A Different Election of 1800

From what I've heard, by 1800 the Federalists and Republicans had established a system where they'd each nominate two candidates, one for president and the other for vice president. In the previous two elections, each party had more than two candidates. With more than two, there wasn't a risk of them all receiving a majority, with the same number of electoral votes. With two, it was very easy for a slip-up to result in two candidates getting the same number of electoral votes, which is exactly what happened in 1800. IIRC, the plan was for one of the electors to cast one of their votes for someone else.

How could the same sort of precedent of the past two elections remain, with each party having more than two candidates? Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of that period could enlighten me.
 
The best way is probably to engineer a split among the Federalists between Adams men and Hamilton men, or at least a more severe and public split; then have Burr decline to be the VP nominee (in OTL he was planning on running for Governor of New York, which would have been a sure thing for him, but was wheedled into standing as VP for Jefferson instead. So you get a couple of people angling for the second spot among the D-R's. Jefferson surely wins but the VP could be nearly anyone.
 
The best way is probably to engineer a split among the Federalists between Adams men and Hamilton men, or at least a more severe and public split; then have Burr decline to be the VP nominee (in OTL he was planning on running for Governor of New York, which would have been a sure thing for him, but was wheedled into standing as VP for Jefferson instead. So you get a couple of people angling for the second spot among the D-R's. Jefferson surely wins but the VP could be nearly anyone.

The first part is actually what happens in the TL I'm Working On™. If Burr declines the VP nomination, who would likely be Jefferson's running-mates?
 
Charles Pinckney (second cousin of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney) would be one, and won't that make for a fun family reunion. Jefferson believes, probably correctly, that he needs a Northerner, preferably a New Yorker, and his options are few -
 
Charles Pinckney (second cousin of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney) would be one, and won't that make for a fun family reunion. Jefferson believes, probably correctly, that he needs a Northerner, preferably a New Yorker, and his options are few -

George Clinton, perhaps?
 
As Shawn says, the split is the best bet. At the time of 1796, Federalism was a strong party in the North (NE and NY) and had support in both SC and Virginia (although not much in Virginia with the retirement of Washington). The swing state was Pennsylvania. Adams got a few more votes there and thus became Pres.

IN 1800 the same thing happens except Burr pulls off more votes from Adams thus Adams finishes third and Burr and Jefferson are TIED. Burr declines Federalist support and as was the plan between him and Jefferson Burr accepts the VP nomination. Although if Burr were more duplicitous he would have been taken the Federal offer. Hamilton's machinations are highly overrated; he did sink Adams but he did not give Jefferson the Presidency most of the Federalists ignored him and wanted Burr.

As for Governor Burr don't underestimate John Jay, he was hugely popular in NY and drafted their Constitution and had held numerous positions in New York throughout the Revolution and afterwards in addition to his jobs in National Politics. Jay was seen as sensible and practical while Burr was scene as young and ambitious.

I don't think Charles Pinckney is your man. For one he was Federalist until the 1800 election and the Alien and Sedition acts showed the bankruptcy of the party. He proposed one of the more "Federalist" propositions for the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention and secured a Pro-Federalist treaty securing navigation rights to the Mississippi with Spain. He was even Federalist Governor of SC from 1792-1794. So I don't think that is a good choice.

George Clinton OTOH is probably your best bet he is nationally known and has a good machine established in New York. He was personally popular in the state and had helped get Burr elected. The downside is his age and that he is beginning to dodder, although at this point in time this is an advantage.

Two more names to look up, Nathaniel Lyon Senator from Vermont and Elbridge Gerry. Lyon is famous for opposing Adams on the Senate floor repeatedly and getting into a fist fight with, IIRC, the Federalist Senator Theodore Sedgwick of Mass. Elbridge Gerry, signer of the Constitution of Declaration of Independence, negotiated the treaty with France ending the Quasi-war, Congressman, Senator and again respected in the establishment. Also IOTL Gerry was MAdison's VP in his 2nd term (he died in 1816 during the term).
 
Albert Gallatin - not a New Yorker, but a Northerner at least. Gerry is beginning to be senile and was widely viewed as corrupt even when he still had his full faculties, but hey, that doesn't stop him from running.

Nate Lyon would be interesting. I would think the fistfight would make national opinion of him rather low though.

Jay is a very controversial figure after his Treaty in 1795. He lost the 1800 election for Governor by a landslide OTL to George Clinton, he would have lost it to Burr by a similar margin. On a national scale, I think Clinton is merely known, not respected - I can't imagine he could carry more than his home of New York, not that New York is nothing.
 
Jay is a very controversial figure after his Treaty in 1795. He lost the 1800 election for Governor by a landslide OTL to George Clinton, he would have lost it to Burr by a similar margin. On a national scale, I think Clinton is merely known, not respected - I can't imagine he could carry more than his home of New York, not that New York is nothing.

In the TL, Jay is probably going to be the presidential candidate of the High Federalists, the group that breaks away from the Federalist Party.
 
Albert Gallatin - not a New Yorker, but a Northerner at least. Gerry is beginning to be senile and was widely viewed as corrupt even when he still had his full faculties, but hey, that doesn't stop him from running.

Nate Lyon would be interesting. I would think the fistfight would make national opinion of him rather low though.

Jay is a very controversial figure after his Treaty in 1795. He lost the 1800 election for Governor by a landslide OTL to George Clinton, he would have lost it to Burr by a similar margin. On a national scale, I think Clinton is merely known, not respected - I can't imagine he could carry more than his home of New York, not that New York is nothing.

Albert Gallatin is no eligible he was born in Switzerland and can't be President. Jefferson and Madison always claimed the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed with him in mind.

Whatever votes Lyon loses in the establishment he gets you in the new western states who may not have a hard time with his fist fight, one thing to consider that time was not a time of 24 hr 365 campaign people could actually govern so I think Lyon's fight may be forgotten by some or you have good slogan, "Jefferson and the fightin Lyon, they'll punch those Federalists right outta Congress" :).

As for Jay, I would have to go back and look but I believe that it had more to do with Federalist divisions than with the Treaty. Although that Treaty would certainly doom him on the National scene and think Hamilton's high Federalists are smart enough to know that, May I suggest Timothy Pickering instead.
 
Gallatin came to the US in 1780 but didn't become a citizen until a few years later - after 1784. I don't know if he was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted in June 1788. If he wasn't, Morgan could simply insert his becoming as citizen prior to that date as a hidden POD.
 
Last edited:
Gallatin came to the US in 1780 but didn't become a citizen until a few years later - after 1784. I don't know if he was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted in June 1788. If he wasn't, Morgan could simply insert his becoming as citizen prior to that date as a hidden POD.
 
Gallatin came to the US in 1780 but didn't become a citizen until a few years later - after 1784. I don't know if he was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted in June 1788. If he wasn't, Morgan could simply insert his becoming as citizen prior to that date as a hidden POD.
wiki said:
In 1793, Gallatin won election to the United States Senate. When the Third Congress opened on December 2, 1793, he took the oath of office, but, on that same day, nineteen Pennsylvania Federalists filed a protest with the Senate that Gallatin did not have the minimum nine years of citizenship required to be a senator. The petition was sent to committee, which duly reported that Gallatin had not been a citizen for the required period. Gallatin rebutted the committee report, noting his unbroken residence of thirteen years in the United States, his 1785 oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth of Virginia, his service in the Pennsylvania legislature, and his substantial property holdings in the United States. The report and Gallatin's rebuttal were sent to a second committee. This committee also reported that Gallatin should be removed. The matter then went before the full Senate where Gallatin was removed in a party-line vote of 14–12.

1793-9 is 1784, so I assume that that's where you get the 'after 1784'.

Hmmm....
Interestingly, it doesn't look like he HAD taken out citizenship in any specific act by then.
op cit said:

So he must have been deemed a citizen by then. Hmmm....


Assuming his 1785 oath of allegiance to Virginia counts, then he was a citizen before the Constitution was adopted. By 1794 or 95 he has the required 14 years of residency, and by '96 he has reached the requisite 35 years of age.

So... I suspect he could be President (constitutionally) any time from '96 on. Unless there is some 'naturalization ceremony' between '93 (when he tried for the Senate) and '95 (when he was elected to the House).
 
Well, what specific and deliberate act is required to declare yourself a citizen of a nation with no recognized legal existence yet? I would think that the oath of allegiance to Virginia qualifies as the event which made him a citizen. I believe his exclusion was partisan politics and nothing more.
 
I can't say I knew about the Oath to Virignia. I stand corrected, I think that qualifies him. Either way, Lord Grattan presented a solution. So the point is now moot.

Anyone look at the constitution? Paraphrasing: live here for 7 years you can serve in the House, 14 in the Senate, if born before 1789, you have to have lived here for 14 years as a citizen of a state that now constitutes the United States. Does this include an Oath of Allegiance? I bet a D-R judge would say yes, but a Federalist Senate says no. So yes, I think Shawn basically hit it on the head Partisan politics at it's finest. Although it is worth noting, Gallatin never served higher than Treasury Secretary and never ran for the Presdency

One thing, Dathi which Wiki are you using? I read his entry on Wikipedia.com and it says nothing about any Oath to Virginia? It says he lived in the Northeast beginning in Boston in 1780.
 
Gallatin probably had little personal interest in the office, but had a close personal friendship with Jefferson. If TJ asks him to run as a personal favor, he will. And the assertion that national office is "higher" is at this time a partisan position ;) Gallatin's control over the machinery of the State of Pennsylvania was something impressive. He probably just wanted to keep running the State that had become his adopted home.
 
Doesn't the Constitution specify that anybody living in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution (with the obvious exceptions) is a citizen?
 
Top