Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Republic, if we can keep it

Part XVII: Peaceful transition of power

John Adams

When John Adams lost a bid for a second term as president, his successor warned against blocking a peaceful transfer of power.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.

There was once a president-elect who suspected the previous, one-term president — a man with an outsized ego, thin skin for criticism and a penchant for trying to restrict fundamental rights — was plotting to overturn the free and fair election and refuse to vacate the White House.

Alarmed, the incoming president sought an audience with the outgoing chief executive in which he warned “that such a measure would probably produce resistance by force, and incalculable consequences.” Don’t contest the outcome of the election, the victor said, or the country might devolve into chaos and violence. The peaceful transition of power, fragile as it is, was very much at stake.


Sadly, that story is all-too familiar to those who witnessed the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Even sadder, the presidents at the center of this true tale are not Joe Biden and Donald Trump. They are Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson, the incoming president, was acting on rumors that Adams, his predecessor, was maneuvering to hold on to the high office. And Adams, bitter and embarrassed by the loss, did not go out of his way to refute the accusation.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The election of 1800 had been particularly brutal. Adams was beaten and battered by the rancor of the campaign. James Callender, a famous pamphleteer and Jefferson supporter, spread ludicrous reports that Adams had a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” The Adams people responded with matching hyperbole, accusing Jefferson of favoring prostitution, adultery and incest.

Even Martha Washington entered the fray that fall, calling Jefferson “one of the most detestable of mankind.” What is more, Adams wasn’t even in the race at the finish line. The contest came down to a “special election” in the House of Representatives with Jefferson squaring off against Aaron Burr. Adams had come in a disappointing third. When all was said and done, Jefferson would be America’s new president and Adams, shoulders slumped and ego bruised, would return to yeoman farming. “The storm is over,” the victorious Virginian wrote, “and we are in port.”

The infamous election of 1800 was prophetic. In many ways it is a mirror on today’s disquieting political culture. Presidential campaigns are vicious; unfounded personal attacks are common; office holders will do almost anything to maintain power. Indeed, untruths, then and now, seem to be the coin of the realm, the preferred currency of the ignoble. Victory on the field of political battle is not complete unless one’s opponent and their partisan or ideological identity is humiliated in defeat. Contemporary politics is truly a zero-sum game.

And yet there is at least one magnificent reason to celebrate that particularly venomous and rancorous episode in American history, one that we would do well to remember as the presidential election season creeps ever closer.

The hostility of the 1800 presidential campaign ultimately gave way to the 1801 peaceful transfer of power.

It was not a foregone conclusion that Adams would relinquish authority. His administration had experienced a simple, uncontentious transition just four years earlier when George Washington, channeling the great Roman statesma, Cincinnatus, voluntarily abdicated the presidency to relish the “sweet enjoyment of partaking” in a retreat from public life. That presidential changeover went smoothly because it did not include a corresponding shift in partisan control. Washington, a Federalist, handed the reins of power to Adams, also a Federalist. Would the same composed, dignified transition occur when Jefferson — not a Federalist, but a Democratic-Republican — arrived at the White House on March 4, 1801? Would Adams hand over the keys to the kingdom?

The answer, thankfully, was yes. The 1801 transfer of power, unlike practically any other singular moment in this country’s long political history, heralded the genius, and the distinctiveness, of America’s grand experiment in republican government. It said that we were going to play fairly, by the tenets pronounced in the Constitution, and that the rule of law would always prevail over the force of men.

An important eyewitness to Jefferson’s assuming power captured the moment far better than I: “Let me congratulate not only you, but all my fellow citizens on an event which will have so auspicious an influence on their political welfare,” Margaret Bayard Smith wrote to her sister on that 1801 Inauguration Day. “I have this morning witnessed one of the most interesting scenes a free people can ever witness. The changes of administration, which in every government and in every age have most generally been epochs of confusion, villainy and bloodshed, in this our happy country takes place without any species of distraction or disorder.”

There were no guarantees before March 4, 1801. There were after.

Perhaps in hindsight we should concede that America’s early leaders — men like Jefferson and Adams — were destined to do the right thing, that the oath they took and the personal fortitude they displayed meant that they would stand aside when defeated. Perhaps their commitment to honor, and to a legacy, meant that they would surmount their destructive desire for power. Perhaps even their fear of disappointing the American people, and of potentially kindling a violent flame, tempered their most selfish instincts. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. What I do know is that there are few Jeffersons in today’s political scrum. There are few Adamses.

But no matter what the reason for the peaceful transfer of power in 1801, or in 1829, 1861, 1897, and 1932 — those partisan “realignments” when it was not fully a given that presidential transitions would be simple — the American people have always demanded that presidential elections — and nothing else! — determine the occupant of the oval office. Indeed, we have come to expect as much.

Our job from this day forward is to remain ardently faithful to that uniquely American tradition.

Read More

Bill Gates (but not that Bill Gates)
Issue One

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Bill Gates

Minkin is a research associate at Issue One. Clapp is the campaign manager for election protection at Issue One. Assefa is a research intern at Issue One.

Bill Gates, a registered Republican, was re-elected to the Maricopa County (Ariz.) Board of Supervisors in 2020 after first being elected in 2016. Before joining the board, he served on the Phoenix City Council for seven years, from 2009 to 2016, including a term as vice mayor in 2013.

Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, is the fourth-largest county in the United States, and it has the second-largest voting jurisdiction in the country, with about 2.5 million active, registered voters and about 4.5 million residents. Gates represents roughly 900,000 residents as a supervisor for the 3rd district.

Keep ReadingShow less
House members taking the oath of office in the chamber

Members of the House of Representatives are sworn in by Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Jan. 6, 2023.

Elizabeth Frantz/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

Call them ‘representatives,’ because that’s what they are − not ‘congressmen’ or ‘congresswomen’

Wirls is a professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

For most of the nation’s history, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” By contrast, a senator is referred to as, well, “Senator.”

These gendered terms for House members dominate in journalism, everyday conversation and among members of Congress.

The name Congress refers to the entire national legislature, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gender identity aside, congressman and congresswoman are fundamentally inaccurate terms.

Keep ReadingShow less
The start of the 2024 men's 100 meter dash

"Notably, both in sports and in society, a prerequisite to fair and impartial competition is agreement and acceptance of a set of rules and regulations," writes Radwell.

Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images

A 'just' meritocracy – the keystone to the American dream

Radwell is the author of "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the 12th entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.

I’m not sure if it is due to the recent triumph of the Paris Olympics or voters’ nascent love affair with Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, but the spirit of sports competition has taken center stage of late. Watching our young athletes reach their Olympic dreams and being introduced to Coach Walz seem connected in some mysterious but heartwarming way.

Behind every Olympic medal lies a story of young budding talent buttressed by a coterie of adults who chart the course. And in Walz, we recognize someone who has unmistakably demonstrated a profound developmental impact with kids both on the field and in the classroom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silhouette of an American Democratic politician speaks to his constituents, with the country's flag on the left
Andrea Nicolini/Getty Images

The populace and the politicians

Chaleff is a speaker, innovative thinker and the author of “To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader.” This is the third entry in a series on political followership.

Saying that someone is a politician is not typically a compliment these days. Often, it is quite the opposite.

What a shame. Who do we want legislating and governing? Individuals with little skill for communicating? Who cannot compromise when they need to pass a policy solution to a real-world problem? Who doesn't understand the legislative process or the strategies for building a winning coalition?

Keep ReadingShow less