The election of 1800: A study in the logic of political change

Yale Law Journal

Volumn 108, Issue 8, 1999, Pages 1959-1993

  Freeman, Joanne B ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041875807     PISSN: 00440094     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/797378     Document Type: Article

References (254)

1. 2 BRUCE ACKERMAN, WE THE PEOPLE: TRANSFORMATIONS 10-11 (1998).
2. 2 id. at 9.
3. On the illegitimacy of an organized party system in the early republic, see RICHARD BUEL JR., SECURING THE REVOLUTION: IDEOLOGY IN AMERICAN POLITICS, 1789-1815, at 1-7 (1972); RICHARD HOFSTADTER, THE IDEA OF A PARTY SYSTEM: THE RISE OF LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1780-1840 (1969); and JAMES ROGER SHARP, AMERICAN POLITICS IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC: THE NEW NATION IN CRISIS 8-13 (1993).
4. On the illegitimacy of an organized party system in the early republic, see RICHARD BUEL JR., SECURING THE REVOLUTION: IDEOLOGY IN AMERICAN POLITICS, 1789-1815, at 1-7 (1972); RICHARD HOFSTADTER, THE IDEA OF A PARTY SYSTEM: THE RISE OF LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1780-1840 (1969); and JAMES ROGER SHARP, AMERICAN POLITICS IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC: THE NEW NATION IN CRISIS 8-13 (1993).
5. On the illegitimacy of an organized party system in the early republic, see RICHARD BUEL JR., SECURING THE REVOLUTION: IDEOLOGY IN AMERICAN POLITICS, 1789-1815, at 1-7 (1972); RICHARD HOFSTADTER, THE IDEA OF A PARTY SYSTEM: THE RISE OF LEGITIMATE OPPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1780-1840 (1969); and JAMES ROGER SHARP, AMERICAN POLITICS IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC: THE NEW NATION IN CRISIS 8-13 (1993).
6. 1 BRUCE ACKERMAN, WE THE PEOPLE: FOUNDATIONS 31, 58 (1991).
7. 1 id. at 213.
8. For an in-depth study of the interplay of culture and politics and its impact on our understanding of the early national political narrative, see Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: Political Combat and Character in the Early Republic (1998) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia) (UMI facsimile ed.).
9. Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (May 29, 1813), in THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS: THE COMPLETE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THOMAS JEFFERSON AND ABIGAIL AND JOHN ADAMS 325, 325 (Lester J. Cappon ed., 1987) [hereinafter ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS].
10. Id. at 326.
11. Id.
12. Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (June 10, 1813), in ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS, supra note 7, at 326, 326; Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (June 14, 1813), in ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS, supra note 7, at 329, 329.
13. Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (June 10, 1813), in ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS, supra note 7, at 326, 326; Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (June 14, 1813), in ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS, supra note 7, at 329, 329.
14. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestley (Mar. 21, 1801), in THOMAS JEFFERSON: WRITINGS 1085, 1086 (1984).
15. Id.
16. Letter from Adams to Jefferson (June 14, 1813), supra note 10, at 330.
17. Letter from Jefferson to Priestley, supra note 11, at 1086. On Jefferson's optimistic view of constitutional and human development, see JOYCE APPLEBY, What Is Still American in Jefferson's Political Philosophy?, in LIBERALISM AND REPUBLICANISM IN THE HISTORICAL IMAGINATION 291 (1992).
18. Letter from Jefferson to Priestley, supra note 11, at 1086. On Jefferson's optimistic view of constitutional and human development, see JOYCE APPLEBY, What Is Still American in Jefferson's Political Philosophy?, in LIBERALISM AND REPUBLICANISM IN THE HISTORICAL IMAGINATION 291 (1992).
19. 1 id. at 174-75.
20. 2 ACKERMAN, supra note 1, at 14.
21. 1 ACKERMAN, supra note 4, at 177.
22. James Madison, Advice to My Country (1834), in 6 IRVING BRANT, JAMES MADISON: COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 1812-1836, at 530-31 (1961).
23. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (July 10, 1804), in 26 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 309, 309 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1979).
24. See Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr (June 28-July 10, 1804), in 26 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 24, at 278, 280. On leadership and dueling in general, and the Burr-Hamilton duel in particular, see Joanne B. Freeman, Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel, 53 WM. & MARY Q. 289 (1996). Hamilton's 1804 duel with Burr, the culmination of a 15-year rivalry, resulted from Hamilton's criticism of Burr during New York's gubernatorial campaign that same year. Both men fought for essentially the same reason: to protect their claims to power and leadership in a political culture centered around reputation and the ethic of honor. Despite the pathos of Hamilton's deathbed plea, it was ineffective, failing to stem the secessionist impulse that resulted in the 1814 Hartford Convention. Written to a New Englander, his letter was probably aimed the convention's first stirrings.
25. See Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr (June 28-July 10, 1804), in 26 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 24, at 278, 280. On leadership and dueling in general, and the Burr-Hamilton duel in particular, see Joanne B. Freeman, Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel, 53 WM. & MARY Q. 289 (1996). Hamilton's 1804 duel with Burr, the culmination of a 15-year rivalry, resulted from Hamilton's criticism of Burr during New York's gubernatorial campaign that same year. Both men fought for essentially the same reason: to protect their claims to power and leadership in a political culture centered around reputation and the ethic of honor. Despite the pathos of Hamilton's deathbed plea, it was ineffective, failing to stem the secessionist impulse that resulted in the 1814 Hartford Convention. Written to a New Englander, his letter was probably aimed the convention's first stirrings.
26. Letter from Henry Lee to James Madison (Apr. 3, 1790), in 13 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 136, 136 (Charles F. Hobson et al. eds., 1981).
27. Letter from George Washington to Catherine Macaulay Graham (Jan. 9, 1790), in 30 THE WRITINGS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON 495, 496 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1939).
28. Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (June 30, 1789), in 12 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 267, 268 (Charles F. Hobson et al. eds., 1979); see also Letter from James Madison to James Madison, Sr. (July 5, 1789), in 12 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, 278, 278 (making a similar comment).
29. Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (June 30, 1789), in 12 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 267, 268 (Charles F. Hobson et al. eds., 1979); see also Letter from James Madison to James Madison, Sr. (July 5, 1789), in 12 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, 278, 278 (making a similar comment).
30. William Maclay, Diary Entry (Jan. 7, 1790), in THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY AND OTHER NOTES ON SENATE DEBATES 179 (Kenneth R. Bowling & Helen E. Veit eds., 1988).
31. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams (June 15, 1813), in ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS, supra note 7, at 331, 331.
32. Letter from Adams to Jefferson (June 30, 1813), in ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS, supra note 7, at 346, 347-48 ("Gallatins Insurrection in Pensilvania" refers to the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion).
33. Id.
34. 2 ACKERMAN, supra note 4, at 31.
35. See STANLEY ELKINS & ERIC MCKITRICK, THE AGE OF FEDERALISM 152-53 (1993).
36. Letter from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 26, 1792), in 12 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 276, 276 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1967); see also Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (Aug. 23, 1792), in 24 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 315, 317 (John Catanzariti ed., 1990) (expressing a similar fear).
37. Letter from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 26, 1792), in 12 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 276, 276 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1967); see also Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (Aug. 23, 1792), in 24 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 315, 317 (John Catanzariti ed., 1990) (expressing a similar fear).
38. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 481.
39. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
40. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
41. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
42. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
43. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
44. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
45. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
46. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron-client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
47. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
48. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
49. For a detailed discussion of the many crises of the 1790s, see generally id. 38. Whether they embrace the idea of a party system or discuss the absence of such a system, most scholars of early national politics remain centered around the touchstone of party. Even as they acknowledge the transitory, unstable nature of the period's political ties, recent studies still divide the national political world into two cohered "proto-parties" - to use Sharp's epithet. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8. Sharp's introduction offers a fine account of the anxieties of early national politics, reminding readers to consider the impact of the period's distinctive political culture. Yet his use of the term "proto-parties" suggests that he is analyzing early national politics as a precursor to what came next, rather than searching for its own distinctive dynamic. Similarly, Elkins and McKitrick challenge the idea of structured parties in a first-party system, yet they persist in assuming that, in the presidential election of 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates of two cohered political organizations - an assumption that many election participants did not share. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 513-28. Although there were two bodies of political thought denoted as Federalism and Republicanism, the political personnel clustered under each of these nebulous ideologies remained unpredictable, with even the most tried-and-true partisans switching sides depending on personal, political, or regional complications. A few scholars have taken important steps towards understanding the period's political dynamic. See RON FORMISSANO, THE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE: MASSACHUSETTS PARTIES, 1790s-1840s (1983); SIMON P. NEWMAN, PARADES AND THE POLITICS OF THE STREET: FESTIVE CULTURE IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1997); ALAN TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOPER'S TOWN: POWER AND PERSUASION ON THE FRONTIER OF THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 141-291 (1995); DAVID WALDSTREICHER, IN THE MIDST OF PERPETUAL FETES: THE MAKING OF AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 1776-1820 (1997); Alan Taylor, "The Art of Hook & Snivey": Political Culture in Upstate New York During the 1790s, 79 J. AM. HIST. 1371 (1993); Jeffrey L. Pasley, "Artful and designing men": Political Professionalism in the Early American Republic, 1775-1820 (1993) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University) (on file with author). Ron Formissano's evocative discussion of early national politics in the context of patron- client relationships is suggestive, though it, too, remains rooted in the party concept. See Ron Formissano, Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes - System, No, in THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 33 (Paul Kleppner et al. eds., 1981). The foremost proponents of the first-party system approach are WILLIAM NISBET CHAMBERS, POLITICAL PARTIES IN A NEW NATION: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 1776-1809 (1963); and JOSEPH CHARLES, THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM (Harper Torchbooks 1961) (1956).
50. On the election of 1800, see NOBLE E. CUNNINGHAM, JR., THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801, at 144-248 (1957); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 691-754; 1 MILTON LOMASK, AARON BURR: THE YEARS FROM PRINCETON TO VICEPRESIDENT, 1756-1805, at 231-95 (1979); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 484-506; DANIEL SISSON, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1800 passim (1974); and 2 PAGE SMITH, JOHN ADAMS 1052-62 (1962). For a more sectional reading of the election - though it remains focused on warring "proto-parties" - see SHARP, supra note 3, at 226-75.
51. On the election of 1800, see NOBLE E. CUNNINGHAM, JR., THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801, at 144-248 (1957); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 691-754; 1 MILTON LOMASK, AARON BURR: THE YEARS FROM PRINCETON TO VICEPRESIDENT, 1756-1805, at 231-95 (1979); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 484-506; DANIEL SISSON, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1800 passim (1974); and 2 PAGE SMITH, JOHN ADAMS 1052-62 (1962). For a more sectional reading of the election - though it remains focused on warring "proto-parties" - see SHARP, supra note 3, at 226-75.
52. On the election of 1800, see NOBLE E. CUNNINGHAM, JR., THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801, at 144-248 (1957); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 691-754; 1 MILTON LOMASK, AARON BURR: THE YEARS FROM PRINCETON TO VICEPRESIDENT, 1756-1805, at 231-95 (1979); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 484-506; DANIEL SISSON, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1800 passim (1974); and 2 PAGE SMITH, JOHN ADAMS 1052-62 (1962). For a more sectional reading of the election - though it remains focused on warring "proto-parties" - see SHARP, supra note 3, at 226-75.
53. On the election of 1800, see NOBLE E. CUNNINGHAM, JR., THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801, at 144-248 (1957); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 691-754; 1 MILTON LOMASK, AARON BURR: THE YEARS FROM PRINCETON TO VICEPRESIDENT, 1756-1805, at 231-95 (1979); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 484-506; DANIEL SISSON, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1800 passim (1974); and 2 PAGE SMITH, JOHN ADAMS 1052-62 (1962). For a more sectional reading of the election - though it remains focused on warring "proto-parties" - see SHARP, supra note 3, at 226-75.
54. On the election of 1800, see NOBLE E. CUNNINGHAM, JR., THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801, at 144-248 (1957); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 691-754; 1 MILTON LOMASK, AARON BURR: THE YEARS FROM PRINCETON TO VICEPRESIDENT, 1756-1805, at 231-95 (1979); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 484-506; DANIEL SISSON, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1800 passim (1974); and 2 PAGE SMITH, JOHN ADAMS 1052-62 (1962). For a more sectional reading of the election - though it remains focused on warring "proto-parties" - see SHARP, supra note 3, at 226-75.
55. On the election of 1800, see NOBLE E. CUNNINGHAM, JR., THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801, at 144-248 (1957); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 691-754; 1 MILTON LOMASK, AARON BURR: THE YEARS FROM PRINCETON TO VICEPRESIDENT, 1756-1805, at 231-95 (1979); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 484-506; DANIEL SISSON, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1800 passim (1974); and 2 PAGE SMITH, JOHN ADAMS 1052-62 (1962). For a more sectional reading of the election - though it remains focused on warring "proto-parties" - see SHARP, supra note 3, at 226-75.
56. On the election of 1800, see NOBLE E. CUNNINGHAM, JR., THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801, at 144-248 (1957); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 691-754; 1 MILTON LOMASK, AARON BURR: THE YEARS FROM PRINCETON TO VICEPRESIDENT, 1756-1805, at 231-95 (1979); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 484-506; DANIEL SISSON, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1800 passim (1974); and 2 PAGE SMITH, JOHN ADAMS 1052-62 (1962). For a more sectional reading of the election - though it remains focused on warring "proto-parties" - see SHARP, supra note 3, at 226-75.
57. It is important to note that the Founding generation felt differently about party politics on a state level. Localized parties did not present the same threat as those on a national scale. Unlike the Union, individual states were unlikely to dissolve in the face of partisan warfare. National party politics took hold when national politicians hooked up with state-level political organizations that were already in operation.
58. See, e.g., ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 24 (noting the "emergence of parties" among politicians whose "inherited value system[s]" were hostile to factions); GORDON WOOD, THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 296-98 (1992) (discussing the rise of a national party system). Sharp offers a brief statement of each "proto-party's" mindset toward its own existence and each other's. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8-13. Noble Cunningham's impressive study of party organization in the 1790s focuses on its mechanics, rather than its logic, pointing "out in chronological sequence those political developments which suggest the germination of parties" and showing "the gradual progression of party growth." CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at vii-viii.
59. See, e.g., ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 24 (noting the "emergence of parties" among politicians whose "inherited value system[s]" were hostile to factions); GORDON WOOD, THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 296-98 (1992) (discussing the rise of a national party system). Sharp offers a brief statement of each "proto-party's" mindset toward its own existence and each other's. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8-13. Noble Cunningham's impressive study of party organization in the 1790s focuses on its mechanics, rather than its logic, pointing "out in chronological sequence those political developments which suggest the germination of parties" and showing "the gradual progression of party growth." CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at vii-viii.
60. See, e.g., ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 24 (noting the "emergence of parties" among politicians whose "inherited value system[s]" were hostile to factions); GORDON WOOD, THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 296-98 (1992) (discussing the rise of a national party system). Sharp offers a brief statement of each "proto-party's" mindset toward its own existence and each other's. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8-13. Noble Cunningham's impressive study of party organization in the 1790s focuses on its mechanics, rather than its logic, pointing "out in chronological sequence those political developments which suggest the germination of parties" and showing "the gradual progression of party growth." CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at vii-viii.
61. See, e.g., ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 24 (noting the "emergence of parties" among politicians whose "inherited value system[s]" were hostile to factions); GORDON WOOD, THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 296-98 (1992) (discussing the rise of a national party system). Sharp offers a brief statement of each "proto-party's" mindset toward its own existence and each other's. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 8-13. Noble Cunningham's impressive study of party organization in the 1790s focuses on its mechanics, rather than its logic, pointing "out in chronological sequence those political developments which suggest the germination of parties" and showing "the gradual progression of party growth." CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at vii-viii.
62. See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 739-40.
63. 2 ACKERMAN, supra note 1, at 176.
64. See SHARP, supra note 3, at 276-88. Sharp explains, "[t]o the victorious men of 1800 ana their immediate successors . . . the Republicans had saved the nation from the excesses of party." Id. at 286-87.
65. Letter from Matthew Davis to Albert Gallatin (May 5, 1800), microformed on Papers of Albert Gallatin, New York University, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (Microinsurance, Inc.).
66. For other examples of pre-election jitters, see AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER (Philadelphia), May 7, 1800, in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 466-67 n.2 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1976); Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Adams (Oct. 12, 1800), in Adams Family Papers (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society); Letter from William Tudor to John Adams (Nov. 5, 1800), in Adams Family Papers, supra; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers (on file with the Library of Congress).
67. For other examples of pre-election jitters, see AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER (Philadelphia), May 7, 1800, in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 466-67 n.2 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1976); Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Adams (Oct. 12, 1800), in Adams Family Papers (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society); Letter from William Tudor to John Adams (Nov. 5, 1800), in Adams Family Papers, supra; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers (on file with the Library of Congress).
68. For other examples of pre-election jitters, see AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER (Philadelphia), May 7, 1800, in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 466-67 n.2 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1976); Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Adams (Oct. 12, 1800), in Adams Family Papers (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society); Letter from William Tudor to John Adams (Nov. 5, 1800), in Adams Family Papers, supra; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers (on file with the Library of Congress).
69. For other examples of pre-election jitters, see AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER (Philadelphia), May 7, 1800, in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 466-67 n.2 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1976); Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Adams (Oct. 12, 1800), in Adams Family Papers (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society); Letter from William Tudor to John Adams (Nov. 5, 1800), in Adams Family Papers, supra; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers (on file with the Library of Congress).
70. See Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams (Nov. 15, 1800), in Adams Family Papers, supra note 46.
71. See AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER (May 7, 1800), supra note 46.
72. See WOOD, supra note 41, at 296-98.
73. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to John Jay (May 7, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 464, 465-67.
74. Letter from Granger to Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), supra note 46.
75. The electoral college was designed as a nonpartisan system that would discourage regional prejudice in the selection of a President. Each state selected electors (equal in number to the total of its representatives and senators) by whatever method their state legislatures chose to adopt. Electors then met in a group, in their home states, each man voting for two candidates, one of whom could not be an inhabitant of the elector's state. The votes were counted during a joint session of the House and Senate, the candidate receiving a majority of votes becoming President, the one receiving the second largest number of votes Vice President, regardless of their partisan affiliations. For example, in 1796, the electoral college selected a Federalist President (John Adams) and a Republican Vice President (Thomas Jefferson). On the electoral college, see RICHARD B. BERNSTEIN & JEROME AGEL, AMENDING AMERICA: IF WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION SO MUCH, WHY DO WE KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE IT? 59-65, 150-54 (1993); TADAHISA KURODA, THE ORIGINS OF THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC, 1787-1804 (1994); RICHARD P. MCCORMICK, THE PRESIDENTIAL GAME: THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS (1982); Peter H. Argersinger, Electoral Processes, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY 489 (Jack P. Greene ed., 1984); and Shlomo Slonim, The Electoral College at Philadelphia: The Evolution of an Ad Hoc Congress for the Selection of a President, 73 J. AM. HIST. 35 (1986).
76. The electoral college was designed as a nonpartisan system that would discourage regional prejudice in the selection of a President. Each state selected electors (equal in number to the total of its representatives and senators) by whatever method their state legislatures chose to adopt. Electors then met in a group, in their home states, each man voting for two candidates, one of whom could not be an inhabitant of the elector's state. The votes were counted during a joint session of the House and Senate, the candidate receiving a majority of votes becoming President, the one receiving the second largest number of votes Vice President, regardless of their partisan affiliations. For example, in 1796, the electoral college selected a Federalist President (John Adams) and a Republican Vice President (Thomas Jefferson). On the electoral college, see RICHARD B. BERNSTEIN & JEROME AGEL, AMENDING AMERICA: IF WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION SO MUCH, WHY DO WE KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE IT? 59-65, 150-54 (1993); TADAHISA KURODA, THE ORIGINS OF THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC, 1787-1804 (1994); RICHARD P. MCCORMICK, THE PRESIDENTIAL GAME: THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS (1982); Peter H. Argersinger, Electoral Processes, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY 489 (Jack P. Greene ed., 1984); and Shlomo Slonim, The Electoral College at Philadelphia: The Evolution of an Ad Hoc Congress for the Selection of a President, 73 J. AM. HIST. 35 (1986).
77. The electoral college was designed as a nonpartisan system that would discourage regional prejudice in the selection of a President. Each state selected electors (equal in number to the total of its representatives and senators) by whatever method their state legislatures chose to adopt. Electors then met in a group, in their home states, each man voting for two candidates, one of whom could not be an inhabitant of the elector's state. The votes were counted during a joint session of the House and Senate, the candidate receiving a majority of votes becoming President, the one receiving the second largest number of votes Vice President, regardless of their partisan affiliations. For example, in 1796, the electoral college selected a Federalist President (John Adams) and a Republican Vice President (Thomas Jefferson). On the electoral college, see RICHARD B. BERNSTEIN & JEROME AGEL, AMENDING AMERICA: IF WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION SO MUCH, WHY DO WE KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE IT? 59-65, 150-54 (1993); TADAHISA KURODA, THE ORIGINS OF THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC, 1787-1804 (1994); RICHARD P. MCCORMICK, THE PRESIDENTIAL GAME: THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS (1982); Peter H. Argersinger, Electoral Processes, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY 489 (Jack P. Greene ed., 1984); and Shlomo Slonim, The Electoral College at Philadelphia: The Evolution of an Ad Hoc Congress for the Selection of a President, 73 J. AM. HIST. 35 (1986).
78. The electoral college was designed as a nonpartisan system that would discourage regional prejudice in the selection of a President. Each state selected electors (equal in number to the total of its representatives and senators) by whatever method their state legislatures chose to adopt. Electors then met in a group, in their home states, each man voting for two candidates, one of whom could not be an inhabitant of the elector's state. The votes were
79. The electoral college was designed as a nonpartisan system that would discourage regional prejudice in the selection of a President. Each state selected electors (equal in number to the total of its representatives and senators) by whatever method their state legislatures chose to adopt. Electors then met in a group, in their home states, each man voting for two candidates, one of whom could not be an inhabitant of the elector's state. The votes were counted during a joint session of the House and Senate, the candidate receiving a majority of votes becoming President, the one receiving the second largest number of votes Vice President, regardless of their partisan affiliations. For example, in 1796, the electoral college selected a Federalist President (John Adams) and a Republican Vice President (Thomas Jefferson). On the electoral college, see RICHARD B. BERNSTEIN & JEROME AGEL, AMENDING AMERICA: IF WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION SO MUCH, WHY DO WE KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE IT? 59-65, 150-54 (1993); TADAHISA KURODA, THE ORIGINS OF THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC, 1787-1804 (1994); RICHARD P. MCCORMICK, THE PRESIDENTIAL GAME: THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS (1982); Peter H. Argersinger, Electoral Processes, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY 489 (Jack P. Greene ed., 1984); and Shlomo Slonim, The Electoral College at Philadelphia: The Evolution of an Ad Hoc Congress for the Selection of a President, 73 J. AM. HIST. 35 (1986).
80. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to John Jay (May 7, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 464, 465. All emphases are Hamilton's. His closing -"Respectfully & Affect[ionatel]y" - reveals him appealing to Jay as both the governor and a friend. Jay was not persuaded, writing at the bottom of the letter: "Proposing a measure for party purposes wh. I think it wd. not become me to adopt." Id. at 467.
81. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to John Jay (May 7, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 464, 465. All emphases are Hamilton's. His closing - "Respectfully & Affect[ionatel]y" - reveals him appealing to Jay as both the governor and a friend. Jay was not persuaded, writing at the bottom of the letter: "Proposing a measure for party purposes wh. I think it wd. not become me to adopt." Id. at 467.
82. Id. at 465-66.
83. Id.
84. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
85. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
86. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
87. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
88. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
89. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
90. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
91. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
92. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
93. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
94. On the lack of coordination in the presidential election of 1796, see Joanne B. Freeman, The Presidential Election of 1796, in JOHN ADAMS AND THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC (Richard A. Ryerson ed., forthcoming 2000); and Freeman, supra note 6, at 244-330. On the election of 1796 in general, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 89-115; MANNING DAUER, THE ADAMS FEDERALISTS 92-119 (1953); ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 518-28; KURODA, supra note 52, at 63-72; STEPHEN G. KURTZ, THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS 78-238 (1957); MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 273-94; 2 SMITH, supra note 39, at 879-917; Arthur Scherr, The "Republican Experiment" and the Election of 1796 in Virginia, 37 W. VA. HIST. 89 (1976); and Page Smith, Election of 1796, in 1 HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1968, at 59 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ed., 1971).
95. Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (Sept. 30, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 272, 273 (David B. Mattern et al. eds., 1991). For letters expressing similar sentiments, see Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (May 16, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 250, 250-51; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (Nov. 28, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 281, 281-82; Letter from Stevens Thomson Mason to James Madison (Jan. 16, 1800), in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 356, 356; and Letter from Charles Peale Polk to James Madison (June 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 394, 394-95. For a detailed discussion of electoral college reform in 1800, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 144-47.
96. Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (Sept. 30, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 272, 273 (David B. Mattern et al. eds., 1991). For letters expressing similar sentiments, see Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (May 16, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 250, 250-51; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (Nov. 28, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 281, 281-82; Letter from Stevens Thomson Mason to James Madison (Jan. 16, 1800), in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 356, 356; and Letter from Charles Peale Polk to James Madison (June 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 394, 394-95. For a detailed discussion of electoral college reform in 1800, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 144-47.
97. Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (Sept. 30, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 272, 273 (David B. Mattern et al. eds., 1991). For letters expressing similar sentiments, see Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (May 16, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 250, 250-51; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (Nov. 28, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 281, 281-82; Letter from Stevens Thomson Mason to James Madison (Jan. 16, 1800), in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 356, 356; and Letter from Charles Peale Polk to James Madison (June 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 394, 394-95. For a detailed discussion of electoral college reform in 1800, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 144-47.
98. Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (Sept. 30, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 272, 273 (David B. Mattern et al. eds., 1991). For letters expressing similar sentiments, see Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (May 16, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 250, 250-51; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (Nov. 28, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 281, 281-82; Letter from Stevens Thomson Mason to James Madison (Jan. 16, 1800), in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 356, 356; and Letter from Charles Peale Polk to James Madison (June 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 394, 394-95. For a detailed discussion of electoral college reform in 1800, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 144-47.
99. Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (Sept. 30, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 272, 273 (David B. Mattern et al. eds., 1991). For letters expressing similar sentiments, see Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (May 16, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 250, 250-51; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (Nov. 28, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 281, 281-82; Letter from Stevens Thomson Mason to James Madison (Jan. 16, 1800), in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 356, 356; and Letter from Charles Peale Polk to James Madison (June 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 394, 394-95. For a detailed discussion of electoral college reform in 1800, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 144-47.
100. Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (Sept. 30, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 272, 273 (David B. Mattern et al. eds., 1991). For letters expressing similar sentiments, see Letter from Charles Pinckney to James Madison (May 16, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 250, 250-51; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (Nov. 28, 1799), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 281, 281-82; Letter from Stevens Thomson Mason to James Madison (Jan. 16, 1800), in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 356, 356; and Letter from Charles Peale Polk to James Madison (June 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra, at 394, 394-95. For a detailed discussion of electoral college reform in 1800, see CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 144-47.
101. Letter from Charles Carroll to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 27, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 93, 94 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1977).
102. Circular letter from Massachusetts Delegates in Congress (Jan. 31, 1800), in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 146. These personal letters in printed form were mailed to constituents and were largely a Southern form of political communication, well-adapted to a widely-dispersed population. In densely populated, print-saturated New England townships, such personal appeals were unnecessary, and thus seemingly self-promoting. See CIRCULAR LETTERS OF CONGRESSMEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, 1789-1829 (Noble Cunningham, Jr. ed., 1978).
103. Circular letter from Massachusetts Delegates in Congress (Jan. 31, 1800), in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 146. These personal letters in printed form were mailed to constituents and were largely a Southern form of political communication, well-adapted to a widely-dispersed population. In densely populated, print-saturated New England townships, such personal appeals were unnecessary, and thus seemingly self-promoting. See CIRCULAR LETTERS OF CONGRESSMEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, 1789-1829 (Noble Cunningham, Jr. ed., 1978).
104. See, e.g., Letter from Gabriel Duvall to James Madison (June 6, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 392, 392; Letter from Polk to Madison (June 20, 1800), supra note 57; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (July 28, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 399, 399.
105. See, e.g., Letter from Gabriel Duvall to James Madison (June 6, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 392, 392; Letter from Polk to Madison (June 20, 1800), supra note 57; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (July 28, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 399, 399.
106. See, e.g., Letter from Gabriel Duvall to James Madison (June 6, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 392, 392; Letter from Polk to Madison (June 20, 1800), supra note 57; Letter from John Dawson to James Madison (July 28, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 399, 399.
107. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Mar. 26, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46, at 18,230-31; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Apr. 16, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46, at 18,269-70.
108. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Mar. 26, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46, at 18,230-31; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Apr. 16, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46, at 18,269-70.
109. Letter from Jefferson to Monroe (Apr. 16, 1800), supra note 61, at 18,269-70.
110. Letter from Jefferson to Monroe (Mar. 26, 1800), supra note 61, at 18,230-31.
111. Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (May 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46.
112. Id.
113. The contest was for New York State legislators - the men who would select presidential electors, and thereby determine the state's presidential preference. It is worth noting that Pennsylvania also saw dramatic electioneering innovations in 1796 and 1800, but their driving force - John Beckley - was not among the ruling elite; a man of more equivocal status, his activities were less shocking to contemporaries. On Beckley, see EDMUND BERKELEY & DOROTHY SMITH BERKELEY, JOHN BECKLEY. ZEALOUS PARTISAN IN A NATION DIVIDED (1973); Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., John Beckley: An Early American Party Manager, 13 WM. & MARY Q. 40 (1956); and Jeffrey L. Pasley, "A Journeyman, Either in Law or Politics": John Beckley and the Social Origins of Political Campaigning, 16 J. EARLY REPUBLIC 531 (1996).
114. The contest was for New York State legislators - the men who would select presidential electors, and thereby determine the state's presidential preference. It is worth noting that Pennsylvania also saw dramatic electioneering innovations in 1796 and 1800, but their driving force - John Beckley - was not among the ruling elite; a man of more equivocal status, his activities were less shocking to contemporaries. On Beckley, see EDMUND BERKELEY & DOROTHY SMITH BERKELEY, JOHN BECKLEY. ZEALOUS PARTISAN IN A NATION DIVIDED (1973); Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., John Beckley: An Early American Party Manager, 13 WM. & MARY Q. 40 (1956); and Jeffrey L. Pasley, "A Journeyman, Either in Law or Politics": John Beckley and the Social Origins of Political Campaigning, 16 J. EARLY REPUBLIC 531 (1996).
115. The contest was for New York State legislators - the men who would select presidential electors, and thereby determine the state's presidential preference. It is worth noting that Pennsylvania also saw dramatic electioneering innovations in 1796 and 1800, but their driving force - John Beckley - was not among the ruling elite; a man of more equivocal status, his activities were less shocking to contemporaries. On Beckley, see EDMUND BERKELEY & DOROTHY SMITH BERKELEY, JOHN BECKLEY. ZEALOUS PARTISAN IN A NATION DIVIDED (1973); Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., John Beckley: An Early American Party Manager, 13 WM. & MARY Q. 40 (1956); and Jeffrey L. Pasley, "A Journeyman, Either in Law or Politics": John Beckley and the Social Origins of Political Campaigning, 16 J. EARLY REPUBLIC 531 (1996).
116. 2 MATTHEW L. DAVIS, MEMOIRS OF AARON BURR 54 (New York, Harper & Brothers 1837). As evidence, Davis cited a letter of March 4, 1800, from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.
117. See 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 239-40. Unfortunately, Lomask cites no source for this piece of information, though it seems typical of Burr's political method, as documented and described by his peers. He may be referring to Davis's account of Burr's checklist of the political elite. See 1 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 434-35. Overall, however, Lomask offers a vivid description of Burr's politicking. For many of the details in this paragraph, see 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 239-47.
118. See 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 239-40. Unfortunately, Lomask cites no source for this piece of information, though it seems typical of Burr's political method, as documented and described by his peers. He may be referring to Davis's account of Burr's checklist of the political elite. See 1 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 434-35. Overall, however, Lomask offers a vivid description of Burr's politicking. For many of the details in this paragraph, see 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 239-47.
119. See 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 239-40. Unfortunately, Lomask cites no source for this piece of information, though it seems typical of Burr's political method, as documented and described by his peers. He may be referring to Davis's account of Burr's checklist of the political elite. See 1 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 434-35. Overall, however, Lomask offers a vivid description of Burr's politicking. For many of the details in this paragraph, see 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 239-47.
120. Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 29, 1800), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45.
121. 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 244 (quoting the diary of Benjamin Betterton Howell, a New York City merchant).
122. 2 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 61.
123. See Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (May 1, 1800), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Robert Troup to Peter Van Schaack (May 2, 1800), in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 183.
124. See Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (May 1, 1800), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Robert Troup to Peter Van Schaack (May 2, 1800), in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 183.
125. Letter from Davis to Gallatin (Mar. 29, 1800), supra note 69.
126. See 1 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 434-35.
127. 2 id. at 60.
128. 1 LOMASK, supra note 39, at 244 (quoting the DAILY ADVERTISER (New York) (Apr. 2, 1800)).
129. Id. (quoting the GENERAL ADVERTISER (New York), Apr. 3, 1800).
130. See 7 JOHN C. HAMILTON, HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 375-76 (Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1864). The story may be apocryphal. John Church Hamilton reports that his father was on horseback because he was on his way to his country home, and then offers a questionable anecdote about how his father swayed the "rabble." Hamilton's "history of the republic" - which is really a biography of his father - is a prime example of the partisan, personal histories of the early and mid-nineteenth century.
131. On the difference between the "hands-off" politicking of the political elite and the popular politicking of second-rank politicians, see Pasley, supra note 38, at 63-81.
132. 2 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 15. I cannot resist including Davis's fascinating account of Burr's personnel management. Eager to gain as much financial and personal support as possible in 1800, Burr asked his assistants to draw up a list of the city's Republican elite. Proceeding down the list of names, he then calculated how much money or time to request of each man: An individual, an active partisan of wealth, but proverbially parsimonious, was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr directed that his name should be struck from the list; for, said he, you will not get the money, and from the moment the demand is made upon him, his exertions will cease, and you will not see him at the polls during the election. . . . [T]he name of another wealthy individual was presented; he was liberal, but indolent; he also was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr requested that this sum should be doubled, and that he should be informed that no labour would be expected from him except an occasional attendance at the committee-rooms to assist in folding tickets. He will pay you the two hundred dollars, and thank you for letting him off so easy. Id. at 16-17. The moral of this political lesson, Burr noted, was "that the knowledge and use of men consisted in placing each in his appropriate position." Id. at 17.
133. 2 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 15. I cannot resist including Davis's fascinating account of Burr's personnel management. Eager to gain as much financial and personal support as possible in 1800, Burr asked his assistants to draw up a list of the city's Republican elite. Proceeding down the list of names, he then calculated how much money or time to request of each man: An individual, an active partisan of wealth, but proverbially parsimonious, was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr directed that his name should be struck from the list; for, said he, you will not get the money, and from the moment the demand is made upon him, his exertions will cease, and you will not see him at the polls during the election. . . . [T]he name of another wealthy individual was presented; he was liberal, but indolent; he also was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr requested that this sum should be doubled, and that he should be informed that no labour would be expected from him except an occasional attendance at the committee-rooms to assist in folding tickets. He will pay you the two hundred dollars, and thank you for letting him off so easy. Id. at 16-17. The moral of this political lesson, Burr noted, was "that the knowledge and use of men consisted in placing each in his appropriate position." Id. at 17.
134. 2 DAVIS, supra note 67, at 15. I cannot resist including Davis's fascinating account of Burr's personnel management. Eager to gain as much financial and personal support as possible in 1800, Burr asked his assistants to draw up a list of the city's Republican elite. Proceeding down the list of names, he then calculated how much money or time to request of each man: An individual, an active partisan of wealth, but proverbially parsimonious, was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr directed that his name should be struck from the list; for, said he, you will not get the money, and from the moment the demand is made upon him, his exertions will cease, and you will not see him at the polls during the election. . . . [T]he name of another wealthy individual was presented; he was liberal, but indolent; he also was assessed one hundred dollars. Burr requested that this sum should be doubled, and that he should be informed that no labour would be expected from him except an occasional attendance at the committee-rooms to assist in folding tickets. He will pay you the two hundred dollars, and thank you for letting him off so easy. Id. at 16-17. The moral of this political lesson, Burr noted, was "that the knowledge and use of men consisted in placing each in his appropriate position." Id. at 17.
135. On Federalist attempts at democratic innovation, see generally DAVID HACKETT FISCHER, THE REVOLUTION OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: THE FEDERALIST PARTY IN THE ERA OF JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY (1965).
136. Letter from Robert R. Livingston to Gouverneur Morris (Feb. 2, 1801), Robert R. Livingston Papers (on file with the New York Historical Society). Livingston was speaking of Federalist congressmen, as they debated Jefferson's and Burr's qualifications for the Presidency.
137. Letter from John Trumbull to John Adams (July 21, 1801), in Adams Family Papers, supra note 46.
138. AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER (Philadelphia), Sept. 22, 1800, in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 165.
139. Benjamin Austin, Jr., Constitutional Republicanism in Opposition to Fallacious Federalism; as published occasionally in the Independent Chronicle under the Signature of Old South (Boston, 1803), in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 166 n.84; see also CARL E. PRINCE, NEW JERSEY'S JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE GENESIS OF AN EARLY PARTY MACHINE, 1789-1817, at 117-18, 155, 168 (1967) (noting similar objections); Letter from William Blount to John Sevier (Sept. 26, 1796), in 1 POLITICAL CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS OF AARON BURR 268 (Mary-Jo Kline ed., 1983) (same).
140. Benjamin Austin, Jr., Constitutional Republicanism in Opposition to Fallacious Federalism; as published occasionally in the Independent Chronicle under the Signature of Old South (Boston, 1803), in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 166 n.84; see also CARL E. PRINCE, NEW JERSEY'S JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE GENESIS OF AN EARLY PARTY MACHINE, 1789-1817, at 117-18, 155, 168 (1967) (noting similar objections); Letter from William Blount to John Sevier (Sept. 26, 1796), in 1 POLITICAL CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS OF AARON BURR 268 (Mary-Jo Kline ed., 1983) (same).
141. Benjamin Austin, Jr., Constitutional Republicanism in Opposition to Fallacious Federalism; as published occasionally in the Independent Chronicle under the Signature of Old South (Boston, 1803), in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 166 n.84; see also CARL E. PRINCE, NEW JERSEY'S JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS: THE GENESIS OF AN EARLY PARTY MACHINE, 1789-1817, at 117-18, 155, 168 (1967) (noting similar objections); Letter from William Blount to John Sevier (Sept. 26, 1796), in 1 POLITICAL CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS OF AARON BURR 268 (Mary-Jo Kline ed., 1983) (same).
142. See CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 156-57.
143. See Address to the inhabitants of the county of Gloucester (signed by Dr. Thomas Hendry, Chairman, 1800) in CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 157 n.47.
144. See id. at 164-66.
145. See id. at 165.
146. Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (Apr. 15, 1800), in Papers of Albert Gallatin supra note 45. Cunningham describes this meeting as "presumably . . . the general committee" of the Republican party, thereby dismissing entirely the mindset and intentions of those involved. See CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 180; see also FISCHER, supra note 81, at 110-12 (describing similar practices); RUDOLPH J. PASLER & MARGARET C. PASLER, THE NEW JERSEY FEDERALISTS 96-97, 107 n.34 (1975) (same).
147. Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (Apr. 15, 1800), in Papers of Albert Gallatin supra note 45. Cunningham describes this meeting as "presumably . . . the general committee" of the Republican party, thereby dismissing entirely the mindset and intentions of those involved. See CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 180; see also FISCHER, supra note 81, at 110-12 (describing similar practices); RUDOLPH J. PASLER & MARGARET C. PASLER, THE NEW JERSEY FEDERALISTS 96-97, 107 n.34 (1975) (same).
148. Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (Apr. 15, 1800), in Papers of Albert Gallatin supra note 45. Cunningham describes this meeting as "presumably . . . the general committee" of the Republican party, thereby dismissing entirely the mindset and intentions of those involved. See CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 180; see also FISCHER, supra note 81, at 110-12 (describing similar practices); RUDOLPH J. PASLER & MARGARET C. PASLER, THE NEW JERSEY FEDERALISTS 96-97, 107 n.34 (1975) (same).
149. Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (Apr. 15, 1800), in Papers of Albert Gallatin supra note 45. Cunningham describes this meeting as "presumably . . . the general committee" of the Republican party, thereby dismissing entirely the mindset and intentions of those involved. See CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 180; see also FISCHER, supra note 81, at 110-12 (describing similar practices); RUDOLPH J. PASLER & MARGARET C. PASLER, THE NEW JERSEY FEDERALISTS 96-97, 107 n.34 (1975) (same).
150. For Ackerman's discussion of conventions in the early national sense of the word, see 2 ACKERMAN, supra note 1, at 81-85.
151. See FISCHER, supra note 81, at 73-75, 78; PRINCE, supra note 85, at 64, 66-67, 72, 85. For an example of one of these well choreographed "democratic" conventions, see Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (Apr. 15, 1800), supra note 90, where Davis explains how New York Republicans selected candidates in a private meeting, and then held a public convention, during which a committee was "appointed," withdrew from the room, and returned with the pre-selected ballot in hand as though just created.
152. See FISCHER, supra note 81, at 73-75, 78; PRINCE, supra note 85, at 64, 66-67, 72, 85. For an example of one of these well choreographed "democratic" conventions, see Letter from Matthew L. Davis to Albert Gallatin (Apr. 15, 1800), supra note 90, where Davis explains how New York Republicans selected candidates in a private meeting, and then held a public convention, during which a committee was "appointed," withdrew from the room, and returned with the pre-selected ballot in hand as though just created.
153. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
154. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
155. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
156. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
157. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
158. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
159. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
160. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
161. See, e.g., Letter from Fisher Ames to Rufus King (Aug. 26, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING 295, 295-97 (Charles R. King ed., New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons 1896); Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 74, 74-75; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 418, 418-19; Letter from David Gelston to James Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 438, 438; Letter from George Jackson to James Madison (Feb. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 460, 460-61; Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 426, 426; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 10, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY 459, 459-60 (Bernard C. Steiner ed., 1907); Letter from John Rutledge, Jr. to Alexander Hamilton (July 17, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 30, 30-36; Letter from Robert Troup to Rufus King (Dec. 4, 1800), in 3 THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF RUFUS KING, supra, at 340, 340-41.
162. Letter from Thomas Adams to John Adams (Jan. 22, 1801), in Adams Family Papers, supra note 46.
163. Id.
164. Letter from John Francis Mercer to James Madison (Jan. 5, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 452, 452.
165. Letter from Cabot to Hamilton (Aug. 21, 1800), supra note 93, at 74, 75.
166. id. at 74-75.
167. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 4, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 444, 453.
168. Letter from Rutledge, Jr. to Hamilton (July 17, 1800), supra note 93, at 30, 31.
169. Id. For other letters urging loyalty to the Federalist pledge, see Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 8, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 470, 470; Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 10, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 474, 475; 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9 (quoting letter from Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Gray Otis (Aug. 28, 1800)); Letter from Ames to King (Aug. 26, 1800), supra note 93, at 295; Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 19, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 460, 460-61; and Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack (May 9, 1800) (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society, Theodore Sedgwick, III, folder 3.3, 1800, May-Dec.).
170. Id. For other letters urging loyalty to the Federalist pledge, see Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 8, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 470, 470; Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 10, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 474, 475; 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9 (quoting letter from Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Gray Otis (Aug. 28, 1800)); Letter from Ames to King (Aug. 26, 1800), supra note 93, at 295; Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 19, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 460, 460-61; and Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack (May 9, 1800) (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society, Theodore Sedgwick, III, folder 3.3, 1800, May-Dec.).
171. Id. For other letters urging loyalty to the Federalist pledge, see Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 8, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 470, 470; Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 10, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 474, 475; 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9 (quoting letter from Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Gray Otis (Aug. 28, 1800)); Letter from Ames to King (Aug. 26, 1800), supra note 93, at 295; Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 19, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 460, 460-61; and Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack (May 9, 1800) (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society, Theodore Sedgwick, III, folder 3.3, 1800, May-Dec.).
172. Id. For other letters urging loyalty to the Federalist pledge, see Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 8, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 470, 470; Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 10, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 474, 475; 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9 (quoting letter from Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Gray Otis (Aug. 28, 1800)); Letter from Ames to King (Aug. 26, 1800), supra note 93, at 295; Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 19, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 460, 460-61; and Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack (May 9, 1800) (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society, Theodore Sedgwick, III, folder 3.3, 1800, May-Dec.).
173. Id. For other letters urging loyalty to the Federalist pledge, see Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 8, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 470, 470; Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 10, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 474, 475; 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9 (quoting letter from Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Gray Otis (Aug. 28, 1800)); Letter from Ames to King (Aug. 26, 1800), supra note 93, at 295; Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 19, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 460, 460-61; and Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack (May 9, 1800) (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society, Theodore Sedgwick, III, folder 3.3, 1800, May-Dec.).
174. Id. For other letters urging loyalty to the Federalist pledge, see Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 8, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 470, 470; Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 10, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 474, 475; 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9 (quoting letter from Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Gray Otis (Aug. 28, 1800)); Letter from Ames to King (Aug. 26, 1800), supra note 93, at 295; Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 19, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 460, 460-61; and Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack (May 9, 1800) (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society, Theodore Sedgwick, III, folder 3.3, 1800, May-Dec.).
175. Id. For other letters urging loyalty to the Federalist pledge, see Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 8, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 470, 470; Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick (May 10, 1800), in 24 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 46, at 474, 475; 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9 (quoting letter from Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Gray Otis (Aug. 28, 1800)); Letter from Ames to King (Aug. 26, 1800), supra note 93, at 295; Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459; Letter from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to James McHenry (June 19, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 460, 460-61; and Letter from Theodore Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack (May 9, 1800) (on file with the Massachusetts Historical Society, Theodore Sedgwick, III, folder 3.3, 1800, May-Dec.).
176. Letter from Harper to Otis (Aug. 28, 1800), supra note 101, quoted in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 59 n. 9.
177. 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 250 n.7 (quoting Letter from Bushrod Washington to Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (Nov. 1, 1800)).
178. Id.
179. See Letter from George Cabot to Alexander Hamilton (Nov. 29, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 247, 248.
180. See Letter from Pinckney to McHenry (June 10, 1800), supra note 93, at 459, 459-60.
181. Letter from James A. Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Aug. 18, 1800), in 25 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 68, 71.
182. Letter from Gelston to Madison (Oct. 8, 1800), supra note 93, at 418-19.
183. Letter from Gelston to Madison (Nov. 21, 1800), supra note 93, at 438.
184. Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 21, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 425, 425.
185. Letter from Thomas Jefferson, Memorandum (Jan. 26, 1804), in THE COMPLETE ANAS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 224, 225 (Franklin B. Sawvel ed., 1903).
186. See infra note 115.
187. See, e.g., CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 239; ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 744; SHARP, supra note 3, at 249. Sharp discusses regional dissension between the largely Northern Federalist party and the largely Southern Republican party, but does not acknowledge such sectionalism within the parties themselves, still assuming that the nation was divided into two coherent parties - or "proto-parties." See, e.g., SHARP, supra, at 11-12.
188. See, e.g., CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 239; ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 744; SHARP, supra note 3, at 249. Sharp discusses regional dissension between the largely Northern Federalist party and the largely Southern Republican party, but does not acknowledge such sectionalism within the parties themselves, still assuming that the nation was divided into two coherent parties - or "proto-parties." See, e.g., SHARP, supra, at 11-12.
189. See, e.g., CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 239; ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 744; SHARP, supra note 3, at 249. Sharp discusses regional dissension between the largely Northern Federalist party and the largely Southern Republican party, but does not acknowledge such sectionalism within the parties themselves, still assuming that the nation was divided into two coherent parties - or "proto-parties." See, e.g., SHARP, supra, at 11-12.
190. See, e.g., CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 239; ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 34, at 744; SHARP, supra note 3, at 249. Sharp discusses regional dissension between the largely Northern Federalist party and the largely Southern Republican party, but does not acknowledge such sectionalism within the parties themselves, still assuming that the nation was divided into two coherent parties - or "proto-parties." See, e.g., SHARP, supra, at 11-12.
