| Wildlife and Nature Books Online in Association with Amazon.com |    |
|
|
| | | Location: Home » Books » Antebellum » A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign | |
|
|
| A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign | 
| Author: Edward J. Larson
Publisher: Free Press
Category: Book
List Price: $15.00
Buy New: $8.39
You Save: $6.61 (44%)
New (27) from $8.39
Avg. Customer Rating:  20 reviews
Sales Rank: 34362
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 352
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.8
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.4 x 0.9
ISBN: 0743293177
Dewey Decimal Number: 324.973
EAN: 9780743293174
ASIN: 0743293177
Publication Date: June 10, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: SOFT COVER book in excellent condition-fast ship
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
"They could write like angels and scheme like demons." So begins Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward Larson's masterful account of the wild ride that was the 1800 presidential election -- an election so convulsive and so momentous to the future of American democracy that Thomas Jefferson would later dub it "America's second revolution." This was America's first true presidential campaign, giving birth to our two-party system and indelibly etching the lines of partisanship that have so profoundly shaped American politics ever since. The contest featured two of our most beloved Founding Fathers, once warm friends, facing off as the heads of their two still-forming parties -- the hot-tempered but sharp-minded John Adams, and the eloquent yet enigmatic Thomas Jefferson -- flanked by the brilliant tacticians Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, who later settled their own differences in a duel. The country was descending into turmoil, reeling from the terrors of the French Revolution, and on the brink of war with France. Blistering accusations flew as our young nation was torn apart along party lines: Adams and his elitist Federalists would squelch liberty and impose a British-style monarchy; Jefferson and his radically democratizing Republicans would throw the country into chaos and debase the role of religion in American life. The stakes could not have been higher. As the competition heated up, other founders joined the fray -- James Madison, John Jay, James Monroe, Gouverneur Morris, George Clinton, John Marshall, Horatio Gates, and even George Washington -- some of them emerging from retirement to respond to the political crisis gripping the nation and threatening its future. Drawing on unprecedented, meticulous research of the day-to-day unfolding drama, from diaries and letters of the principal players as well as accounts in the fast-evolving partisan press, Larson vividly re-creates the mounting tension as one state after another voted and the press had the lead passing back and forth. The outcome remained shrouded in doubt long after the voting ended, and as Inauguration Day approached, Congress met in closed session to resolve the crisis. In its first great electoral challenge, our fragile experiment in constitutional democracy hung in the balance.A Magnificent Catastrophe is history writing at its evocative best: the riveting story of the last great contest of the founding period.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 15 more reviews...
 Vivid re-creation of 1800 election August 2, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Edward J. Larson's magnificent look at America's first disputed election manages to remain very suspenseful (what will Pennsylvania finally do?) even though we all know how it turned out.
In brief, in the days before the 12th Amendment (and this election was precisely the reason why the 12th Amendment was enacted), electors cast their votes only for the president--the first runnerup would become vice president. This is why Jefferson, a Republican (i.e., the party that would evolve into the Democrats) was elected vice president to Federalist (what the conservatives were then called) John Adams in 1796.
By 1800, the Federalists had themselves factionalized: the High Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton (who actually would have preferred a president for life and a Senate whose members also served for life), were dissatisfied with the moderate John Adams, and considered Jefferson and his Republicans "Jacobins"--i.e., supporters of the French Revolution, which had just then come to a screeching halt with the advent of Napoleon. In return, the Republicans tarred the Federalists as "Monarchists." (Not inappropriate, at least in the case of Hamilton.)
The author describes here what happened when Jefferson, and his Republican running mate, Aaron Burr, deadlocked in the electoral vote (despite the brilliant campaigning of the Republicans, nobody had remembered to instruct one, any one, of the Republican electors to withhold a vote for Burr so that wouldn't happen), which meant the House of Representatives had to decide. Eventually, they would. But it was not easy, and it was not pretty.
Mr. Larson demonstrates convincingly that obsessive hatred of one's political opponent to the point of derangement is far from a new phenomenon. In his telling, John Adams and Jefferson fare well, the scheming Aaron Burr far less so, and Alexander Hamilton worst of all. He was his own worst enemy. After attempting constantly to replace and revile Adams, he then tried to persuade the bitter-ender Federalists, who hated Jefferson above all, not to cast their fate with Aaron Burr, which they actually attempted to do. (In the end not one would vote for Jefferson, preferring instead simply to abstain.) When you finish the book, you may want to petition the treasury to remove his portrait from the $10.
 Good Book on a Well-Worn Topic July 12, 2008
Mr. Larson has written a nice little history of a most reported on election. As others have noted, 1800 was a "partisan" year, indeed---following Washington, and Adams' first term. Adams was, in my opinion, the intellectual superior to Mr. Jefferson (and I'm a southerner)---but Adams was much less attuned to the ruff-and-tumble of partisan politics than was Mr. Jefferson. Adams as president was Adams, and cared not for politics until a few nights before Mr. Jefferson took over---and then belatedly commenced "loading" offices.
