What do you think?
Rate this book
A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign
A vivid retelling of the presidential election campaign between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson describes the fierce rivalry that was called "America's Second Revolution" and reveals the pivotal roles played by Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. By the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Evolution. 100,000 first printing.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
132 people are currently reading
1232 people want to read
About the author
Edward J. Larson
41 books177 followersEdward J. Larson is the author of many acclaimed works in American history, including the Pulitzer Prize–winning history of the Scopes Trial, Summer for the Gods. He is University Professor of History and Hugh and Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, and lives with his family near Los Angeles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews
November 11, 2012
If you are still upset, for any reason, about the 2012 elections, you should read this book immediately. It contains a wonderful tonic called "historical perspective" that will cure what ails you. If you think that our political climate today is especially toxic, divisive, or mean spirited, you should read it too. You will learn that most important of all lessons: that you are wrong. America is not more divided today than it has ever been. We are not even close.
Edward Larson does a good job of explaining all of the reasons that the Election of 1800 was such a disaster. It all boils down to this: the people who wrote the Constitution did not envision permanent political parties who would run candidates for public office. Men such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were suspicious of parties, and they crafted a Constitution that would minimize the possibility of permanent factions emerging. And then, two of America's most brilliant and dedicated statesmen ruined it all by creating political parties anyway. Their names? Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
From George Washington's first term in office, it was clear that there were two basic ideas about how America should work. Hamilton believed that the Constitution provided for a robust national government with near-absolute taxing powers and the ability to do anything that needed to be done to build America's economy and its infrastructure. Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, believed that the national government should be small, that taxes should be low, that states should make most of the major decisions, and that America did not need any economic development beyond a lot of new land to farm. By 1798, those who held the first set of views were called "Federalists," while those who held the second were called "Republicans." And, before the election of 1800, both Federalists and Republicans caucused together (secretly) to select their nominees for President and Vice President. The Federalists chose the incumbent president, John Adams, and South Carolina's Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Republicans chose their hero, Thomas Jefferson, to run for President, and the New York Senator Aaron Burr to run for Vice President.
Well, sort of. As a matter of fact, there was no way under the Constitution to run candidates for President or Vice President. Presidents were chosen bv electors, rather than by popular votes, and electors where chosen however states wanted to choose them: some were appointed by state legislatures and others were elected in general plebiscites. Electors were required to cast two equal votes for President; they could not specify that one was for Vice President. Whoever got the most votes became the President, and whoever came in second became the Vice President.
What this really means, then, is that all four men--Adams, Jefferson, Pinckney, and Burr--were running for President, and they all knew it. A number of "High Federalists" (i.e. really conservative Federalists) tried to engineer a victory for Pinckney, viewing Adams as too moderate and politically unreliable--a Federalist in Name Only, or FINO, who could not be trusted to keep the forces of Republicanism at bay. They were playing a very dangerous game, though, since any vote against Adams could have the unintended consequence of electing Jefferson. Of course, nobody on either side thought that anybody other than Jefferson from the Republican side could become President--nobody, that is, except Aaron Burr, who actively schemed to make sure that no Republican voted for Jefferson but against him. He played hard for a tie, and he won, throwing the election into turmoil for months while the House of Representatives tried to come up with a President.
I learned a lot from this book about the intraparty intrigues on both sides. Much more interesting (to me, at least) was the absolute certainty on the part of both Federalists and Republicans that American democracy would be destroyed if the other side won. It all sounded so modern to me. Republicans believed that Adams and the Federalists had designs to destroy the Constitution, appoint a president-for-life, and return the nation to monarchy. Politicians and pundits argued that America was at a crossroads that would lead, if Jefferson were not elected, to the end of everything that the Constitution and the Revolution stood for. Federalists, for their part, saw Jefferson and his fellow Republicans as lawless, degraded, atheistic Jacobins (French Revolutionary rabble) bent on destroying both religion and the upper classes. Nothing, they believed, could be more important than defeating Jefferson.
As the election played out, both sides worked themselves into a frenzy of hatred and anger against the other side (sound familiar). At the same time, the High Federalists worked hard against their own ostensible candidate for President, while the second Republican on the ticket schemed to replace his boss. And he almost did. Throw into the mix a plot to disqualify Republican electors, an attempt to change the way New York's electors were chosen, a few high-profile show trials under the Alien and Sedition Acts, a slave rebellion, a secession threat secretly written by one of the candidates, a few high-profile, high-sleaze campaign books--and what do you get? Business as usual in the early American republic.
Since writing That's Not What They Meant!: Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America's Right Wing, I have often been asked what the Founding Fathers would have thought about political civility in our day. They would have thought, I reply, that we have entirely too much of it.
Edward Larson does a good job of explaining all of the reasons that the Election of 1800 was such a disaster. It all boils down to this: the people who wrote the Constitution did not envision permanent political parties who would run candidates for public office. Men such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were suspicious of parties, and they crafted a Constitution that would minimize the possibility of permanent factions emerging. And then, two of America's most brilliant and dedicated statesmen ruined it all by creating political parties anyway. Their names? Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
From George Washington's first term in office, it was clear that there were two basic ideas about how America should work. Hamilton believed that the Constitution provided for a robust national government with near-absolute taxing powers and the ability to do anything that needed to be done to build America's economy and its infrastructure. Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, believed that the national government should be small, that taxes should be low, that states should make most of the major decisions, and that America did not need any economic development beyond a lot of new land to farm. By 1798, those who held the first set of views were called "Federalists," while those who held the second were called "Republicans." And, before the election of 1800, both Federalists and Republicans caucused together (secretly) to select their nominees for President and Vice President. The Federalists chose the incumbent president, John Adams, and South Carolina's Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Republicans chose their hero, Thomas Jefferson, to run for President, and the New York Senator Aaron Burr to run for Vice President.
Well, sort of. As a matter of fact, there was no way under the Constitution to run candidates for President or Vice President. Presidents were chosen bv electors, rather than by popular votes, and electors where chosen however states wanted to choose them: some were appointed by state legislatures and others were elected in general plebiscites. Electors were required to cast two equal votes for President; they could not specify that one was for Vice President. Whoever got the most votes became the President, and whoever came in second became the Vice President.
What this really means, then, is that all four men--Adams, Jefferson, Pinckney, and Burr--were running for President, and they all knew it. A number of "High Federalists" (i.e. really conservative Federalists) tried to engineer a victory for Pinckney, viewing Adams as too moderate and politically unreliable--a Federalist in Name Only, or FINO, who could not be trusted to keep the forces of Republicanism at bay. They were playing a very dangerous game, though, since any vote against Adams could have the unintended consequence of electing Jefferson. Of course, nobody on either side thought that anybody other than Jefferson from the Republican side could become President--nobody, that is, except Aaron Burr, who actively schemed to make sure that no Republican voted for Jefferson but against him. He played hard for a tie, and he won, throwing the election into turmoil for months while the House of Representatives tried to come up with a President.
I learned a lot from this book about the intraparty intrigues on both sides. Much more interesting (to me, at least) was the absolute certainty on the part of both Federalists and Republicans that American democracy would be destroyed if the other side won. It all sounded so modern to me. Republicans believed that Adams and the Federalists had designs to destroy the Constitution, appoint a president-for-life, and return the nation to monarchy. Politicians and pundits argued that America was at a crossroads that would lead, if Jefferson were not elected, to the end of everything that the Constitution and the Revolution stood for. Federalists, for their part, saw Jefferson and his fellow Republicans as lawless, degraded, atheistic Jacobins (French Revolutionary rabble) bent on destroying both religion and the upper classes. Nothing, they believed, could be more important than defeating Jefferson.
As the election played out, both sides worked themselves into a frenzy of hatred and anger against the other side (sound familiar). At the same time, the High Federalists worked hard against their own ostensible candidate for President, while the second Republican on the ticket schemed to replace his boss. And he almost did. Throw into the mix a plot to disqualify Republican electors, an attempt to change the way New York's electors were chosen, a few high-profile show trials under the Alien and Sedition Acts, a slave rebellion, a secession threat secretly written by one of the candidates, a few high-profile, high-sleaze campaign books--and what do you get? Business as usual in the early American republic.
Since writing That's Not What They Meant!: Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America's Right Wing, I have often been asked what the Founding Fathers would have thought about political civility in our day. They would have thought, I reply, that we have entirely too much of it.
November 6, 2012
Presidential elections in the United States have seemed to become angry, contentious, and bitter affairs. We only have to look at the debacle in Florida in 2000 to see the partisanship. Whether one agrees with the US Supreme Court’s actions or not, the Court did effectively determine the outcome. Was it always this way? Many would like to say, “No.” However, any in-depth study of American presidential politics would reveal that campaigns and elections are nearly always contentious and divisive forums for our system of government.
In Edward J. Larson’s new book, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign, he returns us to our forefathers’ times and ideals to lucidly and clearly explain that once political parties were formed, then the elections became extremely partisan. Larson takes up the election of 1800 pitting the Federalists against the Republicans for the future of the Constitution and the United States. Briefly, the Federalist Party stood for a strong central government, closer ties with Britain, possible war with France, a standing army, support for the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, a national economy, and among the High Federalist, a permanent presidency, possibly a monarch, and an elite group of leaders. The Republicans on the other hand stressed states’ rights, a weak central government, low taxes, no standing army, distrusted the British, and supported the French Revolution.
The election involved four candidates: John Adams, the President; Thomas Jefferson, the Vice President; Aaron Burr, a leading New York politician who supported the Republicans; and finally, Charles Cotesworth Pickney, a Revolutionary War hero from South Carolina who was the High Federalists’ candidate. Adams, as the President, was heavily criticized both within his own party as not being enough of a Federalist, especially when he began negotiations with the French to achieve neutrality in the European wars, and also by the Republicans who suspected him of being too close to the British and wanting to convert the presidency into a monarchy. This left Adams in an especially bad position which wasn’t helped by his irritable and irascible temperament. Jefferson, as the leader of the Republicans was greatly feared by the Federalists. Since he favored the French Revolution, the Federalists feared that if elected president, Jefferson would lead the United States down the same bloody path the French took. They also felt Jefferson was too idealistic and dreamy to handle the duties of national governance. Burr, initially wanting to be Vice President, convinced the Republicans to support him in exchange for his bringing New York over to the Republicans. This, he astonishingly was able to do in April, 1800. And finally, Pickney was put forward as a vice presidential candidate by Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the High Federalists. Hamilton despised Adams and did not want him elected president. However, he could not visibly break with Adams, so instead he schemed behind Adams’ back to try and get Pickney elected over Adams. It wasn’t until late in the campaign that Hamilton openly broke with Adams, effectively splitting the Federalist Party. Also, it should be noted that early in the campaign, Hamilton attempted to persuade George Washington to come out of retirement and run again. This movement ended with Washington’s death in December, 1799.
The election, besides being complicated by all the intrigue among the parties, was fueled by the newspapers of the times. Newspapers were partisan papers then. So the news of the campaign and candidates was biased by the paper reporting it. Further difficulties appeared from within the states themselves. The states had elections at different times and had different methods of electing the presidential electors. These different election times and methods led to both parties meddling in state politics. In the summer of 1800, there was also a threat of a slave revolt in Virginia. Federalists used it to point out the Republican consequences of supporting the French Revolution. There was even the possibility that Pennsylvania would not be able to agree on a method for choosing the electors, thus not supplying any electors.
By December 3, the date the presidential electors voted, it was felt that Jefferson and Burr would end up in a deadlock since the Republican Party electors held firm with their two votes (Each elector had two votes, but there was no provision in which to designate who was to be president or vice president). Although it was generally conceded the Republicans had won, the votes wouldn’t be officially counted until February 11, 1801. On that day, with Jefferson presiding over the Senate, Jefferson and Burr both received 73 votes, Adams 65, Pickney 64, and John Jay, governor of New York and former Chief Justice, 1. This threw the election into the House of Representatives. In there, each state had 1 vote. Since at the time there were 16 states, in order to win, a candidate needed 9 votes. With all the scheming, the votes ended up Jefferson 8, Burr 6, and two states (Maryland and Vermont) split along party lines and didn’t vote. Four days and 33 ballots later, the results did not change. Finally, James Bayard of Delaware, along with some other Federalists, decided to abandon Burr (especially since Burr made no overtures to the Federalists). The final vote was Jefferson 10, Burr 4 with Delaware and South Carolina not voting.
Upon his inauguration on March 4, 1801, Jefferson’s speech was conciliatory. However, the High Federalists in New England remained suspicious. Jefferson, of course, was left with a Federalist legacy in the courts. Adams and the Federalists in Congress had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (later repealed by the Republicans with the repeal upheld by the Court) greatly expanding the judiciary and filling the positions with Federalist judges. However, most importantly was Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. With Marshall serving for 35 years, there was a Federalist presence long after the party itself died.
After Jefferson’s presidency, in 1812, Adams and Jefferson reconciled and began an amazing correspondence that lasted until their deaths in 1826, in particular, July 4, 1826. This remarkable series of letters between these two men discussed all things and presented their views to each other and posterity.
Larson’s book is a thorough recounting of the events and personalities of the campaign and election. It’s well-researched and fully documented. However, don’t let the scholarly aspect detract from reading the book. Larson has written an extremely fascinating and readable book. My only complaint, and it is minor, is that in some places there is some redundancy and unnecessary padding. However, it is minor. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in American history, our forefathers, politics, or presidential elections. It will satisfy one’s appetite. The book will easily take it place among the best volumes on presidential elections.
In Edward J. Larson’s new book, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign, he returns us to our forefathers’ times and ideals to lucidly and clearly explain that once political parties were formed, then the elections became extremely partisan. Larson takes up the election of 1800 pitting the Federalists against the Republicans for the future of the Constitution and the United States. Briefly, the Federalist Party stood for a strong central government, closer ties with Britain, possible war with France, a standing army, support for the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, a national economy, and among the High Federalist, a permanent presidency, possibly a monarch, and an elite group of leaders. The Republicans on the other hand stressed states’ rights, a weak central government, low taxes, no standing army, distrusted the British, and supported the French Revolution.
The election involved four candidates: John Adams, the President; Thomas Jefferson, the Vice President; Aaron Burr, a leading New York politician who supported the Republicans; and finally, Charles Cotesworth Pickney, a Revolutionary War hero from South Carolina who was the High Federalists’ candidate. Adams, as the President, was heavily criticized both within his own party as not being enough of a Federalist, especially when he began negotiations with the French to achieve neutrality in the European wars, and also by the Republicans who suspected him of being too close to the British and wanting to convert the presidency into a monarchy. This left Adams in an especially bad position which wasn’t helped by his irritable and irascible temperament. Jefferson, as the leader of the Republicans was greatly feared by the Federalists. Since he favored the French Revolution, the Federalists feared that if elected president, Jefferson would lead the United States down the same bloody path the French took. They also felt Jefferson was too idealistic and dreamy to handle the duties of national governance. Burr, initially wanting to be Vice President, convinced the Republicans to support him in exchange for his bringing New York over to the Republicans. This, he astonishingly was able to do in April, 1800. And finally, Pickney was put forward as a vice presidential candidate by Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the High Federalists. Hamilton despised Adams and did not want him elected president. However, he could not visibly break with Adams, so instead he schemed behind Adams’ back to try and get Pickney elected over Adams. It wasn’t until late in the campaign that Hamilton openly broke with Adams, effectively splitting the Federalist Party. Also, it should be noted that early in the campaign, Hamilton attempted to persuade George Washington to come out of retirement and run again. This movement ended with Washington’s death in December, 1799.
The election, besides being complicated by all the intrigue among the parties, was fueled by the newspapers of the times. Newspapers were partisan papers then. So the news of the campaign and candidates was biased by the paper reporting it. Further difficulties appeared from within the states themselves. The states had elections at different times and had different methods of electing the presidential electors. These different election times and methods led to both parties meddling in state politics. In the summer of 1800, there was also a threat of a slave revolt in Virginia. Federalists used it to point out the Republican consequences of supporting the French Revolution. There was even the possibility that Pennsylvania would not be able to agree on a method for choosing the electors, thus not supplying any electors.
By December 3, the date the presidential electors voted, it was felt that Jefferson and Burr would end up in a deadlock since the Republican Party electors held firm with their two votes (Each elector had two votes, but there was no provision in which to designate who was to be president or vice president). Although it was generally conceded the Republicans had won, the votes wouldn’t be officially counted until February 11, 1801. On that day, with Jefferson presiding over the Senate, Jefferson and Burr both received 73 votes, Adams 65, Pickney 64, and John Jay, governor of New York and former Chief Justice, 1. This threw the election into the House of Representatives. In there, each state had 1 vote. Since at the time there were 16 states, in order to win, a candidate needed 9 votes. With all the scheming, the votes ended up Jefferson 8, Burr 6, and two states (Maryland and Vermont) split along party lines and didn’t vote. Four days and 33 ballots later, the results did not change. Finally, James Bayard of Delaware, along with some other Federalists, decided to abandon Burr (especially since Burr made no overtures to the Federalists). The final vote was Jefferson 10, Burr 4 with Delaware and South Carolina not voting.
Upon his inauguration on March 4, 1801, Jefferson’s speech was conciliatory. However, the High Federalists in New England remained suspicious. Jefferson, of course, was left with a Federalist legacy in the courts. Adams and the Federalists in Congress had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (later repealed by the Republicans with the repeal upheld by the Court) greatly expanding the judiciary and filling the positions with Federalist judges. However, most importantly was Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. With Marshall serving for 35 years, there was a Federalist presence long after the party itself died.
After Jefferson’s presidency, in 1812, Adams and Jefferson reconciled and began an amazing correspondence that lasted until their deaths in 1826, in particular, July 4, 1826. This remarkable series of letters between these two men discussed all things and presented their views to each other and posterity.
Larson’s book is a thorough recounting of the events and personalities of the campaign and election. It’s well-researched and fully documented. However, don’t let the scholarly aspect detract from reading the book. Larson has written an extremely fascinating and readable book. My only complaint, and it is minor, is that in some places there is some redundancy and unnecessary padding. However, it is minor. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in American history, our forefathers, politics, or presidential elections. It will satisfy one’s appetite. The book will easily take it place among the best volumes on presidential elections.
November 8, 2021
This book is definitely for the history scholar. Although it is well written with plenty of notes to back up the story it unfortunately does not read well, it also becomes confusing with the number of characters involved and their philosophies. Unless you are really into early American politics I would steer clear of this book.
May 13, 2013
This was, given the consensus for Washington to be President, our first national election. Its result re-oriented the country in its promised direction and solidified the two party system.
Larson tells the saga of this 16 month pre-media electoral slog. The Constitution had not anticipated political parties. It called for electors (today, our vestigial electoral college) to cast the presidential ballots and left each state to determine its own election rules. The parties studied the rules, did the math, and attempted to manipulate rules, events and perceptions to change the outcome before and after the fact.
The story is reported with facts and quotes. By nature of its content, there is a lot of technical detail. Slavery, which gave the south disproportionate electoral influence due to the Constitution's specified population count, was not an issue for the participants, and perhaps not the rank and file free male voter either. It faintly emerged when the Republicans need to show their "toughness" in response to a slave revolt.
The author does a good job of cataloging, state by state, the electioneering. The actual votings, by the electors and by the the House of Representatives, could have had a more detailed and interpretive treatment.
After having recently read Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr I am sensitive to the portrayal of Burr. Larson, like others, refers to Burr's negative qualities (such as extreme ambition or untrustworthiness) without evidence. There is mention of his potential profiting from founding a NY bank, but other banks, oriented towards Hamilton, favored the American aristocrats and essentially cut out the average person in lending decisions. In the absence of hard data showing that that Burr profited, should he not be celebrated for this? (Did Andrew Jackson accomplish this much?)
The treatment of Hamilton differs from that in Chernov's Alexander Hamilton To Larson he is an extremist schemer, to Chernov, an achiever, albeit an contentious one. John Adams is portrayed as learning too late that he had been used by this party's extremists. The detail in the treatment here, defines the limitations of drama, such as the recent HBO series on John Adams, in portraying this time.
To me, the book does not have a fitting title. What was catastrophic about this election? Chaos, tumult or even pandemonium are better nouns than "catastrophe" which implies ruin or destruction. One of its participants calls it a catastrophe, but what was destroyed?
Larson tells the saga of this 16 month pre-media electoral slog. The Constitution had not anticipated political parties. It called for electors (today, our vestigial electoral college) to cast the presidential ballots and left each state to determine its own election rules. The parties studied the rules, did the math, and attempted to manipulate rules, events and perceptions to change the outcome before and after the fact.
The story is reported with facts and quotes. By nature of its content, there is a lot of technical detail. Slavery, which gave the south disproportionate electoral influence due to the Constitution's specified population count, was not an issue for the participants, and perhaps not the rank and file free male voter either. It faintly emerged when the Republicans need to show their "toughness" in response to a slave revolt.
The author does a good job of cataloging, state by state, the electioneering. The actual votings, by the electors and by the the House of Representatives, could have had a more detailed and interpretive treatment.
After having recently read Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr I am sensitive to the portrayal of Burr. Larson, like others, refers to Burr's negative qualities (such as extreme ambition or untrustworthiness) without evidence. There is mention of his potential profiting from founding a NY bank, but other banks, oriented towards Hamilton, favored the American aristocrats and essentially cut out the average person in lending decisions. In the absence of hard data showing that that Burr profited, should he not be celebrated for this? (Did Andrew Jackson accomplish this much?)
The treatment of Hamilton differs from that in Chernov's Alexander Hamilton To Larson he is an extremist schemer, to Chernov, an achiever, albeit an contentious one. John Adams is portrayed as learning too late that he had been used by this party's extremists. The detail in the treatment here, defines the limitations of drama, such as the recent HBO series on John Adams, in portraying this time.
To me, the book does not have a fitting title. What was catastrophic about this election? Chaos, tumult or even pandemonium are better nouns than "catastrophe" which implies ruin or destruction. One of its participants calls it a catastrophe, but what was destroyed?
July 3, 2009
Think that 2000 featured a strange presidential election? Then, you might be interested in this book. The election of 1800 is termed, in the book's title, "A Magnificent Catastrophe." Because of a mistaken in how the Constitution stated who would be elected president, Thomas Jefferson and his vice-presidential "partner," Aaron Burr, were tied after the electoral votes were counted. Burr being Burr, he did not withdraw and allowed Congressional voting to take place (a churl, as always).
On the other hand, the High Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, so despised John Adams (the sitting Federalist President), that they worked to undermine his candidacy. In other words, what a story!
This book does a nice job of describing the dynamics of the election of 1800. It is not as detailed a work as one might have expected from the likes of Joseph Ellis or David McCullough. Nonetheless, it is a useful work and provides a solid examination of the subterranean plotting by partisan leaders in the election.
On the other hand, the High Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, so despised John Adams (the sitting Federalist President), that they worked to undermine his candidacy. In other words, what a story!
This book does a nice job of describing the dynamics of the election of 1800. It is not as detailed a work as one might have expected from the likes of Joseph Ellis or David McCullough. Nonetheless, it is a useful work and provides a solid examination of the subterranean plotting by partisan leaders in the election.
May 11, 2020
Listened to audio with Winston. Nothing changes when it comes to politics and it seems like what we might feel is the current decay of our political system has had it's game playing from the beginning. So much interwoven with the British monarchy style of government and the French as they revolted and worked to set up democracy. Now we need to read more about France and the part it played (in the background, but seemingly a very profound influence) Need to know more details than we get from LesMis. . . ~ smile ~
Very interesting and a recommend.
Very interesting and a recommend.
February 23, 2017
Someone once asked me what is the greatest threat to American Democracy...not America, to democracy and the first answer that came to my mind still holds true in my opinion today: the idea and machine of political parties. The idea that because your 'party' or your team is where your loyalty should lie it can even warp how the system gets looks at today. When issues get debated the idea doesn't become what's right for my constituents it becomes what is my political party's position? This is a broken record today.
Look at the news in this modern day. A Republican Senator openly admits and says that it would be ridiculous for Republicans to investigate Republicans because they couldn't be honest brokers even though they currently control all of the levers of power. Former retired Congressmen who have served talk about bipartisanship being a bygone and they are correct. The talk about going to party lunches where the political parties hand them talking points with attack lines on them that they have to advocate with or they could lose their support and funding. The last time I saw complete bipartisanship was right after 9/11 when the country came under direct attack. The fact that we may never see bipartisanship again unless that happens is frightening indeed.
But this book gets into the root of that. It goes back to the time where President Washington decided not to serve a third term and the Congress did break down into two factions: The Federalists and the Republicans. Ever since that time all the way back in 1800 the nation is often viewed through three truths: the truth according to the left, the truth according to the right and the real truth. It is a catastrophe:
- The combination of George Washington stepping down and the French revolution electrified American politics. Those who publicly supported the revolution were even called Jacobites just like the Jacobins in France. Adams & Hamilton were both strong advocates for a strong Federal government...Jefferson and Burr embraced the Republican ideals and cause.
- Adams was very haughty and arrogant. He thought the Presidency was owed to him and he not even secretly craved respect. He needed to feel loved. When he went to war with France and the public supported him he ate it up. When public opinion turned though it brought forward him advocating for the Sedition Act which in many ways tried to criminalize public opinion that Adams didn't like.
- Knowing that New York was where the Presidency would be decided through the votes of the electors Aaron Burr built a political machine from the ground up to compete with the Federalists who had established themselves there through Alexander Hamilton. Burr created charters for companies and banks, encouraged some of the most prominent names of the revolution to run for the Republican ticket and took the fight to Hamilton.
- John Adams close to his reelection was seen as weak. So weak that Hamilton tried in a scheme to get Charles Pinckney elected. When Adams discovered this and their feud became public it broke the Federalist party allowing for Jefferson through multiple tie ballots to finally rise to the Presidency.
Throughout this book the political party system resonated with me here. We need to get beyond conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican, left vs right. The answer lies in the middle somewhere...
Look at the news in this modern day. A Republican Senator openly admits and says that it would be ridiculous for Republicans to investigate Republicans because they couldn't be honest brokers even though they currently control all of the levers of power. Former retired Congressmen who have served talk about bipartisanship being a bygone and they are correct. The talk about going to party lunches where the political parties hand them talking points with attack lines on them that they have to advocate with or they could lose their support and funding. The last time I saw complete bipartisanship was right after 9/11 when the country came under direct attack. The fact that we may never see bipartisanship again unless that happens is frightening indeed.
But this book gets into the root of that. It goes back to the time where President Washington decided not to serve a third term and the Congress did break down into two factions: The Federalists and the Republicans. Ever since that time all the way back in 1800 the nation is often viewed through three truths: the truth according to the left, the truth according to the right and the real truth. It is a catastrophe:
- The combination of George Washington stepping down and the French revolution electrified American politics. Those who publicly supported the revolution were even called Jacobites just like the Jacobins in France. Adams & Hamilton were both strong advocates for a strong Federal government...Jefferson and Burr embraced the Republican ideals and cause.
- Adams was very haughty and arrogant. He thought the Presidency was owed to him and he not even secretly craved respect. He needed to feel loved. When he went to war with France and the public supported him he ate it up. When public opinion turned though it brought forward him advocating for the Sedition Act which in many ways tried to criminalize public opinion that Adams didn't like.
- Knowing that New York was where the Presidency would be decided through the votes of the electors Aaron Burr built a political machine from the ground up to compete with the Federalists who had established themselves there through Alexander Hamilton. Burr created charters for companies and banks, encouraged some of the most prominent names of the revolution to run for the Republican ticket and took the fight to Hamilton.
- John Adams close to his reelection was seen as weak. So weak that Hamilton tried in a scheme to get Charles Pinckney elected. When Adams discovered this and their feud became public it broke the Federalist party allowing for Jefferson through multiple tie ballots to finally rise to the Presidency.
Throughout this book the political party system resonated with me here. We need to get beyond conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican, left vs right. The answer lies in the middle somewhere...
December 19, 2020
If you thought politics today was bad... This election was Something Else. At some points, the details (numbers of electors, stats, etc) were a little hard to understand, but overall, the book did a good job of telling the story and it definitely drew me into the drama. The crazy crazy CRAZY amount of drama.
October 30, 2022
The presidential election of 1800 is considered the first national presidential campaign and election in the US. Larson describes the beginning of the two-party system and the political in-fighting and backbiting between Jefferson, Adams, Burr and many other characters.
August 25, 2024
I love reading books about history. This was one of those books that was just written in a way to make it more of a dry, boring read. It doesn’t help that the author keeps introducing political characters and giving their backstory along the way.
September 30, 2024
This book totally obliterates the idea that the Founding Fathers all got along and politics "used to be" pure. Everything--lies, affairs, deceit, sleeping with slaves, religious hypocrisy, cheating... was in play.