191. Letter from Uriah Tracy to James McHenry (Dec. 30, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 483, 483-84; see also Letter from Mercer to Madison (Jan. 5, 1801), supra note 96, at 452, 452-53 (making a similar observation).
192. Letter from Uriah Tracy to James McHenry (Dec. 30, 1800), in THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JAMES MCHENRY, supra note 93, at 483, 483-84; see also Letter from Mercer to Madison (Jan. 5, 1801), supra note 96, at 452, 452-53 (making a similar observation).
193. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
194. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
195. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
196. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
197. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
198. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
199. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
200. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
201. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
202. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
203. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
204. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
205. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
206. Republicans spoke seriously about taking arms against the Federalists if they withheld the presidency from Jefferson. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 467, 467-68; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Edward Livingston to Robert R. Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), in Robert R. Livingston Papers, supra note 82; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 21, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46. Others wondered, generally, about the prospect of civil war. See Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gideon Granger to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Hugh Henry Brackenridge to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 19, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Bayard to Colonel Allen McLane (Feb. 17, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45. On the prospect of protecting Jefferson's victory with armed resistance - and fears of civil war in general - see AMMON, supra note 17, at 192-93; MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT, supra note 17, at 7-11; MALONE, ORDEAL OF LIBERTY, supra note 17, at 503-04; SHARP, supra note 3, at 266-71; and AURORA GEN. ADVERTISER, supra note 46, at 466 n.2.
207. For further discussion of the election of 1800, see sources cited supra note 39.
208. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
209. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
210. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
211. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
212. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
213. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
214. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
215. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
216. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
217. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
218. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
219. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
220. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
221. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
222. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
223. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
224. See, e.g., Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 15, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Gallatin to Gallatin (Jan. 22, 1801), supra note 115; Letter from Albert Gallatin to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin (Jan. 29, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from Aaron Burr to Albert Gallatin (Jan. 16, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from William Eustis to Albert Gallatin (Mar. 6, 1801), in Papers of Albert Gallatin, supra note 45; Letter from John Beckley to Albert Gallatin (Feb. 15, 1801), Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Ellicot (Dec. 18, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Caesar Rodney to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe (Dec. 31, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas McKean to Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Horatio Gates to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 19, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 444, 444-45; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Dec. 26, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 57, at 448, 448; Letter from James Bayard to Alexander Hamilton (Mar. 8, 1801). in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 344, 344-45; Letter from Gouverneur Morris to Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 19, 1800), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 266, 266-67. Hamilton declared usurpation of the government a "most dangerous and unbecoming policy." Letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris (Jan. 9, 1801), in 25 The PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 58, at 304, 304.
225. 1 ACKERMAN, supra note 4, at 280.
226. See, e.g., Letter from Jefferson to Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801), supra note 115.
227. Letter from Livingston to Livingston (Jan. 29, 1801), supra note 115.
228. See Letter from Jefferson to Priestly (Mar. 21, 1801), supra note 11, at 1086. For letters making a similar statement, see Letter from Jefferson to Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), supra note 115, at 467-68; and CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 246 (quoting letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801)).
229. See Letter from Jefferson to Priestly (Mar. 21, 1801), supra note 11, at 1086. For letters making a similar statement, see Letter from Jefferson to Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), supra note 115, at 467-68; and CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 246 (quoting letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801)).
230. See Letter from Jefferson to Priestly (Mar. 21, 1801), supra note 11, at 1086. For letters making a similar statement, see Letter from Jefferson to Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), supra note 115, at 467-68; and CUNNINGHAM, supra note 39, at 246 (quoting letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (Feb. 15, 1801)).
231. Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 30, 1800), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46.
232. Letter from Monroe to Jefferson (Jan. 6, 1801), supra note 117.
233. Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Nov. 10, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 435, 435. For letters making similar assurances, see Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph (Jan. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from McKean to Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Gates to Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Rodney to Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), supra note 117; Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 446, 446-47.
234. Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Nov. 10, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 435, 435. For letters making similar assurances, see Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph (Jan. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from McKean to Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Gates to Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Rodney to Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), supra note 117; Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 446, 446-47.
235. Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Nov. 10, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 435, 435. For letters making similar assurances, see Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph (Jan. 9,
236. Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Nov. 10, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 435, 435. For letters making similar assurances, see Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph (Jan. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from McKean to Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Gates to Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Rodney to Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), supra note 117; Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 446, 446-47.
237. Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Nov. 10, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 435, 435. For letters making similar assurances, see Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph (Jan. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from McKean to Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Gates to Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Rodney to Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), supra note 117; Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 446, 446-47.
238. Letter from James Madison to James Monroe (ca. Nov. 10, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 435, 435. For letters making similar assurances, see Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph (Jan. 9, 1801), in Thomas Jefferson Papers, supra note 46; Letter from McKean to Jefferson (Jan. 10, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Gates to Jefferson (Feb. 9, 1801), supra note 117; Letter from Rodney to Jefferson (Dec. 28, 1800), supra note 117; Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 20, 1800), in 17 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 26, at 446, 446-47.
239. See PETER S. ONUF, STATEHOOD AND UNION: A HISTORY OF THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE 1-20 133-52 (1987); Peter S. Onuf, Federalism, Republicanism, and the Origins of American Sectionalism, in ALL OVER THE MAP: RETHINKING AMERICAN REGIONS 11-37 (Edward L. Ayers et al. eds., 1996).
240. See PETER S. ONUF, STATEHOOD AND UNION: A HISTORY OF THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE 1-20 133-52 (1987); Peter S. Onuf, Federalism, Republicanism, and the Origins of American Sectionalism, in ALL OVER THE MAP: RETHINKING AMERICAN REGIONS 11-37 (Edward L. Ayers et al. eds., 1996).
241. Letter from Jefferson to Madison (Feb. 18, 1801), supra note 115, at 467.
242. Letter from Thomas Adams to John Quincy Adams (Oct. 20, 1802), in Adams Family Papers, supra note 46.
243. 3 CHARLES W. UPHAM, THE LIFE OF TIMOTHY PICKERING 109 (Boston, Little, Brown, & Co. 1873 (quoting Chancellor James Kent)).
244. Letter from Wilson Cary Nicholas to James Madison (n.d. 1801), in Samuel Smith Papers (on file with the Alderman Library (MSS #1729), Univ. of Virginia).
245. Letter from St. George Tucker to John Page (Feb. 27, 1801) (on file with the Alderman Library (MSS #3640), University of Virginia).
246. Id.
247. See 3 UPHAM, supra note 128, at 103.
248. Id.
249. Id. at 106-07 (quoting James Hillhouse). Hillhouse published his suggested amendments in a pamphlet titled "Propositions for Amending the Constitution of the United States" (New Haven, 1810). John Adams responded with "Review of the Propositions for Amending the Constitution submitted by Mr. Hillhouse to the Senate of the United States, in 1808." but the Manuscript was not published until the 1851 publication of the sixth volume of THE WORKS OF JOHN ADAMS.
250. 3 UPHAM, supra note 128, at 106.
251. Letter from John Marshall to James Hillhouse, in 3 UPHAM, supra note 128, at 108-09.
252. Id.
253. 2 ACKERMAN, supra note 1, at 80.
254. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams (Oct. 28, 1813), in ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS, supra note 7, at 387, 391.