WI: Adams wins in 1800

What does it take and what would happen during a second term for Adams?

One thing I understood about John Adams is that he was relatively moderate among Federalists and Hamilton repeatedly intrigued to replace him with a more pliable president, a puppet of his own, possibly costing Adams a reelection. Could an earlier death of Hamilton ensure Adams makes it in either New York and Pennsylvania and win?
 
David Tenner would probably be the best person to ask, as that man is a wizard when it comes to electoral statistics and such; I've been in awe of him since the SHWI days.

That being said, Hamilton certainly did his best to sink Adams, as the two feuded over many issues, including Hamilton's desire to go to war with France among over things. Mainly Hamilton just felt Adams to be too independent and wanted more influence in the administration and hoped to swing the vote to someone more open to his 'advice.' One of the major factors that hurt Adams was one of Hamilton's long letters that fell into the hands of a Democratic-Republican operative and greatly embarrassed Adams after it was published.

Now, if we remove Hamilton from the election somehow (lets say he comes down ill and isn't able to politic for the duration of the election) and thereby remove that published letter from history as well as many of Hamilton's efforts to weaken Adams, that I would say the President has a chance. However, there are still some very big obstacles for Adams to overcome if he hopes to gain a second term. Primarily, many of his policies weren't all that popular. The Alien and Sedition Acts, for instance, provided a wonderful point of attack for Jefferson against the Adam's administration, as did Adam's support of the Jay Treaty. Furthermore, in OTL, Jefferson won 61.4 percent of the popular vote to Adam's 38.6 which is a pretty large margin that we have to overcome.

There is one very interesting possibility here, though: New York at the time chose its electors in the legislature, which had been a Federalist stronghold. The Democratic-Republicans pushed for a change in the rules that would allow for the popular vote of Electors by District, since they felt they had no chance to gain control of the Legislature. When the Federalists refused, the Republicans used this as a campaign issue and carried off an upset, gaining a 2 seat majority and were, therefore, able to throw New York's electoral vote to Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

So, we could either have the Federalists agree to elect electors by the popular vote which might win enough goodwill that Adams carries the state. Or, we might also have the Republicans fail to exploit the issue and, although making gains, the Federalists remain in control of the Legislature and give the vote to Adams. In either case, with that shift of 12 votes, Adams wins the election.

But, what about the popular vote? What would be the impact of Adams winning the Electoral College while Jefferson wins the popular vote? Would Jefferson carry through on his threat to march the Virginia state militia on Washington DC if he lost? The early Republic was a pretty chaotic time as Americans adapted the Constitution and tried to come to some consensus about how the government should operate. Any of these scenarios could lead to some very interesting ramifications in the long run.
 
I'm not sure popular vote is significant that much since a number of states had their electors appointed by the state legislatures, counting at least (as I read it) Georgia, Massachussetts, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, not to mention the case of New York you refered to.

I'm also interested in potential consequences of an Adams second term on the perspectives of the Federalists (in the hypothese of Hamilton removed, ie dead), with the possibility of Adams to fill in the void left by Hamilton and transform this party in something durable.

EDIT: Would the Louisiana Purchase still happen under Adams or be delayed?
Also, could an earlier treaty of Mortefontaine (some months early, in time for news to arrive and impact the election) improve Adams chance in the election?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure popular vote is significant that much since a number of states had their electors appointed by the state legislatures, counting at least (as I read it) Georgia, Massachussetts, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, not to mention the case of New York you refered to.

I'm also interested in potential consequences of an Adams second term on the perspectives of the Federalists (in the hypothese of Hamilton removed, ie dead), with the possibility of Adams to fill in the void left by Hamilton and transform this party in something durable.

EDIT: Would the Louisiana Purchase still happen under Adams or be delayed?
Also, could an earlier treaty of Mortefontaine (some months early, in time for news to arrive and impact the election) improve Adams chance in the election?