November 11, 2016
The book was a very detailed look at the election of 1800, a very unusual election that resulted in the House determining who was President. It was an election that made the 2016 one seem rather tame, however the comments were from others than the candidates. The book had some very interesting sections not directly involved in the election as well. I found the chapter on the death of George Washington very interesting. The split of the Hamilton federalists from President Adams was also well covered. The book covers how Aaron Burr gained position as the "candidate" for Jefferson's running mate. At the time electors (there was no real Presidential voting by the public as such) could vote for two candidates, but could not say which was for President and which was for vice president. That caused the tie vote for Jefferson and Burr, throwing the decision to the House. While the book doesn't show Burr really tried to "steal" the Presidential office, it does show he wasn't opposed to that either. Hamilton, who had feuded with Burr in New York for years, helped prevent that but was not the key factor that many think he was. His feud with the President had reduced his influence. To me, the book show Adams in a more positive light than Jefferson, but I believe the book is quite fair. I liked the book a lot, but maybe some sections were a little dry and too detailed. Still, I recommend it if you enjoy American History.
January 15, 2012
Edward Larson provides a very detailed and in depth look at the election of 1800 and how the Congress choose a president for the first time in history and the last time where both candidates would be from the same political party. The book looks at the careers of the four contenders in the election focusing on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson but still paying significant attention to Aaron Burr and Charles Pinckney. The electioneering at the time was just getting started and it was rare to see the candidates themselves get involved. The contest would draw together disparate colleagues across the country from the heavy involvement of Monroe in Virginia to Burr’s electoral machine in New York. Retired founding fathers like George Washington would weigh into the fray and the seeds would be further sown for the duel that Burr and Hamilton would face. At the end of the day through the odd politicking of the time it would result in a tie from two republicans Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson that the Congress would have to decide between. The ultimate winner was Jefferson which set the stage for a transformation and proof that democracy would work in the United States. Overall for those looking for a thorough and well thought-out analysis on the election is a great book to choose.
November 24, 2013
vanity is my cardinal vice Adams, doubted democracy could last thru Adams, sufficiency of humans for human problems, fearful of monarchy and aristocracy, Jefferson wrong on French Rev, let it go as it came sickness, strong parties may check power or not, 4 bleeds diarrhea for George, 3 day voting, who supported mob Jacobin French, aroused by individual right abuse from lethargy to vote, recession of 1797, fear of president immune of congressional and state checks and balances, rights and liberties, division between high federalists and moderates, distraction of peace with France as Napoleon coup, 8 boarding houses for legislators, cabal intrigue hatred of DC, elite consensus leadership died to 2 party leadership, Feds or Repubs.
November 17, 2008
Great look back at the formation of the two party system. It was interesting to see how fragile the union really was. Really helps put some current events into prespective.
Larson's writing style isn't that great, the book is very slow at times. He gives too much focus on where states stood with their electoral votes and the strategies based on that rather than the issues that influenced those votes. Would recommend reading up on the Adams presidency before hand (i.e. Alien and Sedition Act, XYZ affair).
Larson's writing style isn't that great, the book is very slow at times. He gives too much focus on where states stood with their electoral votes and the strategies based on that rather than the issues that influenced those votes. Would recommend reading up on the Adams presidency before hand (i.e. Alien and Sedition Act, XYZ affair).
July 18, 2021
Details of the archaic US electoral system in the 18th century make this a somewhat tedious read for non-Americans like me.
August 6, 2024
2024-25 UIL Social Studies book. Thorough but won't be something students will love reading, TBH.
June 29, 2020
In 2016, many Americans were challenged by their own "magnificent catastrophe," and turned back to history to understand what had gone wrong. I am unsure that this book provides an answer.
Larson provides a very engaging primer to the subject-matter of this era and if you ever see the book on a shelf, read it. Writing under the assumption that the audience needs an education on the Revolution and early party system, Larson writes a readable, very engaging introduction to the revolutionary generation and their party politics.
But he largely gets it wrong. He falls back on a now archaic view, one that largely takes Jefferson's Democratic-Republican populist rhetoric at face value and dismisses Adams, Hamilton and the 'Ultra' federalists as closet monarchists and the bad guys.
Larson omits to mentions that Hamilton was an idealistic member of the bourgeois, an abolitionist, and war hero who fought as Washington's protege and son, whereas Jefferson was a contradictory slaveholder and elitist aristocrat lucky to escape with his life after bungling his state's wartime defenses and nearly getting captured by Tarleton. Does this sound unfair and unbalanced? That's how it felt reading Larson's multiple one-sided diatribes against Hamilton. The Founders were highly nuanced, imperfect individuals who were crafting a modern state in a pre-modern socioeconomic world. When the 'democrats' are largely slaveholders and the 'elitists' are often self-made capitalists in Gotham, political persuasions do not neatly fit modern notions of "left" or "right".
The struggle between Federalists and the Virginian Dynasty, also known as the Democratic Republicans, that largely culminated in 1800 with the self-destructive decisions of Adams and his Federalists to turn on the 'Ultra' Hamiltonian Federalists is a fascinating tale. What it most certainly was not was monarchism v. democracy. Of Jefferson riding in on a charger to save democracy.
This book came out around the same time as Ferling's Adams v. Jefferson, but whereas Ferling fairly presented the motivations of Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson as nuanced, troubled, and always interesting characters, here Larson picks a side, and it oddly feels like the wrong one.
Larson provides a very engaging primer to the subject-matter of this era and if you ever see the book on a shelf, read it. Writing under the assumption that the audience needs an education on the Revolution and early party system, Larson writes a readable, very engaging introduction to the revolutionary generation and their party politics.
But he largely gets it wrong. He falls back on a now archaic view, one that largely takes Jefferson's Democratic-Republican populist rhetoric at face value and dismisses Adams, Hamilton and the 'Ultra' federalists as closet monarchists and the bad guys.
Larson omits to mentions that Hamilton was an idealistic member of the bourgeois, an abolitionist, and war hero who fought as Washington's protege and son, whereas Jefferson was a contradictory slaveholder and elitist aristocrat lucky to escape with his life after bungling his state's wartime defenses and nearly getting captured by Tarleton. Does this sound unfair and unbalanced? That's how it felt reading Larson's multiple one-sided diatribes against Hamilton. The Founders were highly nuanced, imperfect individuals who were crafting a modern state in a pre-modern socioeconomic world. When the 'democrats' are largely slaveholders and the 'elitists' are often self-made capitalists in Gotham, political persuasions do not neatly fit modern notions of "left" or "right".
The struggle between Federalists and the Virginian Dynasty, also known as the Democratic Republicans, that largely culminated in 1800 with the self-destructive decisions of Adams and his Federalists to turn on the 'Ultra' Hamiltonian Federalists is a fascinating tale. What it most certainly was not was monarchism v. democracy. Of Jefferson riding in on a charger to save democracy.
This book came out around the same time as Ferling's Adams v. Jefferson, but whereas Ferling fairly presented the motivations of Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson as nuanced, troubled, and always interesting characters, here Larson picks a side, and it oddly feels like the wrong one.
January 17, 2021
In the first week of November the New York Public Library emailed their newsletter that had a list of history books about past elections in the U.S.A.
While I don't read history books, they usually don't hold my attention, I wanted to learn more about American history during this divisive election time.
So I put a bunch of the books the NYPL suggested on hold for their grab-n-go service. Year of Meteors was the first to become available. A Magnificent Catastrophe was second.
I found the style very easy to read. The chapters were long but there were breaks between topics and I was able to take a break in the middle.
If you think things are crazy in politics this day and age and weren't back then - think again. (I was reminded of Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" or Battlestar Galactica's "All of this has happened before..."
I learned a lot from this book about our American forefathers and election history. The books goes into details about how electors in each state were chosen and the different possible outcomes.
It also goes into the secret caucuses, how the country became a two-party system (which was not the intention of the writers of the Constitution), and the accusations the parties threw at each other. Sound familiar?
The Sedition Act played a big role. Federalists would go after Republican publishers and imprison them until after the election. Wow, censorship even back then. (Shaking my head.)
Also learned how the Revolution in France, the war with France, and the Additional Army swayed the American voters. As did the partisan newspapers and pamphlets. I am all for free press and free speech but also, think for yourself. Don't take what the media says as truth. Do your own research.
I really enjoyed learning about this time in history. It just goes to show you that you can't be arrogant and think the time you live in is the most tumultuous or the most insane in history of the world. Humans are imperfect and history shows us that.
5 out of 5 Electoral Votes.
While I don't read history books, they usually don't hold my attention, I wanted to learn more about American history during this divisive election time.
So I put a bunch of the books the NYPL suggested on hold for their grab-n-go service. Year of Meteors was the first to become available. A Magnificent Catastrophe was second.
I found the style very easy to read. The chapters were long but there were breaks between topics and I was able to take a break in the middle.
If you think things are crazy in politics this day and age and weren't back then - think again. (I was reminded of Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" or Battlestar Galactica's "All of this has happened before..."
I learned a lot from this book about our American forefathers and election history. The books goes into details about how electors in each state were chosen and the different possible outcomes.
It also goes into the secret caucuses, how the country became a two-party system (which was not the intention of the writers of the Constitution), and the accusations the parties threw at each other. Sound familiar?
The Sedition Act played a big role. Federalists would go after Republican publishers and imprison them until after the election. Wow, censorship even back then. (Shaking my head.)
Also learned how the Revolution in France, the war with France, and the Additional Army swayed the American voters. As did the partisan newspapers and pamphlets. I am all for free press and free speech but also, think for yourself. Don't take what the media says as truth. Do your own research.
I really enjoyed learning about this time in history. It just goes to show you that you can't be arrogant and think the time you live in is the most tumultuous or the most insane in history of the world. Humans are imperfect and history shows us that.
5 out of 5 Electoral Votes.
August 12, 2018
Think we're as divided now, more than we've ever been?
Think we're headed right off a cliff, no matter which party is victorious?
Think the republic is doomed if the other party achieves its goals and imposes its agenda on the country?
You're not alone. Everyone felt this in the election of 1800--the election that pitted old friends against each other and turned them into bitter enemies, convinced of the others' nefarious plots and violent proclivities. Adams and Jefferson--confidantes and colleagues, collaborators and patriots.
Rivals for the most important position in the world--President of the United States.
At the very least, do yourself a favor and read this book. It not only helps contextualize this bitter rivalry, it also lends some historical perspective to put our own divided and turbulent troubles in the current political realm. The impact of the election of 1800 was settled in late February; the consequences of that struggle defined parties and men for the rest of the century. The political world in the US since the creation and coalescence of The Party System was nothing less than a battle for the very soul of the republic from that moment on. The confusion and calamity of the election and the process of deciding on a president led to a new definition of what the republic was AND a new Amendment to the US Constitution.
Think we're headed right off a cliff, no matter which party is victorious?
Think the republic is doomed if the other party achieves its goals and imposes its agenda on the country?
You're not alone. Everyone felt this in the election of 1800--the election that pitted old friends against each other and turned them into bitter enemies, convinced of the others' nefarious plots and violent proclivities. Adams and Jefferson--confidantes and colleagues, collaborators and patriots.
Rivals for the most important position in the world--President of the United States.
At the very least, do yourself a favor and read this book. It not only helps contextualize this bitter rivalry, it also lends some historical perspective to put our own divided and turbulent troubles in the current political realm. The impact of the election of 1800 was settled in late February; the consequences of that struggle defined parties and men for the rest of the century. The political world in the US since the creation and coalescence of The Party System was nothing less than a battle for the very soul of the republic from that moment on. The confusion and calamity of the election and the process of deciding on a president led to a new definition of what the republic was AND a new Amendment to the US Constitution.
April 22, 2020
T o say the least, I was disappointed in how repetitive the book was in that it kept going over the same issues chapter after chapter. The constant explain of the fact that each state elects electors to elect the president and vice-president. Ok I got it after chapter two. But it doesn't end there.
At times I was literally skipping pages trying to find the substance of the book where the senators were fighting about who they were going to vote for and why. However that never really happens aside from the Federalists are only going to vote for Federalists and Republicans only for Republicans....party-line voting. So the real meat of the whole issue never really comes into play. It is just one ongoing explanation of why one group doesn't trust the other and who hates whom.
Jefferson ends up winning the election because someone had to win.
I am going to try another book on this subject to see if it is more thorough and to the point. I moving on to Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 but I plan to skip around a bit as I have a good idea already about every man who had a vote in this election.
At times I was literally skipping pages trying to find the substance of the book where the senators were fighting about who they were going to vote for and why. However that never really happens aside from the Federalists are only going to vote for Federalists and Republicans only for Republicans....party-line voting. So the real meat of the whole issue never really comes into play. It is just one ongoing explanation of why one group doesn't trust the other and who hates whom.
Jefferson ends up winning the election because someone had to win.
I am going to try another book on this subject to see if it is more thorough and to the point. I moving on to Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 but I plan to skip around a bit as I have a good idea already about every man who had a vote in this election.
March 22, 2022
A deep dive into the second competitive US Presidential election, the first to involve a genuinely serious, nasty political campaign. Incumbent John Adams represented the Federalist party, in power since the nation's birth, while Thomas Jefferson aimed to step up from the Vice Presidency and initiate a sweeping turnover in favor of his Republican cohorts.
The establishment accused their challengers of being anti-wealth infidels, likening them to the revolutionaries who had only recently toppled a French regime. The upstarts saw their opponents as oppressors and monarchists, the latter being a particularly dirty word in the wake of British occupation. Both leaned heavily on the us-versus-them mentality that would typify the two-party system for the next 200+ years, but Republicans benefited from a more unified front. Where their party cooperated and concentrated their efforts, thumping a consistent message, the Federalists bickered and jockeyed for clout behind closed doors. Still, the trappings of power will always favor the current occupant. Adams and company controlled the press (using the controversial alien & sedition acts to silence many critics), exploited loopholes in the electoral process and spun an unrelated slave uprising into a direct assault upon Jefferson's corrupting influence.
It's a story full of twists, turns and last-minute bombshells, and Larson navigates it well. I’m enlightened, and disheartened, to see how little the game has changed in the generations since.
The establishment accused their challengers of being anti-wealth infidels, likening them to the revolutionaries who had only recently toppled a French regime. The upstarts saw their opponents as oppressors and monarchists, the latter being a particularly dirty word in the wake of British occupation. Both leaned heavily on the us-versus-them mentality that would typify the two-party system for the next 200+ years, but Republicans benefited from a more unified front. Where their party cooperated and concentrated their efforts, thumping a consistent message, the Federalists bickered and jockeyed for clout behind closed doors. Still, the trappings of power will always favor the current occupant. Adams and company controlled the press (using the controversial alien & sedition acts to silence many critics), exploited loopholes in the electoral process and spun an unrelated slave uprising into a direct assault upon Jefferson's corrupting influence.
