On February 17, 1801, the young United States faced a constitutional crisis that tested whether its new government could transfer power peacefully. That day, after weeks of deadlock, the House of Representatives finally chose a president, proving that the nation’s system—though imperfect—could still function under pressure.
By 1801, Thomas Jefferson was already one of the most experienced political leaders in the new nation. He had helped guide American independence while serving in the Second Continental Congress. He later served in the Virginia House of Delegates and became governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War. Jefferson also served overseas as minister to France. When he returned home, he became the nation’s first secretary of State under President George Washington.
While serving in Washington’s cabinet, Jefferson clashed often with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Their main disagreement involved how to handle debt from the Revolutionary War. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume and share the debt among all states. He believed this would strengthen the national government and build trust with foreign lenders. Jefferson disagreed. He believed each state should pay only its own war debt. Virginia, his home state, had already paid much of its share. This dispute helped create two early political groups. Hamilton led the Federalist Party, which supported a strong central government. Jefferson helped lead the Democratic-Republican Party, which favored stronger state power.
As secretary of State, Jefferson supported France during its conflict with England. However, disagreements within the cabinet and growing party conflict pushed him to leave government in 1793. He returned to his home at Monticello. There, he worked closely with James Madison to organize political opposition to Federalist policies.
Jefferson ran for president in 1796 but lost to John Adams. At that time, the candidate with the second-highest number of electoral votes became vice president. This meant Jefferson served as vice president under a political rival. The arrangement created tension and showed problems in the election system.
The election of 1800 exposed those problems even more clearly. Jefferson and Aaron Burr each received the same number of electoral votes. Under the Constitution, the decision then moved to the United States House of Representatives. At the time, Federalists still controlled the House. Many Federalists distrusted Jefferson. Some even considered supporting Burr instead.
The House vote dragged on for days. Representatives cast ballot after ballot without a winner. For 35 ballots, neither candidate could gain enough support. During this time, Hamilton—though Jefferson’s political enemy—worked behind the scenes. He argued that Jefferson was more predictable and less dangerous than Burr. Finally, on the 36th ballot, the House broke the deadlock. Jefferson won the presidency by a vote of ten states to four, with two states divided. The decision was finalized on February 17, 1801.
The crisis revealed weaknesses in the original election system. In response, Congress later passed the 12th Amendment. It required electors to cast separate votes for president and vice president. This change helped prevent future ties like the one in 1800.
Although Jefferson and Burr had run together, their relationship was strained. Jefferson did not trust Burr’s political ambitions. In the 1804 election, Jefferson chose a new running mate. Burr’s political career soon collapsed. That same year, Burr killed Hamilton in a duel, ending one of the most famous rivalries in early American politics.
The peaceful transfer of power in 1801 became known as the “Revolution of 1800.” It showed that political opponents could replace each other without violence. While the process was messy and stressful, it proved the new Constitution could survive serious challenges. For a young nation still defining itself, that was an important test passed.
| FREE printable This Day in History album pages Download a PDF of today’s article. Get a binder or other supplies to create your This Day in History album. |
Discover what else happened on This Day in History.
The Electoral College method of electing the President was flawed from the start. They should have fixed it way back then, but it’s too late now. Twice in the last five elections (2002 and 2016), a candidate won the Electoral College despite the fact that the majority of the American people voted against him…and look what we got!
A Poor Looser.
Yes, we received an America loving President.
Yeah, and I’m sure you’d still have written this comment if it had worked out the opposite way.
Oops, that’s 2000 and 2016.
What we got was better than the alternative in both cases. If you think Gore or Clinton would have been better for America than you have been drinking the cool-ade to long.
Leave the electoral college alone. The founding fathers were a lot smarter than our current so called leadership. Great article.
Agree totally. A few big states would elect our president – not something any of us want to happen.
Thank God for the wisdom of our forefathers, with out the electoral college New York and California would determine Americas President.
While I do understand the logic for the smaller states to have a say in the presidential elections, I do not understand why there can’t be a national primary day for all states. The current crazy primary system gives certain states the power to determine the nominee. By the time the early states have had their primaries, the later states just go through the motions. And then there are the “super” delegates. It’s crazy! A vice presidential issue???? Spiro Agnew later???? Liberia????
Thankfully we have stamps to rethink historical reality, someday soon we will see this era of Trump with 20 20 vision
2008&2012 a Fancy fellow born in Kenya, as the Haavaad Law review bragged.Try to get a copy of that one from Haavaad, that’s what we got. Point one..CA lets recently arrived(5 minutes) vote. Point 2 the major cities on the coasts get to select. We have seen the scorn heaped upon those worthless folks in the South & Midwest who produce such non-essentials as food.
Such nasty and entirely predictable comments from Trump lovers. I know, I know, to Trumpistas, he can do no wrong no matter what he does or doesn’t do. In my opinion, and this will probably bring on more tasteless and nasty comments, Trump will be regarded in history as the worst President of the U.S. since at least the Civil War. OK, Trump defenders, have at it.
Sounds like everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they agree with you. For such a staunch defender of democracy and instructor of history for 38 years you sound a little “menschy” to me.
Yes. James Buchanan’s bottom listing is in jeopardy but not a foregone conclusion. And, with “apologies” to Andrew Johnson.
Calif. produces lots of food with the help of immigrants.
We have the Electoral College for the same reason that we have a bi-cameral legislature. Look where we would be if we only had a unicameral legislature. The party in control of the House of Representatives would be able to enact ANYTHING they wanted; with no checks or balances of any kind. The Founders were very smart, in my opinion. (Plus, we would never have had a country at all, if not for the compromises which led to a Senate – based on equal representation, no matter how large or how small the State – and a House of Representatives – based on population. Likewise, we would never have had a country without the Electoral College. It was a compromise, based on the exact same reasoning as the Bicameral legislature. Not enough States would have ratified the Constitution without it. Besides, personally I am glad we don’t decide our Presidential election on the basis of the “popular vote” alone. In my estimation, there are too many voters who are ignorant, uninformed, or only vote one way or another for the most foolish of reasons.
“Besides, personally I am glad we don’t decide our Presidential election on the basis of the “popular vote†alone. In my estimation, there are too many voters who are ignorant, uninformed, or only vote one way or another for the most foolish of reasons.”
AMEN! Agreed that the large states would determine everything in the country, and there are so many voters who do not make their own decisions, but let others make it for them.
As Voltaire so famously said, “Common sense is not so common”!
Fantastic article Mystic, keep up the good work!
Interesting, when you say “large states,” you are referring to the states with the most people. The people in these states pay most of the taxes, supply most of the people who serve in the military, and have the most to lose when a minority government is in power. Why shouldn’t most of the people have most of the say? A voter in a small state like North Dakota or Alaska has about 50 times the say as a voter in New York, Texas, or California. That’s not right! The principle of “one man (or woman), one vote” should apply.
There are many suggestions as to how to reform the Electoral College. To mention one: assign a state’s electoral vote proportionally. If 50% of the popular votes go to candidate A, 40% to candidate B, and 10% to candidate C, assign the electoral votes accordingly. But forget about it. Since any Constitutional reform has to be ratified by three fourths of the states, the small states would never approve of any change.
And, thank you Edward for remembering who I am.
My pleasure Mr. Gaunt. How are things in California?
Well, we are in the early stages of another classic drought.
Nice to see we stamp collectors have some differing opinions.