To the uninitiated, this is a good primer and highly recommended. The author takes a few leaps like the one noted by another reviewer where the author states that Abigail Adams was the intellectual equivalent to Jefferson---not sure that's anything more than an emotional gut feeling---but all-in-all, well-done to Mr. Larson.
If you'd like a couple of other titles on the same topic: Passionate Sage, by Joseph Ellis, John Adams, by David McCoullough, and Party of One, by James Grant. Ellis' work on Jefferson is supposed to be good. Bernard Bailyn has a little book on the Genius and Ambiguity of the Founders---which provides some insight into Jefferson's many contradictions.
An Experimental Republic July 9, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
In 1800, the Republic of the U.S. was still very much a work in progress. That wonderful blueprint for government, the U.S. Constitution, was only 12 years old and its applications to the realities of governance were still being worked out. In short the U.S. in 1800 was still in its experimental and formative stage.
This admirable book is focused on the 1800 Presidential election for two very good reasons. First the election was the first truly contested election in the U.S. involving two competing aggregates of political ideologies that were the first nascent political parties in America. Second it was this election that more or less established the operational pattern for presidential elections that has held down to this day. Indeed as, Larson describes it, this election had a very modern feel to it.
This book is especially good about the complexities of both the electoral process and the so-called Federalist and Republican factions. The Federalist had the advantage in that John Adams, the incumbent President, was a member. This advantage was mitigated by the fact that Adams was seen as too pragmatic (i.e. compromising) to be willing to fully buy into the Federalist ideology as advocated by the so-called `high federalists'. Brilliant, but erratic Alexander Hamilton, was the chief ideologue of the high federalists. He undermined the Federalist chance of victory by working behind the scenes to replace Adams with a more ideologically sound candidate. Oddly enough the Republicans were also faced with internal dissention. At this time there were actually two Republican Parties, the Virginia Party whose chief ideologue was Thomas Jefferson and the New York Republican Party whose principal was the very pragmatic (and ambitious) Aaron Burr. James Madison, the actual founder of the Republican Party was very much in the shadow of Jefferson. So the odds were pretty even between the two parties with the Federalists generally being stronger in the North East and the cities and the Republicans in the South and West and among rural voters.
How this election played itself out and the astonishingly modern maneuvering by both sides makes for fascinating reading. A word to the wise, however, modern as this election was in many ways, it is a mistake to follow Larson's example and try to affiliate Federalists and Republicans to modern political parties. In spites of its modern trappings the Presidential Election of 1800 occurred in a vastly different country than the one we live in today.
 Expanded classroom lecture April 22, 2008
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
As explained in the notes, the author took a classroom lecture and expanded it for a book. Not a great read, but the information on how the press started to influence elections and how we drifted to the practice of electing both President/VP in one vote is educational (use to be the second highest vote getter became VP). I had the priviledge of meeting the author and he is very entertaining speaker.
Though we disagree on our opinions of Alex Hamilton (I like Alex)..the book talks less than flattering of Hamilton, so if you want the rest of the story on him, I suggest reading the Ron Chernow book.
An Election by Superdelegates April 19, 2008
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
This was, given the consensus for Washington to be President, our first national election. Its result re-oriented the country in its promised direction and solidified the two party system.
Larson tells the saga of this 16 month pre-media electoral slog. The Constitution had not anticipated political parties. It called for electors (today, our vestigal electoral college) to cast the presidential ballots and left each state to determine its own election rules. The parties studied the rules, did the math, and attempted to manipulate rules, events and perceptions to change the outcome before and after the fact.
The story is reported with facts and quotes. By nature of its content, there is a lot of technical detail. Slavery, which gives the south disproportionate electoral influence due to the Constitution's specified population count, is not an issue for the participants, and perhaps not the rank and file free male voter either. It faintly emerges when the Republicans need to show their "toughness" in response to a slave revolt.
The author does a good job of cataloging, state by state, the electioneering. The actual votings, by the electors and by the the House of Representatives, could have had a more detailed and interpretive treatment.
After having recently read Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr I am sensitive to the portrayal of Burr. Larson, like others, refers to Burr's negative qualities (such as extreme ambition or untrustworthiness) without evidence. There is mention of his potential profiting from founding a NY bank, but other banks, oriented towards Hamilton, favored the American aristocrats and essentially cut out the average person in lending decisions. In the absence of hard data showing that that he profited, should he not be celebrated for this? (Did Andrew Jackson accomplish this much?)
The treatment of Hamilton differs from that in Chernov's Alexander Hamilton. To Larson he is an extremist schemer, to Chernov, an achiever, albeit an contentious one. John Adams is portrayed as learning too late that he has been used by this party's extremists. The detail in the treatment here, defines the limitations of drama, such as the recent HBO series on John Adams, in portraying this time.
To me, the book does not have a fitting title. What was catastrophic about this election? Chaos, tumult or even pandemonium are better nouns than "catastrophe" which implies ruin or destruction. One of its participants calls it a catastrophe, but was destroyed?
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
|