It's a story full of twists, turns and last-minute bombshells, and Larson navigates it well. I’m enlightened, and disheartened, to see how little the game has changed in the generations since.
July 22, 2024
I recently re-read Chernov's Alexander Hamilton and read the Federalist Papers. This book complements those two. Today, we live in a world of hyper-partisan politics and nonstop media. In early American times, they did not have the technology we have, but human nature has not changed. You can't read this history without thinking about current events and personalities and comparing them to those of 1776 through 1800. In fact, trying to judge the founders may help you be more objective about your judgement of today's politicians.
I find the founders to have included extremely talented individuals, most of whom also had serious flaws. The short-version history we get as children tends to leave out the flaws and treat most of the founders as one-dimensional heroes and a few as villains. Thinking about Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton, I think we are fortunate to have had all of them in spite of their flaws.
It is harder to identify today's extremely talented individuals; it often seems the best end up leaving politics in disgust and we don't get to find out if they would have succeeded in the long term.
I find the founders to have included extremely talented individuals, most of whom also had serious flaws. The short-version history we get as children tends to leave out the flaws and treat most of the founders as one-dimensional heroes and a few as villains. Thinking about Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton, I think we are fortunate to have had all of them in spite of their flaws.
It is harder to identify today's extremely talented individuals; it often seems the best end up leaving politics in disgust and we don't get to find out if they would have succeeded in the long term.
April 27, 2010
Ambitious people don't always come off too well in literature, and "Magnificent Catastrophe," shows that our hallowed founding fathers were no exception.
The "Founding Fathers" are usually presented as an archetype of monolithic cohesion; high-minded patriots, with a nascent American polity's well-being the driving force behind their every action.
There is a wistful, almost universal, sentiment that says, “they just don’t make them like that anymore.”
But this book establishes that they were monolithic only in their desire for independence from England, and thereafter took radically different positions.
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edward Larson's portrayal of names as revered as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the not-so-revered, Aaron Burr or Thomas Cotesworth Pinckney, leaves hardly a hair of difference between the high- and low-minded amongst them.
These gentlemen were, in the end, politicians. And like all specimens of that species, they craved power and stepped on people to get it.
Alexander Hamilton comes off particularly bad, or good, depending on your politics.
As a member of the "high Federalist" faction, which ruled before the presidential election covered here, Larson marks him for a pro-British, almost monarchical, presence on the American political scene. A guy who managed to finagle his own standing army out of the Federalist majority and was known as “General Hamilton.”
And he wasn’t the only founder with aristocratic tendencies.
Larson writes that the aforementioned Pinckney, “fought the Revolution to preserve what he, as a South Carolina patrician, viewed as the traditional rights of Englishmen, which for him included the God-given right to enslave Africans -- a right that prewar legal developments in Britain appeared to threaten.”
"Liberty or Death!" indeed.
It comes as quite a shock, in fact, that beacons such as Hamilton, John Adams, and other Federalists in power at the time had a strong aversion to, well, democracy.
They didn't like it, feared it, figured it for a precursor to the mobs, massacres, and guillotines that were all the rage in France at the time.
In fact, they made it a practice to tar Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party (not THAT Republican Party) as "Jacobins," after the unruliest faction of the tumultuous French political scene. Much the way today's Republicans go on about the Democrats being "socialists."
There is, perhaps, something calming in all of this. A vote of confidence for those who shrug at today's Washington shenanigans, confident that our Republic shall survive this, too.
The debate so marvelously detailed here traces the pedigrees of our current political divide.
It may come as a surprise, for those who went into paroxysms over the Bush administration’s scant deference to the rule of law, that such behavior has roots in the guy gracing our ten dollar bill.
Concerned that changes in Maryland’s election law would deliver the presidency to Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton wrote a fellow Federalist, “I am aware of strong objections to the measure, but if it be true, as I suppose, that our opponents aim at revolution and employ all means to secure success, the contest must be unequal if we not only refrain from unconstitutional and criminal measures, but even from such as may offend against the routine of strict decorum.”
In blog-ese, Hamilton is saying, “If we don’t act unconstitutionally or criminally, and risk offending everyone’s sensibilities, we’ll lose the election.”
Al Hamilton, meet Karl Rove.
This book makes clear that today’s rabid partisanship is hardly a new phenomenon.
As the complex election of 18000 is being resolved, things in Washington are at fever pitch. Members of the warring parties no longer socialize as they did up in Philadelphia and Massachusetts Federalist Harrison Gray Otis writes his wife to say, “I have concluded to go to no more balls. I do not enjoy myself with these people.”
Seeking to forge some kind of bipartisan sentiment, the victorious Jefferson is obligated to point out that, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”
Sound familiar?
Well, the founders reacted in much the same way their legislative offspring do today, and they didn’t need Fox News or the Internet to slime far and wide.
Messenger on horseback was sufficient to spreading a rumor that the mostly forgotten Pinckney, a frequent and viable presidential candidate in those days, had gone to England in search of four mistresses for sharing with John Adams, who quipped in response: “If this be true, General Pinckney has kept all for himself and cheated me out of my two.”
There isn’t enough of such stuff in “Magnificent Catastrophe.” It's a dense, if worthwhile read.
That’s not Larson’s fault. The people he’s researching did what they did and said what they said, and the business of resolving the dangerous partisan rift was indeed a grim one.
In fact, “Magnificent Catastrophe,” suffers from its almost exclusive focus on the inside ball associated with the party politics that followed the death of George Washington who preferred that grand and national coalitions conduct the country’s business.
Readers may yearn for a wider portrait of America, such as that rendered in the account of John Adams’ time on the hustings, when an agrarian, English-styled nation filled with country villages surfaces, if only too briefly.
“Magnificent Catastrophe” doesn't quite live up to its grandiose title. The founding fathers’ low-brow dealings are anything but magnificent, and the catastrophe was ultimately averted.
But it is a revelatory document detailing the way presidents were chosen in the nation’s early days, and dissecting the numbers, myriad votes, and concomitant conniving employed to affect them, in a tense political season that might have doomed the country.
The "Founding Fathers" are usually presented as an archetype of monolithic cohesion; high-minded patriots, with a nascent American polity's well-being the driving force behind their every action.
There is a wistful, almost universal, sentiment that says, “they just don’t make them like that anymore.”
But this book establishes that they were monolithic only in their desire for independence from England, and thereafter took radically different positions.
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edward Larson's portrayal of names as revered as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the not-so-revered, Aaron Burr or Thomas Cotesworth Pinckney, leaves hardly a hair of difference between the high- and low-minded amongst them.
These gentlemen were, in the end, politicians. And like all specimens of that species, they craved power and stepped on people to get it.
Alexander Hamilton comes off particularly bad, or good, depending on your politics.
As a member of the "high Federalist" faction, which ruled before the presidential election covered here, Larson marks him for a pro-British, almost monarchical, presence on the American political scene. A guy who managed to finagle his own standing army out of the Federalist majority and was known as “General Hamilton.”
And he wasn’t the only founder with aristocratic tendencies.
