Colonial_18th

The Election of 1804

     Despite earlier hopes of a return to unity among men of good faith, political factionalism continued throughout Jefferson's first term. The more moderate Federalists, such as Fisher Ames and John Jay, withdrew from public life. The remaining Federalists determined to challenge Jefferson in the next presidential election. The Federalists tapped former vice-presidential candidate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to head the 1804 presidential ticket. For the vice-presidency, they chose Rufus King, a defender of the notion of loyal opposition and the two-party system.

     Federalists had trouble, however, identifying issues on which to build a platform. Hoping to expand on anti-expansionist fears in New England and sentiments favoring states' rights in the South, the Federalists focused their campaign on Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Federalists charged that Jefferson had paid too much for the new territory and was attempting to use the region to build a unified anti-mercantile political faction. Pinckney attacked Jefferson's use of presidential (and hence, federal) power to acquire a new territory, in contradiction of the president's own Kentucky Resolution. Some Republicans shared the Federalist view that the president had departed from his principles by purchasing Louisiana, but no one questioned his overall success in accomplishing his party's goals. During the first administration, he had eliminated internal taxes, stimulated westward migration, eliminated the Alien and Sedition acts, and rekindled hope among many disaffected Americans. At the same time, he had proved that he was no threat to national commerce or to individual influence

     Alexander Hamilton's influence, America's international earnings from commercial activities had doubled during the 1790s, but despite Federalist fears, the same growth rate continued under Jefferson. Such economic growth allowed Jefferson to maintain a favorable balance of payments throughout the first administration, a feat his predecessors failed to achieve. With Gallatin's help, Jefferson had proved his fiscal responsibility by building up a multimillion dollar treasury surplus without borrowing money or enacting new taxes.

     Jefferson had also enhanced his political position through the liberal use of patronage. Gallatin's cost-cutting efforts removed many Federalist civil servants from the federal payroll while Jefferson's policies were creating new positions for Republican loyalists. Throughout his administration he used this combination of positive and negative reinforcement to maintain party discipline and ensure hard work in winning votes.

     The enormous scope of Jefferson's success and the limited scope of his opponent's platform helped swing the election of 1804 firmly into the Republican column. Jefferson won 162 electoral votes to Pinckney's 14, carrying every state except Connecticut and Delaware.

Troubling Currents in American Politics

Burr-Hamilton Duel

The Duel

Aaron Burr

James Wilkinson

     Jefferson's successes, culminating in his victory in 1804, seemed to prove that the Republicans had absolute control over the nation's political reins. But factions that would challenge Jefferson's control. A small but vocal coalition of disgruntled Federalists threatened to secede from the Union. Even within his own party, Jefferson's supremacy eroded and dissidents emerged. Diplomatic problems also joined domestic ones to trouble Jefferson's second administration

     The Federalists' failure in the election of 1804 nearly spelled the end of the party. With the West and South firmly in the Republican camp, disgruntled New England Federalists found their once-dominant voice drowned out by those who shared Jefferson's vision rather than Hamilton's view of America's future. Proclaiming that "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West," Federalist leader Timothy Pickering advocated radical changes in the Constitution that he thought might restore balance. Among other things, northeasterners demanded much stricter standards for admitted new states in the West and eliminating the Three-Fifths Compromise. He brought together a tight political coalition called the Essex Junto to press for these changes.

      Regional fissures began to open inside Jefferson's party as well. Throughout Jefferson's party as well. Throughout Jefferson's first administration, some within his party, especially those from the South, criticized the president for turning his back on republican principles by expanding federal power and interfering with states' rights. One of Jefferson's most vocal critics was his cousin, John Randolph. The two clashed in 1804 over the Yazoo affair, a scandal stemming from a crooked land deal that had taken place in Congress in 1795. Jefferson advocated federal compensation for those who had lost money when outraged Georgia legislature to overturn the fraudulent sale. In 1806 Jefferson again irritated Randolph by approaching Congress for a $2 million appropriation to be used to win French influence in convincing Spain to sell Florida to the United States. Citing these and the other perceived violations of Republican principles, Randolph announced he was splitting with Jefferson to form a third party, the Tertium Quid, fracturing the Republican united front.

