John Adams reminded me of Hillary Clinton, and Abigail Adams reminded me of Bill Clinton. (I know, go figure.) Thomas Jefferson, while he accomplished much as President, was such an odd duck as a human being, I really don't know with whom to compare him. Also, I was disappointed with Ferling's portrait of James Madison. I have always admired Madison, but the picture of Madison that Ferling reveals in this book is one of a short-sighted and somewhat paranoid politician who trusted others very little. Also, I sometimes found Ferling's descriptions of intrigue and relationships repetitive or more complex than necessary. Overall, however, the book was a good read.

[Lynnie · Rating 3 out of 5]

My goal was to finish this book before the election & I managed it with one day to spare.

It's a history book, so if you're into that sort of thing, you'll probably enjoy this. There's a lot of great research in this book & it tells the story of all the key players, none of whom come out looking quite as high & honorable as most Americans like to think of them. My husband recommended I read this because as we think of the election of 2016 as a horribly dark & negative entity, the truth is that the elections that started this country weren't much better.

People love to say that our country's Founding Fathers would be horrified by what's going on today but I don't think they would- they were kings of back-room deals, back stabbing gossip & could hold a partisan grudge like no man or woman today. The truth is that I don't love to read non-fiction or history but this was interesting in the context of our current election environment.

[Louis · Rating 4 out of 5]

The election of 1800 was probably the most important in American history. This contest established peaceful transfer of parties between parties as a normal part of . In addition, the two contestants were not only two noteworthy Founding Fathers but also the sitting president and vice president. Add to that the fact that they were former (and future) friends. Finally, throw in the vice presidential candidate with his own designs on power and you have a story that would not be believed as fiction. John Ferling's book details all the drama this election provided. For me, the best part of the book is the portrait of Aaron Burr. Other than Gore Vidal's fiction I knew little about him; this book changed that. Ferling succeeds in bringing out the high drama in a time long past.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the first history book I read for fun, when I was a sophomore in college. I liked it a lot, although I admit it is probably something only history buffs would really be interested in.

[Riley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like any book that essentially describes Alexander Hamilton as a hip happenin' political giant.

[Joann]

My father's review:
Biographers tend to become wrapped up in their subject and create an impression that this one is the best of all. "The American Sphinx" by Ellis is the reverse. It lays bare Jefferson's enigmatic inconsistencies. "Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800" examines the history of the United States up to and through the election of 1800. Thus, it is examining the events of the period, not the persons, except as they are causes of, or are affected by those events. The culminating event covered in this book is the campaign and election of 1800 in which Thomas Jefferson gained the presidency, denying President John Adams a second term.

The 1800 campaign has been called the dirtiest in our history, and it seems to qualify for that distinction. For mud slinging and underhandedness, it makes 2000 seem lawful and orderly.

Jefferson reluctantly supported the adoption of the Constitution; the need for it could not be ignored, but it went farther than he wished. His vision for the country was that of an agrarian society which would include small farmers, but where great planters, like himself, would be largely free of the constraints of government, either federal or state. It is ironic that the modern Democratic Party presents Jefferson as its patron saint. He wouldn't have had anything to do with it, because it regards government as a tool for solving public problems, while he advocated minimal government. The modern Democratic Party was founded by the eighth president, Martin VanBuren. It should be added that organizational continuity does not mean philosophical continuity. The two dominant parties have exchanged philosophical positions more than once.

During the Washington administration, Jefferson began to feel that the presidency was becoming too 'kingly'. Madison and others coalesced around Jefferson in opposing federal and presidential power. This group morphed into a real political party strategizing to elect Jefferson President in 1796. When Adams won that election in a narrow squeak, they worked for the same result in 1800. They called themselves Republicans, but with no connection with the modern Republican Party. The Federalists also had morphed into a political party lead by Hamilton, who could not become President, because the Constitution required that the President be native born. Washington was 'drafted' as the first President. It was only after he announced early in 1796 that he would not accept a third term that politicking for the office began in earnest.

Jefferson had inherited wealth in Virginia land and slaves. His father had died when he was an adolescent. He and his mother were never close. He went to college at William and Mary and entered the practice of law in order to have something respectable to do. He was competent as a lawyer, but he was not motivated by need. In general interests, he was very scholarly. He was a poor speaker, but a superb writer. He married Martha Randolph, and there was great love on each side. There is no doubt that he preferred to be home with her than to have any place of preferment. Martha inherited more land and slaves from her father who was heavily in debt. By accepting the inheritance, Jefferson became liable for those debts. This may provide an understandable reason for his failure to free any of his slaves. To have done so would have provided cause, both in law and in Southern culture, for his creditors to foreclose upon him. He was probably never again solvent, but nevertheless he spent lavishly on luxurious living.

Political argument had been by publishing letters and pamphlets, often under pseudonyms, before the Revolution, and remained the principle public media. As Jefferson became an opposition leader, this was the method he often used. He expanded it by setting up editors with papers who would publish what he wanted. Some of these editors were scandal mongers. There were similar Federalist publications, but Adams himself did not play that game.

Adams came from a "middling" family, living on a farm in Braintree, outside Boston. He went to Harvard, and practiced law in Boston to enable himself to court and win Abigail Smith and, thereafter, to make a living; although their farm was an important part of their livelihood. John often did significant labor on the farm, and when he was away on the nation's business, Abby ran the farm and raised the children and kept John financially supported, encouraged and advised. She was a fantastic help to him. Her judgment on matters of politics and of state was generally correct. But often they were not geographically together. During John's presidency, she would spend about half the year at the nation's capitol with him. He would escape the heat and pestilence of the Capitol for from three to five months himself. Everyone should read the double biography of John and Abigail by Irving Stone entitled, "Those Who Love".

John was vain by most accounts, and he had a hot temper, at least during his presidency. He was quick to boil over and berate the object of his wrath beyond reason. Furthermore, he could be unguarded in his letters, which provided ammunition to his enemies. But he did not act in heat. He gave every action careful consideration.

This author says that it was personal ambition for recognition and power that motivated Adams and Jefferson in the campaigns of 1796 and 1800. But, it is my assessment that it was their very strong opinions about the best governmental forms and actions for the country that motivated them. They did not lack ambition, but that was subsumed in their opinions. Adams and Jefferson were the viable candidates in 1796, and they, together with Thomas Pinckney and Arron Burr, in 1800. Hamilton, Adams and Pinckney were all Federalists, but Adams and Hamilton developed an antipathy, and the latter's politicking was sometimes to Adam's disadvantage. Burr was a Republican coat tail rider, and thoroughly disreputable.

Even as today, international affairs overshadowed domestic programs. The brutality and bloodshed of the French Revolution horrified most Americans. But to Jefferson, monarchy remained the paramount evil, as it did to some others, and alignment on the French Revolution colored alignment on American issues. During Washington's administration, England harassed American shipping and, in the final insult, took to impressing sailors on American ships into the British navy. There was serious war hysteria, but Washington dealt with it through diplomacy, obtaining the Jay treaty that ended that offense, and advanced some other matters for the U.S. There was some grumbling about failure to obtain some other desired benefits. That fueled some discontent about an alleged desire of the Federalists to reestablish ties to England, or at least to emulate her.

Then in Adams' administration, it was France's turn to harass American shipping, and the war hysteria was even more compelling. Adams, himself, was hot blooded and would have found personal satisfaction in a declaration of war against France. But, he realized that would be disastrous for the United States, and set about obtaining a diplomatic solution. Although Ultra-Federalists still breathed fire for war, Adams devoted himself to obtaining a peaceful solution. Hamilton interposed delays in obtaining Congressional approval for dispatching the negotiators to France. In the end, Adams was successful in obtaining a treaty with France that resolved the conflict, but only just before the end of his term, and too late to provide any political benefit to him. He later expressed the wish that his epitaph should be something like, 'he assumed personal responsibility for maintaining peace with France'. I haven't been able to find the exact quote.

Although Adams had not asked for such legislation, the Ultra Federalists in Congress adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts. Without doubt, they violated the First Amendment, but at that time, judicial review had not developed that much. The President enforced them to some extent. Some dissident editors were imprisoned. There were also increases in the Navy and Army, resulting in increased taxation.

This book gives a very detailed account of the campaign and election of 1800 that can be condensed only by over condensation. Also, it lacks an index, making it even more difficult.

