This morning, I was reading Jefferson’s Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism
It’s about the election of 1800 – the “second Revolution”, the “Jeffersonian” revolution, the “triumph of Republicanism” – the death of the Federalist party. It also is, in my opinion, one of the most incredible stories of the beginning of this nation – because it was, in the end, a peaceful transfer of power. It blows my mind … when you look at, first of all historical precedent (peaceful transfer of power between two groups THAT HATE EACH OTHER??? When the hell does THAT ever happen?) and second of all how much the Federalists and Republicans demonized each other, each thought that the country would literally be destroyed by the other.
It was the birth of party politics in this country. And, like many births, it was painful, messy, long.
And yet when the Republicans won – the Federalists weren’t lined up against the wall. The transfer happened peacefully. I mean, granted, the Federalists were destroyed, completely – they had been relics of the landed aristocracy anyway, and their time had come and gone … it was time for them to go … but still. The party was destroyed, but the people who had made up the party were not murdered and thrown in mass graves. They stayed involved in the system, they adjusted … During the election of 1800 friendships fell apart, relationships shattered and never recovered … but the NATION survived.
There’s a new book out now – I’ve seen it – that also has the election of 1800 as its focus – and I think I need to pick up that book, since i’m not wild about this woman’s writing. It almost sounds like a first draft. But whatever. I’m making my way through it, concentrating on the STORY.
It’s awesome stuff. Stuff I know already, but still … You think the election we just went through was nasty? The nastiest ever? If you think that, then I suggest you look into the election of 1800. It’ll give a nice perspective, a little historical distance from our own present day. The rhetoric NOW is sooooo much more restrained than what was common-day vitriol back then. You can’t even believe it. You think NOW we have a loud fringe on both sides? Go back and read about the election of 1800. History. Always good to realize that there is nothing really new under the sun, and that no generation invents the wheel. (Well. Except for the actual generation who actually DID invent the wheel, of course.)
I also thought it was really funny (in light of what’s going on nowadays) to learn, again, how people expected newspapers to be biased back then. That was the whole DEAL with newspapers. An unbiased newspaper? A newspaper not connected to a political party? What? Why on earth would one read a newspaper like THAT? One paper presented one side, other papers presented the OTHER side.
The same thing is true today, obviously. You watch Fox for one “side”, you listen to NPR for the other “side” – it’s up to you. But you KNOW they’re biased. I don’t expect The New York Times to be unbiased. But I certainly don’t ONLY read The New York Times. I surf around, checking multiple sources, for stories that interest me … hoping I can piece together what I think that way. I guess what I’m saying is is that I try not to have fits of apoplexy if I run into bias. I try to get at the NEWS and if that takes a bit more work? If that means I read 3 newspapers? 4 or 5? Then okay. I’m fine with that.
When John Adams signed the Sedition Act (Oh, John … John … why …) – Republican newspapers were shut down, editors jailed, etc. Jefferson, hanging out at Monticello, was instrumental in getting some of these papers started up again, so that he could have a place to put HIS views into the public realm. (Only, of course, he never signed his name. He let Madison be his front-man, while he pretended to only care about sweet peas, the constellations, and his grandkids. “Interested in politics? Me? Oh, never. I wouldn’t have anything to do with the nasty business … Let me count the flowers in my garden … I need to harvest the hay tomorrow …” Meanwhile, he was completely pulling the strings. Turns out, this guy was a ruthless party politician – he just didn’t want to appear like he was in the fray.)
Regardless. I just thought it was so funny to remember again the long long history of bias in the media in this country … and probably, if blogging had existed at the time of the election of 1800, a bunch of people on the sidelines would have had a FIELD DAY. Sure! I suppose the frenzied pamphleteers throughout the colonies (it seems, at times, like every private citizen in America was pumping out pamphlets on political issues) could be the equivalent of bloggers today.
But to hear actual newspaper editors, in the late 1700s, say stuff like, “A newspaper that is not biased towards one side is no good at all.”
Can you imagine? An open acceptance of bias – from editors, writers, audience alike: if you read THIS paper, you’d get THIS side. If you wanted the other side, you’d read THIS paper (and pray to God that the editor hadn’t been thrown in jail). It was a dirty fight, a battle of the newspapers, a war of words. And bias was ASSUMED.