     A second fissure opened up in the party over the controversial vice-president, Aaron Burr, and his political scheming. Upset that Burr had not conceded the presidency after the tied Electoral College in 1800, Jefferson snubbed him throughout the first term and dropped him from the ticket in 1804. But Burr's political failures constituted an opportunity for the Essex Junto: Pickering offered to help Burr become governor of New York if Burr would deliver the state to the northern confederacy and support secession. Burr agreed, but mainstream New York Federalists were furious, especially Alexander Hamilton. During the gubernatorial election, Hamilton was quoted by the press as saying that Burr was "a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government." Burr lost the election in a landslide, wrecking the Junto's scheme and pushing himself into an even greater personal and political crisis. Unable to accept defeat gracefully, Burr demanded that Hamilton retract his statements. When Hamilton refused, Burr challenged him to a duel. An excellent shot, Burr put a bullet right through Hamilton's liver, mortally wounding him.

     Killing Hamilton did not solve Burr's problems. He was indicted for murder and fled. While in hiding, the vice-president made contact with James Wilkinson, with whom he struck up some sort of business deal. A former Revolutionary War commander who had become a freelance adventurer, Wilkinson had been employed simultaneously by the United States and Spain, each of which thought he represented their interests. His real loyalties and intentions remained mysterious. At one point he told the Spanish that he and Burr intended to form an independent republic in the Mississippi Valley, but Burr informed the British that they intended to carve a republic out of Spanish territory. Whatever they had in mind, when Burr emerged from hiding and resumed his role as vice-president and chair of the Senate, he arranged for Wilkinson to be appointed governor of the Louisiana Territory, providing an institutional foundation for whatever plot they had hatched.

      Finally turned out of office in 1805, Burr ventured west, sailing down the Mississippi to recruit associates. Rumors of intrigue soon surfaced, and federal authorities became interested in Burr's activities after receiving a letter from Wilkinson in 1806 warning of a "deep, dark, wicked and wide-spread conspiracy" against the United States and implicated Burr. Learning that Wilkinson had turned him in, Burr fled to Spanish Florida in 1807 but was captured and tried for treason. The trial was a circus, and an open arena for Jefferson's critics to air their views on touchy subjects of presidential power, westward expansion, and national loyalty.

     Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist and no friend of Jefferson, presided over the trial, and made it clear that he believed that Burr was the victim, not the perpetrator, of a conspiracy. Jefferson, however, continued to assert Burr's guilt and was determined to have him prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Using his executive powers, Jefferson offered presidential pardons to any conspirators who would come forward and offer testimony against Burr, and he released documents that would make his former vice president look guilty. He also refused to honor a subpoena issued by Marshall ordering Jefferson to appear in court and to produce papers in evidence. Marshall backed down only after Jefferson reminded the Chief Justice of his own (Marshall's) support of George Washington's presidential privilege when he refused to present key papers concerning Jay's Treaty to Congress.

      Marshall struck back in his own way. He instructed the jury that the Constitution defined treason as "levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies" and that a guilty verdict required direct evidence from two witnesses that Burr had so acted. Because Burr had not waged war, and because neither Spain nor Britain at the moment was an enemy of the United States, the jury acquitted Burr, much to the glee of Jefferson's critics.

The Problem of Neutrality

Napoleon crowning himself emperor

The Battle of Trafalgar by Turner, courtesy of the British Museum

The Chesapeake Affair

USS Chesapeake

     In 1803, Napoleon had abolished the French Republic and crowned himself Emperor of France. Immediately, he set out to conquer his neighbors. As in any European conflict, all of Europe was soon involved, with Britain leading the coalition against France.

     With their fleets engaged in naval battles and their peoples locked in combat, Europeans needed American ships and the fruits of American labor, especially food.   American neutrality insured continued prosperity. For example, the value of American shipments to Europe rose from $14 million in 1803 to $60 million in 1807, prompting a rapid growth in the earnings for American shipping. Prospects for America's economic future seemed bright as long as the warring parties agreed to respect the diplomatic rules of neutrality.

     Two battles in 1805, though, struck a severe blow to American hopes of remaining neutral. On October 15, Britain's Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson defeated a combined French and Spanish fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar. Though "mighty Nelson" was killed in the battle, Britain won a huge victory, and in doing so established its control of the seas.   On December 2, Napoleon defeated a massive combined army of Russian and Austrian forces at the Battle of Austerlitz (in what is now the modern nation of the Czech Republic). This victory gave Napoleon nearly total control of continental Europe.

     With Napoleon controlling Europe and Britain in control of the seas, the conflict had reached a military stalemate. The only other prospect for victory lay in economic warfare. Napoleon stepped up the pressure by issuing his Berlin Decree of November of 1806, which barred any ships that had anchored in British harbors from entering ports controlled by France. In repines, the British Parliament issued a series of orders in council permitting neutral ships to enter European ports only if they first called at a British port to pay a transit tax--and submit to a search for contraband If any ship attempted to run the British blockade and trade directly with Europe and was caught by the Royal Navy, the orders directed the navy to confiscate the ship and all its cargo, as well as impressing any of its crew deemed "deserters" into service with the Royal Navy.

     The Berlin Decree and the Orders in Council enraged many Americans, who viewed them as an affront to both America's neutral rights as well as an infringement upon national sovereignty. Nevertheless, neither action immediately affected American trade, which continued to rise in volume throughout 1807. This good fortune, however, did not last. Seeking to break his dependence on American food and supplies, Napoleon sought an alliance with his former enemy, Russia, which he gained in the spring of 1807. Having acquired a new source of supplies, Napoleon immediately began enforcing the Berlin Decree, hoping to starve England into submission. The British countered by stepping up their enforcement of their European blockade and aggressively pursuing impressment to strengthen the Royal Navy.

     The escalation of both British and French economic warfare quickly led to a confrontation with America and a diplomatic crisis. In June 1807, a British frigate, the Leopard, patrolling the American shoreline, confronted the American warship Chesapeake. Even though both ships were inside American territorial waters, the Leopard ordered the Chesapeake to halt and hand over any British sailors on board. The Chesapeake's captain refused, and the Leopard fired several broadsides into the American ship, crippling it and killing three sailors and injuring eighteen. The British then boarded the Chesapeake and dragged off four men, three of whom were naturalized citizens of the United States. Americans were outraged.

     The incident led to calls for war--and if Congress had been in session, it may very well have issued such a decree--but Jefferson remained calm. War with Britain or France--or worse still, with both--would bring Jefferson's whole political program to a crashing halt. He had insisted on inexpensive government, lobbied for American neutrality, and hoped continuing trade with Europe would maintain the present prosperity. But clearly, Jefferson had to do something.

•

The Embargo Act of 1808

     Believing that Europeans were far more dependent on American goods and ships than the reverse, Jefferson chose to violate one of his cardinal principles: the U. S. government would interfere in the economy to force Europeans to recognize neutral rights. In December 1807, the president announced that unless neutral rights gained universal recognition, on January 1, 1808, the Embargo Act of 1808 would go into effect. This act would prohibit all American foreign trade, anywhere, with anyone.

     Although Jefferson felt justified in suspending free trade to protect neutral rights, the Embargo Act resulted in the worst economic depression since the founding of the British colonies in North America. Critics such as John Randolph pronounced Jefferson's solution worse than the problem--like trying to "cure corns by cutting off the toes." And while Jefferson's "damn-bargo" was only half-heartedly enforced, the economy slumped disastrously. Taken together, all American exports fell from $109 million to $22 million, and net earnings from shipping fell fifty percent. During 1808, earnings from legitimate business enterprises in America fell to less than a quarter of their value in 1807.

     Worst hit were the port cities, especially the Northeast. Tens of thousands of sailors lost their jobs, banks and businesses went into bankruptcy, and industries laid of a hundred thousand people. The combination subsequently led to the imprisonment of thousands of Americans for debt. (In those days, if one defaulted on debt, he or she landed in a "debtor's prison" until friends or relatives could pay off the debt.)

     Given the strength of Federalist sentiments in New England, it is not surprising the Jefferson's Embargo Act helped revive the extremist views expressed by the Essex Junto only three years previous. But Northeasterners were not the only ones hurt by the embargo. Southerners and Westerners who depended upon export of agricultural products were equally hard hit. Farm prices fell sixteen percent from 1807 to 1811, or half of their value on 1791. Simultaneously, the price of consumer goods went up, with the price of everything except food rising between ten and twenty percent even as incomes fell. Rather than blaming the Republican administration, though, the Southerners and Westerners turned their anger on the British. Frontiersmen had their own ax to grind with respect to British interference--in their case, interference with Indians tribes in the interior--but for the moment, they expressed their anger at British interference with American trade.

Proceed to Next Lecture