In 1800, only five states elected their "Electors" by general election, and the dates of such elections varied. "Election Day" was December 5 when the electors met in their several states and voted. Some states voted for state-wide panels of Electors. In others, Electors were selected by district. In a few states the Electors were chosen by the legislature. the votes of the electors were sealed, not to be opened until February 11 in the Senate. In the event of a tie, the House of Representatives selects the President and Vice President, voting by state. However, forecasting elections and maneuvers to change the result was a science, even then. Changing from 'winner takes all' to choosing Electors by district or, visa versa, could reverse the probabilities. although these and other tricks were tried, study does not show that the result of the election was changed.

In the spring of 1800, New York held state elections. In 1796 all 12 of New York's Electors, chosen by the legislature, had voted for Adams. In 1796, all 12 of New York's Electors, chosen by the legislature, had voted for Adams. In the 1800 spring elections in New York, the Republicans captured the state legislature, because of demographic changes in New York City. That meant that all 12 New York Electors would go for Jefferson and Burr. The changes were not great, but just enough. In Abigail's prescient judgment, it meant John wold lose the presidency. there were still theoretical possibilities for his success, but the changes in New York, although not overwhelming, were also going on elsewhere. There was a very slight movement toward urbanization, and a beginning of the rich/poor political divide. It was true that the Federalists were going to lose. The election for President was going to be between Jefferson and Burr, even though they were both Republicans. Although political parties had arrived, they were not formally recognized in the process.

The horrible happened. Jefferson and burr tied in the Electoral College and the election was thrown over to the House of Representatives. This was on December 5, 1800. Between that date and February 11, 1801, there were a welter of schemes and plots by both the Federalist and Republicans to keep or get executive power. the pinnacle may have been Jefferson's threat, expressed directly to Adams, to use force.

As soon as the tie in the Electoral Collage was confirmed and announced in the Senate, the House convened. Its members had agreed to stay in session until a President had been chosen. The House voted at once, and the result was a tie between Jefferson and Burr. After each vote, it voted again at once to prevent outside dickering. It had voted fifteen times by 6:00 o'clock, with no change. Over four days, the House had voted thirty-four times with no change. the crisis was becoming more and more severe. the only one-person delegation to the House was James Bayard representing Delaware, who had been supporting Burr. He sent out feelers to Jefferson that, if the latter would agree to three points, he would abstain, leaving a majority for Jefferson. the three points were: First, support of the public credit; Second, maintenance of the Naval system; Third, subordinate public officers were not to be removed from office on account of their political character, nor without complaint against their conduct. Contact with Jefferson stumbled. But Bayard insisted that the three points be agreed to personally by Jefferson. Personal acceptance by Jefferson was communicated by a trusted representative. Bayard abstained, and Jefferson became President.

Jefferson had insisted on limiting Federal power, and limiting Presidential power. Nevertheless, by agreeing to purchase the Louisiana territory from France and by having dispatched Lewis and Clark to explore the continent to the Pacific, Jefferson knowingly stretched Presidential power, and established the Federal Government as the paramount authority throughout the great frontier and, consequently, the entire Republic.

Jefferson did not receive a landslide victory. In fact only 20% of the eligible voters had done so. But the author and others say that there had been a clear new development in public opinion. the Federalists had thought only an elite class of citizens was competent to make the decisions on political issues, and they feared democracy would bring ill informed passionate voting under the sway of demagogues. Many members of the public had seemed to go along with the view. The election of 1800 marked the change to rule by the majority of the people. Not including Blacks or Women, of course. the issues which caused the Federalists to lose were widespread hatred of the Sedition laws and a feeling that the Federalists were for the rich and did not care about the poor.

Isn't it ironic that Jefferson, who lead a life of the wealthy, was thought to be the champion of the common people, and Adams, the commoner, was a member of the party of the elite?

-RTH

[Laurel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was fascinating to me for two major reasons. First because Aaron Burr is an ancestor in our family tree. I knew he came in second in the presidential election. Back then the winner of the election became president and the runner up became vice president. Aaron Burr became the third vice president in the election, so he came in second. SO...Why oh Why is the title of this book Adam vs Jefferson then? It seems it should have said Jefferson vs Burr. I hope I caught your interest, so you'll see why.

The second reason this was fascinating to me is because of the 2020 election with Trump and Biden. We tend to hear that this 2020 election is the most viciously, mean spirited election ever held. But in reality both the election of 1876 with Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden, and the 1800 election were every bit as bitter and vicious. I could go on and on about both of those, but I don't want to write a book here.

Well, back to the 1800 election. There were five men running for president. Yes, the hotly contested race and the main players in this drama are John Adams, second President of the United States after being elected in 1796 and now a candidate in 1800 for the Federalist party, and Thomas Jefferson, Vice-President of the U.S. This was after Jefferson had come in second in 1796 and now was a candidate for 1800 for the Democratic-Republican party.

Three others that ran were Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Adams' Federalist running mate; Aaron Burr Jefferson's Democratic-Republican running mate; and John Jay.

Alexander Hamilton the leader of the extreme wing of the Federalist party had his own ambitions heading into 1800, and chose to smear Burr. Oh, I learned that Alexander Hamilton was not a very honorable person--caught in lies and deceit with his "hatred" against Aaron Burr. I have been reading a lot lately about this relationship, and it really opened my eyes to the fact that Burr, though not completely honorable either, was MUCH more honorable than Alexander Hamilton. Lin-Manuel Miranda portrays Aaron Burr as the bad guy, in his very famous Broadway Musical "Alexander Hamilton" and it just isn't justified by my research.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson and the events of Adams' term as president are very relevant to the 1800 election, and John Ferling explains in detail the childhood of each of these five and their political and personal histories.

Various party-affiliated newspapers influence the election. Especially Alexander Hamilton with his viscous lying tongue tried to influence the election by degrading the other opponents. (Again some of this is from other sources I'd read recently). Jefferson is called a France-loving anarchist. Adam's called a pro-British monarchist, and we are told to fear that he'll make himself king.

A fascinating election. When the electoral votes were counted Adams had 65, Pickney had 64, Jefferson and Burr tied with 73. Adams--the then current president and main candidate and LOST quite significantly. It was up to the House of Representatives to settle between the two top candidates, Jefferson and Burr, who tied in electoral votes. It took this House 34 voting times before one electoral college elector was swayed to change his vote giving Jefferson the presidency. Yes, Jefferson finally came out the winner.

There had been talk of Civil War--just like the election in 1876 years later. Thank heavens our 2020 election, though really emotional, has no talk of Civil War. I just heard yesterday, December 2nd, 2020, that Trump says he'll leave the White House peacefully if the Electoral College declares Biden the winner.

Now some interesting family trivia. My maternal grandmother, Sarah Amelia Burr Blake, was a hobby genealogist, and I remember her stories of how the famous Aaron Burr, Jr. is in our family tree. Why the JR? You never see that. He's a junior because his father, Aaron Burr Sr. was famous too. He was one of the first presidents of what has become Princeton University. Sr. died before Jr. was three years old and Jr and his sibling were raised by their Uncle Timothy, who by the way was very mean and abusive forcing Aaron JR to try to run away from home several times. Aaron Jr was a smart young man, no doubt. He began Princeton at age 13 and graduated at age 16...majoring in theology. He decided he didn't want to preach so after that studied law. Ok, I could go on and on, but gotta stop. I highly recommend this book to any history buff.

[Mark Stidham · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book brings to light an early crisis in the American democracy experiment. Reading it in early 2024, with this year's looming presidential election pitting Trump against Biden, it is sobering to know about this tumultuous time. It is also another lesson in the true history of American democracy.
This history should also inform today's citizenry about the dubious value in 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution.
The unique role of the Executive Branch in the Constitution is at the core of this story. The founders understood the need for a powerful and separate individual, elected by all of the states, in administering laws passed by Congress. The book brings us into the early days of American elections, when the right to vote was different in each of the states, and the Constitution was unamended with respect to presidential election. The details are covered here (and they are surprising) but there are several elements of our government that emerged during Adams' presidency and the election of 1800.
The first element is political parties. Unmentioned in the Constitution, political parties developed as shorthand descriptions of opposing views with respect to the purpose and power of the Federal Government. The two parties that emerged, the Federalists and the Republican (a term later changed to Democratic-Republican to distinguish it from the later party of Lincoln), held different views on the power of the Federal Government. Republicans tended towards broad-based suffrage, an agrarian economy, and a weak Federal Government. They opposed the Bank of the United States, a national debt, and a standing military, and they feared a strong alliance with Great Britain. While these virtues seem quintessentially part of the American Revolution, it is easy to forget that Republican virtues prioritized protection of slavery and private property. The egalitarian face of Jefferson was quite despotic with respect to non-land owners. The Federalists feared the rule of the mob, which they equated with universal suffrage. They prioritized free trade and a strong Federal Government in protecting national interests, and an active role for improvements such as roads, canals, and manufacturing. They favored strong ties with Great Britain and believed slavery to be an evil institution destined for eradication. Both sides used the Press to demonize the other side and to promote their own agenda. The most effective means of gaining support was negative advertising.
The drama peaked on Wednesday, February 11, 1801 as a deadlocked Electoral College was announced by Vice President Jefferson. Interestingly, there were 'irregularities' in the Georgia balloting that Jefferson chose to ignore; if he had discounted the Georgia ballots, he and Burr, (tied with 73 electoral votes each) would not have had the necessary margin to be declared a majority. But the tie created a new crisis because the Republicans could not come to a consensus about choosing between Burr and Jefferson. The Constitution stipulated that a tie would be decided by Congress followed by Congress with one vote for each state, to decide the election of 1800. With 16 states, this meant one candidate would have to get at least 9 votes or more. After 34 ballots lasting through Saturday, Feb 14, there was still no winner. On Sunday, Jefferson called on Adams and mentioned the possibility of resisting a Federalist coup d'etat with force. The Delaware delegate James Bayard advertised his willingness to abstain from voting in order to allow Jefferson's eight votes to be a majority. Historians viewed this election as the second American Revolution because a contentious campaign that threatened to end in a civil war instead resolved peaceably. The book exhaustive referencing makes it an invaluable account of this dramatic time. It is a piece of history that needs to be taught more broadly for Americans to better understand our democracy today.

[Ash Jogalekar · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the big benefits of studying history is that it allows us to put the problems of our own age in perspective. As rancorous as the elections of 2000, 2008 or 2016 may have been, the country has been there before. The election of 1800 was a microcosm of so many things that we wrestle with now; partisan squabbling, "fake news" and defamation, vote rigging, rumors and innuendos, outsized personalities, key issues dividing the country.

Ferling's book is an informative account of this election. One one side were John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and their Federalist party. On the other was Thomas Jefferson and his Republican party. The Federalists believed in a strong national government, commercial urban development and free trade. The Republicans believed in strong state and individual power, rural agricultural development and a domestic economic stimulus. The history of the United States has been shaped in significant part between these two competing visions, and although Jefferson's vision won out in the 1800 election, it was Hamilton's economic agenda that largely made the United States a world power during the next few decades. The contest was also as much about supporting Britain vs supporting France. The Adams administration wanted trade ties with Great Britain. The Jefferson faction was in love with the French Revolution and thought that any association with Britain reeked of monarchy and elitism. It is remarkable to realize how much of the early history of the republic was shaped by ties and compromises especially with France, a country which provided decisive aid to the nascent nation during the revolutionary war.

Ferling's book gives the background to the election and the rather disastrous presidency of Adams. Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts which made it possible to arrest and deport suspected anarchists or traitors (mostly Frenchmen) without due process alienated many Republicans as well as Federalists. Hamilton served as a brilliant, manipulating, Svengali-like force behind the scenes who had a falling out with both parties. While the Republicans won the election, a tie between Jefferson and Aaron Burr kept the intrigue and bitterness going for quite some time. The election was also known for its smears. Republicans called Adams a "hideous hermaphrodite", while his opponents called Jefferson a "howling atheist, an infidel". Jefferson was not beneath hiring anonymous pamphleteers to write scurrilous, damning critiques of Adams and the federalists; the equivalent of MSNBC and Fox News did exist during the time. Ultimately, while Jefferson won the election, became more famous and shaped the United States significantly because of the Louisiana Purchase and his setting in motion the next two Republican presidencies, Adams emerges as the more honest man, a man who made mistakes but who played a straighter hand. He of course reconciled with Jefferson after 1812, and the two famously died within hours of each other on July 4, 1826.

Ferling's book gives a good account of the election and paints interesting portraits of key characters, including minor politicians whose votes made a key difference. As a literary work I found it rather dry and tedious, but it does a good job of putting into context the background to so many themes that are now topics of passionate debates. History is always repeated, and the election of 1800 presaged many equally fraught elections in the future. The only problem is that we don't have an Adams or a Jefferson now.

[Puddles Meo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Ferling writes a compelling book about the first election of the 19th century. Given my negative outlook of today’s political climate, I take heart that politics does not change. It reflects what people will do to others in whatever means possible for power throughout history. Most notable about this election was the country’s first of partisan fighting for the presidency. George Washington leadership unified the country from individual colonies to states within a federal government. But, once he left government and the political scene, partisan fighting took over.

The book is a good historical example of partisan fighting. The political banter has always been with our country since the start. Maybe it is how democratic systems operate?

The political fighting in the 1790s culminated to the election of 1800. It is very similar to the election of 2000 in how each side use dirty tricks to gain control and stature. Is it human nature? Yes, is this form of government useful but, it is not a fast pace governing system. Does it work in the 21st century –we’ll have to see! However, once you give a country a system where they can control their own path, it is very hard to take away or chance direction.

Quote directly from the book: P.29/30

Adam’s view the aristocracy and the dangers of its formation. “Unless safeguards were built into the American constitutional system, his countrymen would in time face the same fate as their counterparts on the continent. Adams took the creation of a strong and independent executive branch to be the primary solution to be the primary solution to the problem of controlling the aristocracy. The executive, he insisted, would be the solitary official who represented all of society and who had the institutional ability both to the people from the oleographs and to safeguard the nation from disabilitizing “parties, divisions, tumults, and war” that would be waged between the haves and the have-notes, or the “gentlemen” and “simple,” as he sometimes put it.

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book illuminates a relatively obscure moment in US history: the chaos surrounding the election of 1800 and the antagonistic politics of the period. We think politics is confrontational today, but it hardly holds a candle to the screeds tossed back and forth between the Federalists and the Republicans in 1800.

John Adams' 4-year term began in 1797 and was beset throughout by foreign affairs issues, primarily caused by the revolution in France. By 1800, when the next election took place, much of the public was insensed by Adams' handling of the tense situation with France, the passage of the Alien and Sedition acts, and new taxes imposed to finance an army and navy.

Even worse was the failure of the US Constitution to properly handle the election of the new president. We may have doubts about it today, but in 1800 it was unworkable. Ultimately, the election was decided by the house of representatives (acting as electors, with one elector per state) on the 36th ballot taken.

Luckily for all of us today, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1804, fixing the worst of the problems revealed by the election of 1800.

Every time I think I have a good grasp of American history, I have to confront my own ignorance yet again. (Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI is the most recent book that opened my eyes prior to this one.

I highly recommend this book.

[Rachel Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The election of 1800. Wow, if you think that the elections of 2000 of 2016 were crazy, you should just hear about the one in 1800! I figured that as a social studies education major, I should probably be reading more nonfiction on my own time. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this book and my desire to make nonfiction a part of my reading habits.

Ferling has a way with making these political giants come alive. It was so interesting to not just hear about the struggle between Federalists and Republicans, but also about the personal lives and feelings of men like Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton in ways we may not have thought of before. I have new respect of John Adams knowing more about him and some of the real reasons why bad legislation can out of his administration. Also, my opinion has lessened a bit of Hamilton (though I am still very biased because of the musical). I am interested to read more about early America in books by other authors to see how they paint the history and lives of these men and the events that transpired between them.

In my personal opinion, this book was very easy to read. So, I would recommend it to anyone who is at all intrigued by the election of 1800!

[Gary Schantz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent book. Initially I read another book on this very subject: A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign and found it be very dry.

This book was completely the opposite and it has made me a fan of John Ferling. I plan to read more of his books in the future.

As far as why I feel this book is so good and Larson's was bad. Both books had to tell the hows and whys of the reasons each state voted the way they voted based on the rules that each state had, and Larson spent too much time explaining this in too much detail to the point that it was repetitive.

On the other hand, Ferling explained these issues with far less detail and moved on. This made all the difference in why I did not finish Larson's book.

[Anno Nomius · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book for both history buffs and non history buffs. History has judged the two men but if I was to judge them now, I would regard Adam as the true leader, a solid man and Jefferson a good speech writer and I would go as far as saying with a colorful personality when compared to Adams.
The stories of the founding fathers and the politics of the time resonates with what is happening around the world today. Back then as today the USA did not want to interfere in other countries and look around today, at the countries the US has interfered in the last 100 years and the reasons given.
The book does an excellent job of doing the back story on Adams and Jefferson, one self made man from the north who shunned and did not have slaves versus Jefferson a property and slave owner and discussing the politics, the horse trading of the times.
Great men will be born to lead a country but the question is how much able will the people of the country be to make that judicious choice.