Larson writes that the aforementioned Pinckney, “fought the Revolution to preserve what he, as a South Carolina patrician, viewed as the traditional rights of Englishmen, which for him included the God-given right to enslave Africans -- a right that prewar legal developments in Britain appeared to threaten.”
"Liberty or Death!" indeed.
It comes as quite a shock, in fact, that beacons such as Hamilton, John Adams, and other Federalists in power at the time had a strong aversion to, well, democracy.
They didn't like it, feared it, figured it for a precursor to the mobs, massacres, and guillotines that were all the rage in France at the time.
In fact, they made it a practice to tar Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party (not THAT Republican Party) as "Jacobins," after the unruliest faction of the tumultuous French political scene. Much the way today's Republicans go on about the Democrats being "socialists."
There is, perhaps, something calming in all of this. A vote of confidence for those who shrug at today's Washington shenanigans, confident that our Republic shall survive this, too.
The debate so marvelously detailed here traces the pedigrees of our current political divide.
It may come as a surprise, for those who went into paroxysms over the Bush administration’s scant deference to the rule of law, that such behavior has roots in the guy gracing our ten dollar bill.
Concerned that changes in Maryland’s election law would deliver the presidency to Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton wrote a fellow Federalist, “I am aware of strong objections to the measure, but if it be true, as I suppose, that our opponents aim at revolution and employ all means to secure success, the contest must be unequal if we not only refrain from unconstitutional and criminal measures, but even from such as may offend against the routine of strict decorum.”
In blog-ese, Hamilton is saying, “If we don’t act unconstitutionally or criminally, and risk offending everyone’s sensibilities, we’ll lose the election.”
Al Hamilton, meet Karl Rove.
This book makes clear that today’s rabid partisanship is hardly a new phenomenon.
As the complex election of 18000 is being resolved, things in Washington are at fever pitch. Members of the warring parties no longer socialize as they did up in Philadelphia and Massachusetts Federalist Harrison Gray Otis writes his wife to say, “I have concluded to go to no more balls. I do not enjoy myself with these people.”
Seeking to forge some kind of bipartisan sentiment, the victorious Jefferson is obligated to point out that, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”
Sound familiar?
Well, the founders reacted in much the same way their legislative offspring do today, and they didn’t need Fox News or the Internet to slime far and wide.
Messenger on horseback was sufficient to spreading a rumor that the mostly forgotten Pinckney, a frequent and viable presidential candidate in those days, had gone to England in search of four mistresses for sharing with John Adams, who quipped in response: “If this be true, General Pinckney has kept all for himself and cheated me out of my two.”
There isn’t enough of such stuff in “Magnificent Catastrophe.” It's a dense, if worthwhile read.
That’s not Larson’s fault. The people he’s researching did what they did and said what they said, and the business of resolving the dangerous partisan rift was indeed a grim one.
In fact, “Magnificent Catastrophe,” suffers from its almost exclusive focus on the inside ball associated with the party politics that followed the death of George Washington who preferred that grand and national coalitions conduct the country’s business.
Readers may yearn for a wider portrait of America, such as that rendered in the account of John Adams’ time on the hustings, when an agrarian, English-styled nation filled with country villages surfaces, if only too briefly.
“Magnificent Catastrophe” doesn't quite live up to its grandiose title. The founding fathers’ low-brow dealings are anything but magnificent, and the catastrophe was ultimately averted.
But it is a revelatory document detailing the way presidents were chosen in the nation’s early days, and dissecting the numbers, myriad votes, and concomitant conniving employed to affect them, in a tense political season that might have doomed the country.
December 31, 2019
First, I want to thank my friend across the hall, who is a history teacher, for this recommendation.
Now, this is the first history book I’ve ever read for pleasure, and I’m only upset that it has taken me this long to get around to them.
This book was exactly what I wanted - an intensely detailed account of how America devolved (rapidly) into a two party system, creating generations of political gridlock.
Again, this is my first departure from fiction for history, but I was blown away by the variation of sources Larson used to fully detail the partisan efforts in this elections. Some criticisms of this book cite the meandering pace created by Larson’s inclusion of countless letters and newspaper articles from the time period, but I loved it.
This is a must-read for anyone who wants to know what their high school history classes didn’t have time to tell them about. For me, I had no clue how big a role the French Revolution played in the development of our democracy.
Now, this is the first history book I’ve ever read for pleasure, and I’m only upset that it has taken me this long to get around to them.
This book was exactly what I wanted - an intensely detailed account of how America devolved (rapidly) into a two party system, creating generations of political gridlock.
Again, this is my first departure from fiction for history, but I was blown away by the variation of sources Larson used to fully detail the partisan efforts in this elections. Some criticisms of this book cite the meandering pace created by Larson’s inclusion of countless letters and newspaper articles from the time period, but I loved it.
This is a must-read for anyone who wants to know what their high school history classes didn’t have time to tell them about. For me, I had no clue how big a role the French Revolution played in the development of our democracy.
December 2, 2025
I read this book for the Social Studies UIL competition and I am so glad I did. I never took myself as a history book reader but I truly loved reading this book. I had some knowledge on the topic beforehand but this really gave me insight as to how our early government and politics worked. I found it very funny at times when the book would word things in such a way as to call out the idiocy that some people had at the time. (alexander publishing his 53 page essay about john adams i'm looking at you) I absolutely recommend it to history lovers and anyone who is curious about the time period. I will say it can be a harder read for those who aren't as familiar with the older English style of writing, I myself did have some trouble reading it for the first time, but audiobooks are a great help.
March 31, 2022
A Magnificent Catastrophe tells us about yet another nightmare in American history that we don’t know well enough.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went head to head in the first presidential campaign that was based on party politics and partisan venality and telling lies for political advantage.
In other words, just like today.
The election outcome in 1800 wasn’t clear cut—the politicians were at each other’s throats, and the public interest was lost in the shuffling.
Politics started getting its bad name more than 200 years ago.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
www.richardsubber.com
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went head to head in the first presidential campaign that was based on party politics and partisan venality and telling lies for political advantage.
In other words, just like today.
The election outcome in 1800 wasn’t clear cut—the politicians were at each other’s throats, and the public interest was lost in the shuffling.
Politics started getting its bad name more than 200 years ago.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
www.richardsubber.com
September 8, 2024
Thoroughly researched, Larson does a wonderful job bringing to life the election of 1800 and what for the US really was the first presidential campaign. He explains the circumstances leading to the development of the first political parties, how the lines were drawn, and who the key players were. Larson makes an election from over 200 years ago exciting and suspenseful, even though we know how it turns out. While I love history and politics, I had no idea how much intrigue was involved. It also showed just how our modern voting system evolved and why our Presidential elections work the way they do.
May 13, 2022
This is a personal favorite of mine in the category of America history. I always recommend this book to people who think the current political environment is toxic and appalling - a great reminder that there have been times were the political environment was significantly worse. Read your history! For students of political science - this is a great read on how elections were structured in early 19th Century America - where state Legislatures played a significant role in selecting members of Congress and Electoral College. Love, love this book!
October 13, 2023
If you like US political history, this book is for you. Most of us know about the Jefferson/Burr election but I was unaware of all the intrigue and campaigning associated with it. I was always under the impression that office seekers in that era stayed out of the limelight. I had no idea of the organization of the political parties or the strategies used to get their leader into office. Very well written and easy to follow and understand
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews