Adams' second term

[Lost the game]

How might we make John Adams a two-term president? Perhaps no Alien and Sedition Acts? Maybe the High Federalists have more sense and side with Adams, and Hamilton has the sense to back Adams? If this happens, what is the result? Maybe the Quasi-War continues? Maybe the US is seen to side with Britain in the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars? What happens with New Orleans? Is it still closed, or closed earlier? Assuming Toussaint L'Overture's rebellion succeeds, does Adams figure that he can get away with grabbing Louisiana? Maybe instead of a Louisiana Purchase we have a War of 1803, also known as the Louisiana Land Grab? Does this butterfly the War of 1812?

Edit: the Search Function has been uncooperative, so I've posted this as a new thread.

 

[Tyg]

This is hard, as the Federalists were split (as you mentioned), and Adams really was not a great unifying leader.

The best bet is (somehow) to get Hamilton and Adams to either reconcile or avoid clashing to the same degree, presenting a stronger Federalist political position. At best, that might mean more confidence in the stability of the government and constitutional authorities, preempting or greatly watering-down the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Of course, a stronger Adams administration also might be more confident in dealings with France, which could lead to a serious enough French provocation for a formal declaration of war. If such a thing occurs towards the end of Adam's first term, successful battles and anger at France might just be enough to re-elect him. From that point, one can imagine Napoleon washing his hands of Louisiana, maybe for at least a token US payment.

The wrinkle in all this (aside from getting Hamilton, Adams, and their egos in the same room) is that war with France would need a genuinely rousing causus belli that overrides sympathies with France enough for national unity.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

How might we make John Adams a two-term president? Perhaps no Alien and Sedition Acts? Maybe the High Federalists have more sense and side with Adams, and Hamilton has the sense to back Adams? If this happens, what is the result? Maybe the Quasi-War continues? Maybe the US is seen to side with Britain in the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars? What happens with New Orleans? Is it still closed, or closed earlier? Assuming Toussaint L'Overture's rebellion succeeds, does Adams figure that he can get away with grabbing Louisiana? Maybe instead of a Louisiana Purchase we have a War of 1803, also known as the Louisiana Land Grab? Does this butterfly the War of 1812?

Edit: the Search Function has been uncooperative, so I've posted this as a new thread.

In order for Adams to get a second term we need to go back to Washington's first term and have a different relationship evolve between Adams and Hamilton. As the two largest egos in any given room they were bound to but heads but from a philosophical perspective they were much closer together than Adams and Jefferson. So if you go that far back you can keep the Federalist Party unified if you do that, then possibly with Hamilton backing Adams as Party leader there is a possibility they have enough force to block the Alien and Sedition Acts (these were bound to come up, and no amount of butterflies can get rid of them; The D-R fascination, especially Jefferson's, with the Directory is well recorded, and is one of the causes of the acts) and therefore, possibly, continuing Adams administration. Adams later wrote he disagreed with the Acts but signed them because of Party pressure at least according his modern biographer David McCullough. So I tend to believe McCullough so I think they don't pass in this scenario.

As to the Quasi-War, Adams was for reconciliation (rightly so), and I think his experience with the French during the ARW was crucial to his handling of the situation. Now if you can avoid a party split over this issue I think it is masterful. You could use handwavium and simply get rid of Napoleon or Robespierre and have Louis agree to the 1791? (IIRC) constitution, but that is no fun so lets do it the hard way. In a scenario where Adams and Hamilton are closer together because of intellectual sympathies could see Adams convincing Hamilton to basically "can it." Both were notorious Anglo-philes and would have natural animosity but both were also rather pragmatic so I think Adams could possibly cajole Hamilton along provided the relationship was in such a position to make that possible, as well as giving him that Army post he wanted, and refusing to appoint Aaron Burr.

The War of 1812 and the Quasi-War are not directly related, The British invasion of New Orleans was a response to American Embargoes, the invasion of Canada, and the defeat of Napoleon. Adams would not invade Canada and Napoleon would not be defeated yet; I think an embargo is still likely and just as ruinous economically. Keep in mind that Louisiana in 1800 would still be nominally Spanish so an invasion of Spanish Louisiana is not likely because Spain is a nominal English Ally at this point (Napoleon does not invade the Peninsula until 1804, IIRC). As for Haiti, it depends does Yellow Fever breakout? If so Toussaint wins? and no Adams would not recognize an independent Haiti just as Jefferson didn't and more for political reasons than ideological.

btw, the search function hardly ever works right. This topic pops up occasionally, to my knowledge not lately, but being an Early Republican I love to talk about it. That is all that comes to mind right now.

 

[Evan]

I remember there was a thread on this several months back... Ah, Google is our friend.

As I said in my second post, I did a bit of research and saw that it'd actually be quite easy for Adams to win. You'd just need to flip five votes in the Electoral College, which could easily come from Pennsylvania, New York, or South Carolina. All those states' electors were appointed by their legislatures. In Pennsylvania, the two houses were deadlocked for weeks before finally compromising on a split ticket; I'm not quite sure about South Carolina or New York, but I seem to recall the Republicans won narrow majorities there. Aaron Burr, who'd previously been disenchanted with the Republicans over losing the 1796 election, was instrumental in winning the New York majority; perhaps if he isn't nominated for Vice-President, he wouldn't help?

 

[GreatScottMarty]

The Election of 1800 comes down to Hamilton-Adams relationship. If Hamilton backs Adams instead of Pinckney then Adams wins outright; most likely with Jefferson as VP again. IOTL's 1800 Pinckney gets 64 EC Votes and Adams gets 65 throw those together then Adams wins handily or even give half to Adams and he still wins, then debate comes down to Jefferson or Burr for VP. Once the election went to the House Hamilton chose to support Jefferson over Burr simply because he was the lesser of two evils. The fact that Hamilton refused to release the Representatives that wanted to back Burr is one of the many things that lead to his downfall (of course their were many others, Reynolds, Alien and Sedition, his machinations against Adams, etc).

As to the three states mentioned South Carolina went pretty solidly for Pinckney, Pennsylvania ended up as you said correctly compromising on a Burr Jefferson ticket (with I believe Burr as the headliner), for one big reason the Whiskey Tax and the Whiskey rebellion which was centered in Pennsylvania; in those days the only way to get grain to market was to turn it into whiskey (easier to transport and of course damned popular), so when the Federalists instituted Hamilton's financial plan, the Western Pennsylvania farmers got pissed and rebelled. Sure the Federals won but sour feelings remained and probably where enough to cost Adams that state. New York swung towards Burr because Hamilton had managed to alienate the Livingston faction (how exactly I don't remember I think it was when Philip Schuyler lost his Senate seat, but I am unsure) which next to the Schuyler faction was the strongest faction in state politics. Burr enlisted their support and managed to sway the workers of Manhattan to his cause and while he lost the Governor's race to John Jay he managed to return a Republican majority to the New York Assembly and therefore secured himself their EC votes.

Once the Election reached the House, Hamilton had no choice but to support Jefferson considering his feelings about the others and the fact that his chosen candidate was not on the ballot. If Hamilton and Adams are more friendly you avoid the whole situation altogether and 1800 is very different, hence why I went that way.

As to some grand bargain between Jefferson and Burr there is no evidence one actually existed.

 

[benjamin]

If we take it as a given that Adams and Hamilton have reconciled and that the Alien and Sedition Acts are either aborted or stillborn than we can probably save the Federalist cause and give Adams a second term. This I can agree with, but while Adams may have been predisposed towards working towards a peaceful solution with France, I don't see it happening. The alliance with France had been a devil's bargain from the start. American's distrusted the French, especially after their back room dealings with the Spanish during the negotiations in Paris following the Revolution. Once the French Republic was dead and Napoleon came to power the last tenuous connections and trans-Atlantic sympathies died. It took Jefferson too long to realize this and the US economy suffered through the embargo.

Which leads me to say...there will be no embargo. The Federalist power base was in the northeast and with the merchant class to, so enact an embargo would be near political suicide. More likely the Quasi War would worsen until Adams finally said "The hell with the French." War would probably be declared on France in 1801 or 1802 and there would be an immediate move to occupy New Orleans. This being said, expect some sort of deal being worked out with Britain to open British ports to American trade (a far more profitable move than any foolish embargo and would lead to an even greater expansion of America's already substantial merchant marine).

While there would be no Americans in Europe, joint Anglo-American operations in the Caribbean and the Med. are a distinct possibility. In the end I expect Napoleon to dangle all of Louisiana out as a pay-off to end the war and the US will take it. But US ports will remain open to the British and any hope of a new Napoleonic Empire in the New World will be forever crushed. There will be no War of 1812 and its possible Spain too will be cut out of the Americas as her colonies revolt, thus having a de facto Monroe Doctrine two decades early.

Benjamin

 

[Evan]

IOTL's 1800 Pinckney gets 64 EC Votes and Adams gets 65 throw those together then Adams wins handily or even give half to Adams and he still wins, then debate comes down to Jefferson or Burr for VP.

I think you're misunderstanding the electoral system back then, before the 12th Amendment. Then, electors voted for two people without distinguishing which one was President and which Vice-President; the second-place finisher became Vice-President. So, you can't give Pickney's 64 votes to Adams, because they were coming from the same electors who also voted for Adams.

Pennsylvania ended up as you said correctly compromising on a Burr Jefferson ticket (with I believe Burr as the headliner), for one big reason

Yes, the people did support Jefferson and Burr. (Again, there was no "headliner".) But it was the legislature that chose the electors; you can get a different result there without changing one whit of popular support. Right?

New York swung towards Burr because...

Interesting; thanks.

If we take it as a given that Adams and Hamilton have reconciled and that the Alien and Sedition Acts are either aborted or stillborn than we can probably save the Federalist cause and give Adams a second term.

I'm still lobbing for a PoD in the Pennsylvania legislative standdown or maybe New York. I don't think we need to abandon the Alien and Sedition Acts - and President Adams not getting repudiated at the polls, even with a Republican sweep in Congress as iOTL, would have dramatic consequences on free speech law down the road. For that matter, without a change in administration coming up, Adams very well might not appoint Marshall to the Supreme Court! And there won't be any Marbury to sue for a writ of mandamus, so judicial review will not be established. Even if it does get dragged out later, it'll have much less support. iOTL, the next case to strike down a Federal law was Dred Scott - so we might see judicial review abandoned altogether after the Civil War.

On foreign affairs... I think your analysis is correct, except the US/Britain would have already seized Louisiana (or at least New Orleans, which leaves the rest of the territory open for us to grab whenever we want), so Napoleon wouldn't have it to offer as a bribe to end the war. This'd leave us with a much closer relationship with Britain and more European entanglements, which would have grave consequences down the road. Of course, this's assuming the Federalists win again in 1804 (I'm assuming Adams would follow Washington's precedent of retiring after two terms?); I'm still not sure about that.

 

[V-J]

This'd leave us with a much closer relationship with Britain and more European entanglements, which would have grave consequences down the road.

You think Britain sitting in New Orleans (Which I agree is likely if it isn't sold) would lead to a closer relationship with the US? Well, good luck with that when trade on the Mississippi gets going in the 1820s. (if not before then.)

 

[Evan]

You think Britain sitting in New Orleans (Which I agree is likely if it isn't sold) would lead to a closer relationship with the US? Well, good luck with that when trade on the Mississippi gets going in the 1820s, if not before then.

I'm assuming it goes to the US in the end, in return for Britain getting a good chunk of Upper Louisiana (and whatever they get in the Mediterranean.) Otherwise, the Federalists are going to have literal revolution on their hands throughout the Ohio-Tennessee River Valleys.

 

[benjamin]

Actually, if Britain allowed free and open access along the entire length of the Mississippi then there may not be much of a problem. The US wanted New Orleans so badly because Spain charged high duties for ships traveling the river and high fees for use of warehouses in New Orleans. It may end up with Britain retaining the "Isle of New Orleans" (this is the small sliver of land east of the river and south of Lake Pontchartrain) as a "Hong Kong in North America" sort of thing. So long as Anglo-American relations remain good this good work.

Of course this would have major repercussions later on as the issue of slavery increased sectional differences. Holding New Orleans would tie British interests much closer to the Southern economy, while somewhat weakening the South by robbing them of their largest city. If Britain outlaws slavery prior to the ACW then the South is screwed (this is likely, but British emancipation may be pushed back a little due to butterflies and economic ties).

Benjamin

 

[GreatScottMarty]

I think you're misunderstanding the electoral system back then, before the 12th Amendment. Then, electors voted for two people without distinguishing which one was President and which Vice-President; the second-place finisher became Vice-President. So, you can't give Pickney's 64 votes to Adams, because they were coming from the same electors who also voted for Adams.

No I understand it just fine you pick two people and then who ever gets the most is President second most is Vice President. From Wikipedia:

Under the original procedure for the Electoral College, as provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, each elector could cast two votes. Each elector could not vote for two people inhabiting the same state as that elector. This prohibition was designed to keep electors from voting for two "favorite sons" of their respective states.[3] If exactly one person received a vote from a majority of the electors, that person won the election.
If there was more than one individual who received a vote from a majority of the electors, the House of Representatives would choose one of them to be President. If no individual had a majority, then the House of Representatives would choose from the five individuals with the greatest number of electoral votes. In either case, a majority of state delegations in the House was necessary for a candidate to be chosen to be President.
Selecting the Vice President was a simpler process. Whichever candidate received the greatest number of votes, except for the one elected President, became Vice President. The Vice President, unlike the President, did not require the votes of a majority of electors. In the event of a tie for second place between multiple candidates, the Senate would choose one of them to be Vice President, with each Senator casting one vote. It was not specified in the Constitution whether the sitting Vice President could cast a tie-breaking vote for Vice President under the original formula.


Therefore, remove Pinckney from the equation and you can make a logical assumption that at least some of those votes would go to Adams. Why? Because those are Federalist voters who were removed from Adams column because of Hamilton's influence. These voters didn't all necessarily pick Pinckney and Adams or Pinckney and XXXX but if there is no Pinckney then it is possible for them to vote Adams and XXXX there fore possibly swinging the election to Adams.

Yes, the people did support Jefferson and Burr. (Again, there was no "headliner".) But it was the legislature that chose the electors; you can get a different result there without changing one whit of popular support. Right?

In this case there was a top guy, not by electoral math, but by consensus. Southern Republicans wanted Jefferson as President and Northern Republicans preferred Burr, hence the problem in Pennsylvania. Was there some sort of corrupt deal or something? There does not appear to be any evidence but I do believe that Jefferson and Burr campaigned with the agreement of Jefferson as President Burr as V.P. and some Electors saw it differently (probably in Pennsylvania).

As to popular support, I don't think Adams can gain any popularity he is personally abrasive and difficult to get along with and is closely identified with Federalist policies due to his writings, public comments, and his votes (he did sign the Acts remember, and discreetly agreed with the removal of Gallatin from the Senate) also he supported the Whiskey Tax and the Bank among other things. Adams is just not a popular guy, among the people and the looser the property requirement the less likely Adams is to get votes.

Interesting; thanks.

Your welcome.

 

[Evan]

Therefore, remove Pinckney from the equation and you can make a logical assumption that at least some of those votes would go to Adams. Why? Because those are Federalist voters who were removed from Adams column because of Hamilton's influence. These voters didn't all necessarily pick Pinckney and Adams or Pinckney and XXXX but if there is no Pinckney then it is possible for them to vote Adams and XXXX there fore possibly swinging the election to Adams.

Except Pickney was the official Federalist choice for Vice-President, not some Hamiltonian insurgent. In the Electoral College, every elector who voted for Pickney also voted for Adams - so Adams can't pick up any more votes from Pickney.

There does not appear to be any evidence but I do believe that Jefferson and Burr campaigned with the agreement of Jefferson as President Burr as V.P. and some Electors saw it differently (probably in Pennsylvania).

Oh - an unofficial understanding. I can definitely believe that.

As to popular support, I don't think Adams can gain any popularity he is personally abrasive and difficult to get along with

Right... But we're talking about the electoral college, where it's barely possible...

 

[Fish]

I could be wrong, but if Gov. Jay had followed Hamilton's "gerrymandering" plan for New York I thought Adams could have won enough electoral votes in NY to win a second term.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

Except Pickney was the official Federalist choice for Vice-President, not some Hamiltonian insurgent. In the Electoral College, every elector who voted for Pickney also voted for Adams - so Adams can't pick up any more votes from Pickney.

Wikipedia seems to give that impression I was under a different impression from paper sources. Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton gives this impression as does McCullough's John Adams, not to mention John Adams personally blamed Hamilton. So I am done quibbling I will acknowledge that there are multiple ways to get Adams a second term but I do believe the best is to shore up his own support in the party.

 

[Evan]

Wikipedia seems to give that impression I was under a different impression from paper sources.

I have a paper source that supports my view, too. There was a lot of infighting, but in the end, I'm under the impression that all the electors did support either Adams or Jefferson-Burr.

So I am done quibbling I will acknowledge that there are multiple ways to get Adams a second term but I do believe the best is to shore up his own support in the party.

Sure, I suppose it could be possible. His declining support sure didn't help him... and having Hamilton on his side might gain him a few deals in New York, at least.