The notion of objective journalism came about with the rise of professional journalism and the J-schools. Even well into the 20th Century, you could easily tell where newspapers stood on various issues. I think the quibble arises (and can be overblown, as you & Steve accurately point out) when papers pretend not to be biased in defiance of readily available evidence. As you say, multiple sources.
This past Thanksgiving (here in London) we invited several families over for dinner. Each family, like my own, was split nationalities, one American and one other (I’m Canadian, by birth if not by inclination). They all had children, who although American citizens, are being educated in English schools. My own 4 children were born and have lived their entire lives in England.
I made a toast of what I’m thankful for, which amounted more or less to your statement, and referenced specifically the election of 1800:
“peaceful transfer of power between two groups THAT HATE EACH OTHER??? When the hell does THAT ever happen?”
Aside from Washington’s behaviour, that is the seminal moment of the founding and the gift to us from the founding fathers. My guests, even the Americans, seemed not to have clue as to what was so great about that moment.
Paul
I think its incorrect to say that the federalists were the ‘landed aristocracy’. I know they were labeled as aristocrats but it wasn’t truthful. I mean if you look at the icons of each party, Hamilton on the Federalist side, and Jefferson on the Repub side, which one is the ‘landed aristocrat’?
Hamilton got labeled as an aristocrat because at the constitutional conventions he said some stupid shit about the president being president for life. But the dude was an orphan and basically poor his whole life. (He was too busy writing essays to make any money). Contrast that with Jefferson who owned how many acres? And was how rich?
Perhaps it is incorrect – but it was how they viewed themselves, Curtis. There are plenty of incongruities involved, as you say. Every one of “those guys”, regardless of which party, was a member of the elite. It was the Federalists view, though, that there was a class of people born to lead. That can’t be disputed. That was their deal. They said to the public: “Trust us to lead FOR you.” That was the message, and that was a leftover of the land-owning elite in the beginning phases of the colonies. Their time was quickly passing – only they didn’t realize it yet. They still thought that LAND was wealth … it was very difficult for them to realize that the tide was turning. And that it was going to be about MONEY. Jefferson, with all his acreage, lived his entire life in debt, crushing debt, hundreds of thousands of dollars of it … and yet he still considered himself a wealthy man, because of the LAND.
Those who had land had all the power in the colonies. They made the decisions, they were in the legislatures, etc. There were those in the higher strata who led, and then there were the masses below.
The incongruity of Jefferson atop Monticello putting himself forward as a man of the people is very interesting – but it doesn’t make him a hypocrite. It makes him complex. Hamilton, yes, came from nothing. But his ambitions were enormous, and he did not trust the people, the majority. Power should not be in THEIR hands, but in the hands of the political elite. These were his views.
True…. but the powered elite of the Federalists was with the bankers and wealthy in NYC whereas the republican elite was with the landowners of the south.
I just think the propaganda war with the biased papers you noted in the post did a much better job labeling the Federalists as aristocrats. And yeah, Hamilton’s excessive arrogance and big mouth made him an easy one to label. He was also highly secretive of his background so he couldn’t fight back effectively.
Also, just to throw another argument into the works regarding the demise of the federalists, I don’t totally think that the election of 1800 was the cause of the demise so much as the death of Hamilton (although you could argue that his political demise began with the Reynolds affair). He was the sounding board for the party and people in the north rallied around him. Because he was ambitious and completely convinced that he was right, he would never have quit fighting for the federalist viewpoint. Yeah the federalists were crushed in the election but the party would have stayed powerful if Burr hadn’t shot Hamilton a few years later.
Curtis – it is interesting to speculate, isn’t it …
One of the things about the 1800 election – which I think also might have added to the demise of Federalism – was that Republicans were not afraid to campaign. (Campaigning, back then, was looked down on … you shouldn’t seem to want to have power.) Republicans invented the political campaign in this country. They canvassed people, they showed up at polls, they were active … the Federalists, once they realized that these tactics worked, tried to play catch up … but they never really saw it as their job to convince others of their fitness to lead. They also, instead of presenting a plan of what THEY would do, resorted to just attacking the Republicans as traitors, and prosecuting Republicans under the Sedition Act. This made the Federalists look petty, small-minded, and rigid.
I suspect most of the people complaining about bias in the media aren’t so much agitated by the fact that there’s bias, but by the fact that various media outlets claim and probably even believe they’re objective. Or maybe they just like to bitch. I dunno.