There was certainly less expectation in the first few elections that the Electoral College would have to match the popular vote. However, this is also the early Democratic-Republican Party under Jefferson we are talking about, which made one of its primary creeds the need for a more Republican government. Jefferson also had mobilized the Virginia militia and threatened to march on DC if he lost;

Here is a quote from the Smithsonian about the election of 1800:

For weeks, warnings had circulated of drastic consequences if Republicans were denied the presidency. Now that danger seemed palpable. A shaken President Adams was certain the two sides had come to the “precipice” of disaster and that “a civil war was expected.” There was talk that Virginia would secede if Jefferson were not elected. Some Republicans declared they would convene another constitutional convention to restructure the federal government so that it reflected the “democratical spirit of America.” It was rumored that a mob had stormed the arsenal in Philadelphia and was preparing to march on Washington to drive the defeated Federalists from power. Jefferson said he could not restrain those of his supporters who threatened “a dissolution” of the Union. He told Adams that many Republicans were prepared to use force to prevent the Federalists’ “legislative usurpation” of the executive branch.
- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...aron-burr-and-the-election-of-1800-131082359/

If Adams wins without the popular vote, there could be a whole host of trouble for the nation; even if tensions settle to the point where there isn't a sparking of major violence.

Now, if Adams wins both the Electoral College and the popular vote, I do think he would work to make the Federalists a ore functioning party or, at least, bring in those who could do so. One of Adam's biggest mistake during his term was never really bringing his own team together and, instead, relying largely on Washington's cabinet until it fell apart. By the end of his Presidency he seems to have realized many of his errors and, if he has any room to maneuver during a potential second term I think he would correct as many of those mistakes as possible.
 
But, what about the popular vote? What would be the impact of Adams winning the Electoral College while Jefferson wins the popular vote? Would Jefferson carry through on his threat to march the Virginia state militia on Washington DC if he lost? The early Republic was a pretty chaotic time as Americans adapted the Constitution and tried to come to some consensus about how the government should operate. Any of these scenarios could lead to some very interesting ramifications in the long run.

His threat wasn't to march the Virginia militia on Washington if he lost, his threat was to march the Virginia militia on Washington if Adams called a special session of the lame duck Federalist Senate which then elected a Federalist president pro tempore who would succeed to the Presidency as the House dithered in partisan politics and Jefferson's term of office as the Vice President (and President of the Senate, and thus second in line to the Presidency if no validly elected President was available) ended in March. Jefferson didn't object to losing, he objected to a legalistic Federalist coup de tat in an election where the Republicans clearly and powerfully won. He did say he would reluctantly stand down if Burr was chosen.

If Adams wins the popular vote and the electoral vote, the Republicans (and Jefferson) probably just continue doing what they had already been doing: campaigning hard against his program with an eye on 1804.
 
Addams in 1800!

quimby.jpg

For a creepier America!
 
His threat wasn't to march the Virginia militia on Washington if he lost, his threat was to march the Virginia militia on Washington if Adams called a special session of the lame duck Federalist Senate which then elected a Federalist president pro tempore who would succeed to the Presidency as the House dithered in partisan politics and Jefferson's term of office as the Vice President (and President of the Senate, and thus second in line to the Presidency if no validly elected President was available) ended in March. Jefferson didn't object to losing, he objected to a legalistic Federalist coup de tat in an election where the Republicans clearly and powerfully won. He did say he would reluctantly stand down if Burr was chosen.

If Adams wins the popular vote and the electoral vote, the Republicans (and Jefferson) probably just continue doing what they had already been doing: campaigning hard against his program with an eye on 1804.

True, and thanks for the clarification. I had always heard of the story of Jefferson and it was never in the proper context. However, the quote I included in my initial post seems to be indicate that there might still be some significant social and political problems for Adams if he secures a second term, especially if he manages to do so without a popular vote mandate. Now, that might not play out in the favor of the Democratic-Republics. If we end up with a group of Democratic-Republicans staging a Rising, and effectively end up with an isolated second Whiskey Revolt in response to Adams winning, that might well hurt the Republicans in the long run. The point is, at this point, the peaceful transition of power had not been established yet and, with the heightened tensions that existed in 1800, the US might be facing some major issues.
 
Keep the New York legislature from going for the Democratic-Republicans, and New York casts its EV for the Federalists, giving them victory. To do this, I would say you need to keep Burr from campaigning as hard as he did in New York - a convenient illness, perhaps?

If Adams wins the popular vote and the electoral vote,

The popular vote didn't matter in 1800, when very few states had elections for their electors and when the number of states which did this had, in fact, shrunk in comparison to 1796.
 
An old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

***

More plausible scenarios for an Adams victory in 1800, IMO, center on New
York:

(1) The Federalists defeat the Republicans in the spring 1800 elections for
the New York state legislature (which was to choose the state's electors in
November). Maybe this could happen if Burr did not succeed in talking a
reluctant George Clinton out of retirement to be on the party's legislative
ticket.

Or

(2) Even after the Federalist state legislative defeat, Governor Jay takes
Hamilton's advice and convenes the lame-duck Federalist legislature to
change the law to provide for popular election of the state's presidential
electors by district. That way the Federalists were sure to get *some*
electoral votes out of the state--perhaps enough to elect Adams. See my
analysis at
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/893139125598075d

There is of course the possiblity that either of these scenarios could lead
to Pinckney, not Adams becoming President--a result that would have pleased
Hamilton. Yet as I noted in the post just cited, "in OTL not a single
Federalist elector anywhere rejected Adams, while one from Rhode Island
rejected Pinckney in favor of Jay. Moreover, Pinckney was no Burr, and might
not accept the presidency at Adams' expense: he told New England Federalists
he would not accept votes for himself if they were not also cast for Adams."
 
Into Adams' second term, the Federalists had pretty much lost their majority in the House and I don't see it easy to get it back, but they retained a slim majority in the Senate before special elections happened to erase this too, but could a Adams victory prevent that loss?
The electoral question brings also the question of apportionment following the census of 1800, one that brought a Democratic-Republican landslide in the House in mid-terms, but I wonder if the presence of Adams and a Federalist held Senate could make it possible to alter the apportionment bill in a way to limit the expansion of Democratic-Republican majority.

Also, on foreign agenda, there is the French intervention in Haiti and especially the Louisiana Purchase. How different would they be managed by Adams? Would the purchase be as much opposed ITTL with Adams as President?
The reestablishment of French control in Louisiana following the treaty of San Ildefonso along Haiti would renew the scare. If Adams doesn't take the initiative as Jefferson did, I imagine the French would be compelled by their failure in Haiti, the breakup of the peace of Amiens and the untenable position of Louisiana to sell it to the United States. Otherwise, we could indeed see New Orleans occupied by the British as feared.
 
It's worth emphasizing that the popular vote wasn't all that important as of yet. Especially when you consider that the majority of Americans couldn't even vote, even excluding slaves, natives, and women...
 
It's worth emphasizing that the popular vote wasn't all that important as of yet. Especially when you consider that the majority of Americans couldn't even vote, even excluding slaves, natives, and women...

And especially when you consider that most states chose their electors by legislature rather than by holding an election to choose them.
 
And especially when you consider that most states chose their electors by legislature rather than by holding an election to choose them.
Precisely. Although as noted in this thread, that was starting to change. Point is, popular vote didn't mean as much as it does today, where it shows most of the country is behind you.
 
That's a bit old as thread, but while reading the bio of Aaron Burr, I fell across a potential POD to remove him from the scene and allow for New York EVs to be given to Adams.
I see that Burr fought a duel with John B Church, Hamilton's brother-in-law, in september 1799, but both shots missed. The POD would be Burr not missing and killing Church, as he killed Hamilton IOTL. I wonder if the political fallout could ensure control of the state legislature retained by the Federalists.
Also, who would replace Burr as Jefferson's running mate?
 
I am far from an expert on this period, but my impression was that the three big things about the first Jefferson administration were the following:

1. The Louisiana purchase.

2. The precedent set for a peaceful transfer of power, even when the incumbent President and his party has been defeated.

3. The end of Federalist influence on a national level, since they never got the hang of the whole opposition party"thing.

However, I think #2 and #3 would happen eventually, so the big deal is the Louisiana Purchase. Does this still happen? Is John Quincy Adams involved? I just checked, and he was Ambassador to Prussia and already considered the country's top diplomat in 1797, though he returned home in 1800.
 
I am far from an expert on this period, but my impression was that the three big things about the first Jefferson administration were the following:

1. The Louisiana purchase.

2. The precedent set for a peaceful transfer of power, even when the incumbent President and his party has been defeated.

3. The end of Federalist influence on a national level, since they never got the hang of the whole opposition party"thing.

However, I think #2 and #3 would happen eventually, so the big deal is the Louisiana Purchase. Does this still happen? Is John Quincy Adams involved? I just checked, and he was Ambassador to Prussia and already considered the country's top diplomat in 1797, though he returned home in 1800.
Galba,
The Louisiana Purchase happens. This was a French dynamic. Any US administration would take advantage of it and Jefferson almost screwed it up. Jefferson was going on about how a constitutional amendment was needed to acquire territory. Hs advisors told him that any delay could quash the deal. Hamilton's position was this situation was covered by the treaty power and appropriations power.
 
Top