An Historical Note

Before 2004, Massachusetts law provided that vacancies in the Senate would be filled by a gubernatorial appointment. That year, there was a chance that a Massachusetts senator (French-looking, served in Vietnam) might be elected President. If that happened, his successor would be picked by Republican governor Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts legislature, overwhelmingly Democratic, wasn’t inclined to do anything to change that until Senator Ted Kennedy (D–Chappaquiddick) lobbied heavily for bypassing the governor and holding a special election. The legislators duly fell into line and passed a revised procedure over Governor Romney’s veto. The effort turned out, of course, to be useless.

In 2009, Senator Kennedy is contemplating his own mortality – and urging the legislature to go back to the old law, lest his seat be empty at a moment when his party needs a 60th vote to shut down a filibuster.

On what Massachusetts should do I have no comment, but I’m reminded of an episode of similar political realpolitik from our country’s early history.

The Presidential election of 1800 was the first with anything like a modern, vigorously (in fact, viciously) partisan campaign. It was obvious that the contest between incumbent John Adams and his principal challenger, Vice President Thomas Jefferson, would be very close, and the rival parties – active for the first time – sought every advantage they could muster.

In 11 of the 16 states, legislatures chose the Presidential electors. Two of the others were Virginia, a Jefferson stronghold, and neighboring Maryland, where the pro-Adams Federalists held sway. In both, electors had been chosen in 1796 by Congressional district in a popular vote. Each had a few districts in which the statewide minority could be expected to win.

The Virginia legislature voted to change from district-by-district to statewide balloting, thereby guaranteeing that Jefferson would get all of its electoral votes. The Maryland Federalists proposed a counter-move: to have their state’s electors selected by the legislature. To their surprise, the abolition of a popular vote was extremely unpopular. They lost their legislative majority, and the district system remained in place.

In the Presidential election, Virginia went for Jefferson. In Maryland, the electors split five to five. John Adams finished five votes short of a majority in the Electoral College.

What if the Maryland Federalists had simply imitated their Virginia neighbors? There surely would have been no popular backlash against a statewide ballot, and it’s highly likely that Adams would have won all of the state’s ten votes, thereby gaining a second term as President. His running mate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, would have been short of a majority, since one Federalist elector dropped him in order to ensure that the candidates would finish in the proper order, but would have been elected Vice President by the Federalist-dominated Senate. (This was a pre-Twelfth Amendment election. Jefferson’s failure to similarly arrange for finishing ahead of Aaron Burr was the first sign of the ineptitude that was to mark his term of office.)

Why did Maryland blunder away the election, when the way to win was so obvious? I fall back on Bismarck’s maxim that “God has a special Providence for fools, drunks and the United States of America”. The Federalists had the right ideas about how to run the new nation. To the Southern states those ideas were unacceptable, because they were put forward by Yankees. The solution was Republican men and Federalist measures, which is what we got (contrary to all his previous rhetoric) from President Jefferson.

During the drawn-out post-election fight between Jefferson and Burr, Alexander Hamilton urged the Federalists to make a deal with Jefferson: the Presidency in exchange for a commitment not to repudiate the national debt, to remain neutral in the war between England and France, to maintain the Navy and not to discharge Federalist officeholders without cause. No deal was ever struck, so far as history knows. Yet the Jefferson Administration did what Hamilton had asked. Life is full of inexplicable coincidences.

Comments

[Tom Veal]

I still wonder what Mr. Hodges thinks my premise is. I think that it is that John Adams would have been reelected in 1800 but for a strategic error by his supporters in Maryland.

[pbh]

"I really wonder what Mr. Hodges thinks my premise is"

Your obfuscations are so entirely facile, I now begin to wonder if you really have a premise.

I expect your response will continue to be something on the order of "him stupid; me smart."

Good luck with that.

pbh

[Tom Veal]

I really wonder what Mr. Hodges thinks my premise is, and why he thinks that his stream of pointless remarks about Thomas Jefferson has anything to do with it.

[pbh]

If Mr. Veal would suffer himself to actually read my remarks, he might understand that I am attacking his premise, not his example.

Insofar as appears determined to deny his own comprehension, I can have nothing more to say.

pbh

[Tom Veal]

While the names “Kennedy” and “Jefferson” both appear in my post, no one capable of reading English could think that it compares the two men in any way. I don’t know whether Mr. Hodges is dyslexic or so consumed by anger that he has purged his mind of its rational faculties. In either case, he deserves our pity.

[pbh]

"There were all of two judicial impeachments while Jefferson was President."

Yes. The first two. Ever. The threat of which did not dissipate despite Congress' rejection of the second.

Jefferson's pursuit of the Federalists led directly to Marbury v. Madison and it did not end even after he left office.

As for the point of your post, ie: Kennedy is a politician: ewww.

You drag Jefferson in to make a comparison with the Kennedys? Jefferson?

"I see no point in responding."

Then don't.

pbh

[Tom Veal]

Someone who writes, “the impeachment of Federalist judges became almost routine” is just faking historical knowledge. There were all of two judicial impeachments while Jefferson was President.

Since Mr. Hodges’ tirade has almost nothing to do with my post, I see no point in responding.

[pbh]

"Jefferson’s failure to similarly arrange for finishing ahead of Aaron Burr was the first sign of the ineptitude that was to mark his term of office."

Am I to understand that you disapprove of Jefferson?

"The solution was Republican men and Federalist measures, which is what we got (contrary to all his previous rhetoric) from President Jefferson."

Oh, now I get it, in your view Jefferson was not sufficiently doctrinaire. He governed like a rationalist, not an ideologue.

Except, of course, that he did govern like an ideologue, literally embargoing the northern states on the laughable presumption that this would injure England's balance of trade.

So much for "remain[ing] neutral in the war between England and France". And as for "maintain[ing] the Navy and not . . . discharg[ing] Federalist officeholders without cause" he did the former under duress and against his stated inclinations and used it primarily against his political opponents and simultaneously pursued the latter so heatedly that the impeachment of Federalist judges became almost routine.

Nor should anyone forget that Jefferson could never have been elected without the electoral advantage of the 3/5s rule granting congressional representation on the basis of slave population. Virginia alone, contributed 4 Slave Votes to Jefferson's tally. On the whole, the South contributed at least 12 electoral votes based on the Slave population.

Jefferson was far and away the most ideological, duplicitous and hypocritical person in the founding generation. Your right wing critique of him not only fails to comprehend the historical record but accuses him of failing to pursue policies that are, in fact, the legacy of his mis-administration.

You are like Cheney accusing Bush.

pbh