Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Restorer
I fail to see why you consider Jefferson's election corrupt

My comments were off-the-cuff and not quite right but the source was a History Book Club review of "The Failure of the Founding Fathers"

"...Jefferson and Burr tied, and havoc resulted. Ackerman tells this story with full attention to the multiple legal dimensions. One of the insanities of the 1787 Constitution is that electoral college deadlocks were to be broken on a one-state/one vote basis by the lame-duck Congress, which in this instance meant a Congress dominated by electorally-repudiated Federalists. Jefferson, who as Vice-President was also President of the Senate, had the task of counting the electoral votes, and Ackerman demonstrates that he played fast and loose with regard to Georgia's votes, which failed to meet the formal requirements set out by the Constitution. Had they not been counted, the House - meaning the lame-duck Federalists - would have been able to choose among the top five candidates instead of only Jefferson and Burr, who because of the Georgia votes, had gained a majority of the electoral votes. Moreover, at least some Federalists were tempted to pass a new succession-in-office act that would have resulted in John Marshall's becoming president if the House proved unable to break the tie. (In the event it took 26 votes before Federalist Rep. Bayard of Delaware in effect threw in the towel). One factor discouraging any such scheme was the threat of mobilization of state militias by Jeffersonian governors, who were fully prepared to march on the new capital in Washington should the Federalists try to steal the election."

The facts of the 1824 election are well-known

Here's an article on His Fraudulency.

And here's an article on His Fraudulency II, as his knowledgeable detractors refer to our current President.

82 posted on 12/25/2005 7:55:14 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: liberallarry

Correction. 26 votes was a typo. It took 36 votes.


83 posted on 12/25/2005 8:08:10 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: liberallarry
Jefferson, who as Vice-President was also President of the Senate, had the task of counting the electoral votes, and Ackerman demonstrates that he played fast and loose with regard to Georgia's votes, which failed to meet the formal requirements set out by the Constitution.

I don't believe this is entirely correct. The Constitution calls for the President of the Senate to open the ballots, which are then counted, presumably by the entire Senate, not just by its President.

Do you know what the problem with Georgia's vote was? I've read quite a bit about this period and don't recall anything about this.

I would assume there would have been a huge outcry had the President of the Senate arbitrarily rejected the vote of a state because in his sole opinion it failed to meet the Constitution's requirements.

Interestingly, of the 16 states in the Union at the time, 11 chose their electors either partly or entirely by vote of the state legislature.

84 posted on 12/25/2005 8:18:13 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson