We're here in Jefferson's Greenhouse with Gaye Wilson.

Gaye Wilson holds a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh.

She is the Shannon Senior Research Historian

here at the International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello.

Gaye, welcome and welcome back to Edinburgh.

>> Well, thank you, Frank and

it's wonderful to be connected with Edinburgh, even if it's electronically.

So I'm very pleased to be here and taking part in this.

>> Gaye, could you tell me in a few words what you think the significance

of the election of 1800 is?

>> I think possibly the most important point is that we had a major transfer of

power from one, well they weren't exactly calling themselves parties, but

from one political faction to another with very different ideas.

And ultimately it was a bloodless transfer of power and

there was a chance it could have gone another way.

There were some of these state militias from Pennsylvania, from Virginia,

that were ready to march if they did not feel that it was handled appropriately.

And I think then the other factor in that it was handled appropriately,

so the Constitution worked in this instance.

This is one of the first major tests as far as an election and so that,

I think, is very important.

The system worked.

>> Well then let me push you on that a little bit.

Let me play devil's advocate, I mean one could say the Constitution didn't work,

because we had a constitutional crisis.

>> Yes, we did. >> Here was only the fourth

presidential election in the history of the United States.

It ends up a deadlocked election, it goes the House of the Representatives.

You called it a bloodless transfer of power.

That's true.

>> Yes. >> But you also suggested that

troops were ready in Pennsylvania.

>> They were.

>> And in Virginia.

So it need not have been bloodless, if things had gone the other way.

So couldn't one see this as a constitutional crisis rather than

a constitutional triumph.

>> Well, I think they came to a realization there was a flaw and

that the electoral system, you just voted for two candidates,

and, of course, that's how this tie took place.

That the Democratic-Republicans, or Republicans,

I'm not sure what you're calling them here, they go either way.

But, they all cast their electoral votes for both Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

Therefore, we had a tie.

And then they realized that this is not working at it should.

And then of course, then it was later we came up with the 12th Amendment which

meant that you voted for a vice president.

But at that time you did not distinguish,

just the one with the most electoral votes was president.

The one with the second largest number was vice president.

Because they had not built into this this idea that there could be

political factions, two different view points,

and therefore what emerged two political parties, so.

>> Right, and what we see of course in 1800 is quite good discipline.

We might not call it party discipline, but discipline among the Republican voters.

>> Absolutely, absolutely.

>> Because the Republican voters all cast their two votes for Jefferson and for

Burr, so they end up tied on 73 votes.

The Federalists were slightly less disciplined, so

John Adams ends up on 65 and Charles Pinckney ends up on 64.

So they're out of it.

We have this paradox where the two Republican candidates who are meant to be

running mates, although we wouldn't use that language in 1800,

end up with the same number of Electoral College votes.

And we end up with a crisis, it goes to the House of Representatives.

I realize we're here in Jefferson's home.

>> Yes. >> So perhaps we need to take this into account.

How would you assess the behavior of Jefferson and

Aaron Burr during that period?

We had the election in November, but

of course the result isn't settled until the following February.

So the election is held in the weeks running up to November 1800.

We get this tie in the Electoral College.

And then the House of Representatives decided the outcome of the election

as required by the Constitution.

>> Yes.

>> In February of 1800.

But there's a period from November to February when nobody knows who

the President is.

And if one thinks back to the election of 2000, we have 36 days of uncertainty then.

This period was much longer actually.

How would you assess the behavior of both Jefferson and Burr during that period?

>> Well, of course, the first assumption was that Burr was going to step aside.

But then when Burr did not step aside that is when

I think the real distrust of Burr began to set in.

I think it then colored the working relationship for the next four years

between Jefferson and Burr, because he was no longer fully trusted.

He was an up-and-coming star in the Republican party.

And I think this then caused a lot of consternation in

what they were going to do with this man that they felt they could no longer trust.

Jefferson, of course, he tried to stay above the fray, as he always did.

It's still controversial as to how much he agreed.

There were certain things that,

before the Federalists gave in, they wanted to make sure that first off, he was

not going to destroy this banking system that they had so laboriously put together,

of course, Alexander Hamilton, the key player there.

There was some other issues that they wanted to make sure,

we're not going to lose what we've gained.

And so, Jefferson was supposedly approached,

and apparently he was, about what are you going to do if you do become president?

Now he denies that he ever made a deal.

But he talked with a friend who then went to actually the delegate from Delaware,

Bayard, and said hey, our guy is going to be okay.

He will not renege on some of the things that are already set up,

such as the monetary, the banking system.

We're going to move forward.

And this then, Bayard is the one, the Delaware delegate who finally

then did change a vote and allowed the election to move forward.

And then Jefferson had enough electoral votes that he became president.

So, how much wheeling and dealing went on?

I think it's very difficult to say.

Jefferson tried to always appear the Virginian gentleman.

He was also a fantastic politician.

I don't think that we can deny that.

He was.

And there were some major issues at stake.

>> Right, I mean I'll say for the benefit of our viewers,

the way the Constitution works is that when an election is tied in the Electoral

College, the House of Representatives decides it.

There was a real difficulty in 1800 and 1801,

because it's the outgoing House of Representatives.

The newly elected folks would have taken office in March of 1801.

And so, in February of 1801, it's the outgoing Federalist-dominated House of

Representatives that's picking the new president.

And those Federalists have to choose between really,

I suppose from their perspective, being shot and taking poison,

in the sense that they have to choose between Jefferson and Burr.

Now, Burr, as you suggested, is a rising star.

Burr's also very ambitious. >> Exactly.

>> And Burr and

Hamilton actively campaigned in New York during the 1800 election and

to some extent behaved as we would expect modern politicians to behave.

>> I would say those are our first politicians.

>> Whereas Jefferson stayed here.

However, during the electoral crisis, after the election and

before the House of Representatives decided the election, Burr, while he didn't

disclaim an interest in the presidency, didn't intrigue as much as Jefferson did.

I mean, Jefferson as you say maybe negotiated with Bayard indirectly.

It's all happening indirectly.

And to some extent, it's unclear whether he felt he made a promise or

was just engaging in discussions with friends.

>> He says it was just discussion.

>> But, as you say, he committed to maintaining the Federalist fiscal system.

He committed to maintaining the Navy, which he subsequently needed.

>> That's true, I forgot about the Navy.

>> And he committed to keeping most Federalist office-holders in office.

>> Which he did.

So now he was elected president,

he became president in March of 1801.

He took the oath of office, he quite rightly declared we are all Republicans,

we are all Federalists.

It was more true than perhaps we realize.

Doesn't this suggest that maybe the election of 1800 is many things but

it's not a revolution?

>> That has been argued. >> Well, I'm asking you.

>> Was it a revolution?

I'm using Jefferson's words.

>> Okay. >> It was much later when he said,

it was as much a revolution as the Revolution of 1776.

And I think he wanted it to be remembered that way.

Was it a revolution or was it just a political system at work?

And the machinations that go on behind the scenes in any political dealings,

that's debatable.

I think it's hard to say one way or the other.

Like I say, I just quote Jefferson.

That's the easy out.

To say Jefferson said it was

a revolution.

>> You are the Shannon Senior Research Historian at Monticello.

So you ought to quote Jefferson.

>> Yes, I have to guard his words.

>> So if we think about our students on this course, if there's one thing they

need to take away from the election of 1800, what do you think it is?

>> Well, I think it was the importance that it was the political system at work.

And that it did function.

It did function.

Maybe on a behind-the-scenes, but

it did function and the election moved forward and corrections were made.

So it was a major step forward, I think,

in the republican system in this country or in our governmental system.

I think it was a major step forward and

that things were faced, they eventually were somewhat resolved or

different alternatives given on the election process.

But I think that would be, I think, the takeaway, that it was an important

moment in testing and making it function, making it work.

And it did happen without any military intervention.

And I think you can look at what was happening in a lot of the places in

the world then and a lot of the places subsequently,

and transfers of power are not always, even now,

without some kind of a military power, force.

And It worked that way.

>> Let's not forget at this very moment,

that the French Revolution gave way to Napoleon becoming the Emperor of France.

>> That's right. >> At this very moment.

>> And that's what I think they were all very concerned, could this happen?

Or something, because they knew historically that republics

did not have long histories, usually.

And then they were all aware of that, but we're going to make it work,

this great experiment they were always talking about,

you know, we're going to make it happen.

But I think they all knew that that was not what history was teaching.

That a republic would last so long and then often it did

evolve into some kind of dictatorship, just like the Roman Republic.

And suddenly you've got a Julius Caesar.

And so, I think that was always a concern.

How long is it going to last?

And no one knew.

But here we are, stumbling along.

>> Facing another presidential election.

Gaye Wilson, thank you very much.

>> Well thank you, Frank.

It's great to be a part of something happening at Edinburgh.

I miss the place very much, I had four wonderful years there but I do miss it.

>> Thank you.

Interview: Gaye Wilson

The Making of the US President: A Short History in Five Elections

与讲师见面