Disputes Over Slavery Cast Jefferson Foes in a New Light

Seattle Post-Intelligencer (via New York Times) ^ | 30 December 2003 | Jill Lepore

[stop_fascism]

Thanks for the clarification. I had remembered incorrectly.

[x]

A recent issue of National Review had a review of the book. Jefferson won the popular vote in 1800, so while the 3/5 clause benefited him, other variables in the political arithmetic benefited Adams above and beyond his share of the raw popular vote. In this one case, the 3/5 clause corrected for other factors in the distribution of electors to produce a result closer to popular sentiment (though of course, the existence of slavery was itself a major distorting factor in democratic arithmetic).

Also, Wills has to juggle things to make Pickering a hero by modern standards. He doesn't give full weight to the ways in which Jefferson was more committed to freedom and popular government than his opponents. Wills also left out at least one key pro-slavery vote by Pickering to make him more of an abolitionist than he in fact was.

Historians have already begun to look more critically at Jefferson, and his reputation has suffered accordingly. We aren't able to talk about Jefferson today with as wholehearted an admiration as many Americans could in the recent past. But Wills isn't a very good guide to history. He does much research but contemporary political conflicts are always his first concern, and his research findings are tailored to fit present-day circumstances and attitudes more than is necessary or desireable. His first priority often seems to be winning today's political battles, not illuminating those of the past. Wills's left-wing views don't negate the fact that he's a superior journalist, but his energy and committedness don't suffice to make him a first-rate historian.

It's good that Americans are finally giving the Federalists their due, but it would be a mistake to try to refound a political mythology on the Federalists because today's liberals find Jefferson uncongenial to their opinions and ambitions.

[Publius]

Thanks for the link to that review.

I dug up a link to an Atlantic article from 1996 called Jefferson: Radical and Racist. A long time ago there was a fine debate on FR about this article, but I long ago lost the link to the original thread.

[stop_fascism]

Burr knew he was running for vice-president. It was expected that one elector wouldn't vote for him so that Jefferson would become president and Burr VP. Despite that Burr campaigned to be elected by the House. That seems to me to be changing the rules after the election.

[Publius]

Burr knew he was running for vice-president.

Correct. He and Jefferson had sat down over dinner and arranged the alliance.

It was expected that one elector wouldn't vote for him so that Jefferson would become president and Burr VP.

Correct. A senile Jefferson elector from Maryland misunderstood his job and cast his vote for Burr by mistake.

Despite that Burr campaigned to be elected by the House.

Not exactly. While Burr would have liked to be elected to the presidency as a Jeffersonian Republican, the offer of the presidency, when it came, was accompanied by something most unwelcome.

Rep. Bayard, a Delaware Federalist, approached Burr and agreed to support Burr for the presidency, stating he could bring the Federalist Party in the House along with him. However, Burr would have had to declare himself a Federalist, and that was something he was not prepared to do.

[Regulator]

Here's the link to the decision: Barnett v. Chicago . Favorite paragraph:

The dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote either directly or by the conferral of additional voting power on citizens believed to have a community of interest with the noncitizens--that being the premise of the Latinos' claim in this litigation

As far as the effect of this decision, it is currently limited to the 7th Circuit. But if a conflicting decision were made elsewhere, and I would suspect such has already occurred, then it could move to the Supreme Court, were someone to appeal it. It may be that the Reconquista Front has decided not to do that because Barnett would be upheld and all the other un-Constitutional voting rights schemes would be struck down, a catastrophe for them.

When Bush nominates Posner to the Supreme Court I'll know he's serious about getting a strict constructionist there.

[Publius]

Thanks for the link.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Taking advantage of the current rules is not the same thing as changing it after the fact. Nor did Burr campaign for the presidency in the House. Actually HAD he campaigned he might have won but for some strange reason he did NOT and there were many federalists who would have voted for him.

Hamilton campaigned against him throwing the election to his deadly enemy, Jefferson. He claimed Jefferson at least had pretensions of being an honorable man while Burr was without honor. Burr's odd non-action cost him the presidency and was totally at odds with his normal M.O. which was wheeling and dealing like mad.

Hamilton's action was the first of those things Burr could not forgive and led to his death four years later at Burr's hands.

[justshutupandtakeit]

A senile voter was not the reason for the tie. There were thirty five tie votes before Hamilton convinced Bayard to withhold his vote for Burr leading to pro vote for Jefferson.

[Regulator]

If you're a northern liberal you do what you can to denigrate Jefferson and build up Adams

And it's truly hilarious when they then have to stand by and listen to the Democratic Party referred to as the "Party of Jefferson"! Eeeehehehe...sorry. Couldn't stop myself.

It's unfortunate that guys like Wills and Eric Foner are the ones who write about the effects of the compromise. It identifies it as a liberal cause, when it certainly should be a conservative one too, since the whole subject revolves around citizenship and its meaning. Conservatives are rightly serious about that, and liberals aren't: they would allow absentee balloting from China if they thought they could use it to win, and impose Socialism.

[Publius]

I was not referring to a senile voter in the House. I was referring to a senile member of the Electoral College who was from Maryland.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is correct wrt the date in the Constitution but nothing prevented discussion of the slave trade. Congress was restricted but manumission societies were formed and there was plenty of discussion of slavery during the entire period after the Revolution was won. Franklin even submitted a petition right before his death to Congress to end slavery. It was never even recognized because of the constitutional prohibition on ACTION on slavery.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have studied this election closely and never heard that allegation. Where did you find it?

[Regulator]

Well, unfortunately, I ain't Ms. Monroe. So I think my point is still valid. Again, saying the compromise was "necessary" and to just "live with it" doesn't seem to be a useful way to look at history.

[Little Ray]

Actually, Morris missed something: the folks going to Africa were mostly Yankees. They were buying them from cruel captors - other blacks - who would likely have killed them if there were not a profit to be made by selling these captives.

I wish we had a 0/5 ths compromise today so that illegal aliens would not be counted for representation.

[Publius]

I found it in an article by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in The New Republic back in the Eighties.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Federalist party died in 1804 when a bullet tore through Hamilton's abdomen. He had torn it apart by his attacks on Adams in the summer before the election in 1800.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks.

[Regulator]

I don't believe they are legally counted for apportionment

You would be very wrong about that. As I pointed out, there are major districts in a number of states where not only are illegal aliens counted, their ethnicity is used to create districts of common interest. If you can point me to any decision that subtracts them from apportionment in any Federal district other than the 7th, I'd love to see it. It would invalidate the entire district map of California and probably put Howard Berman, Brad Sherman, Xavier Becerra, Loretta and Linda Sanchez and a host of others out of office.

[stop_fascism]

You're right. There should have been no compromise. The United States should not have been founded. No one should have been elected president in 1800, or any other year. Now that's a useful way to look at history!