Podcasts de historia

1er Estado de Unión de Adams - Historia

1er Estado de Unión de Adams - Historia

ESTADOS UNIDOS, 22 de noviembre de 1797.

Señores del Senado y Señores de la Cámara de Representantes:

Durante algún tiempo tuve miedo de que fuera necesario, debido a la enfermedad contagiosa que afligía a la ciudad de Filadelfia, convocar la Legislatura Nacional en algún otro lugar. Era deseable evitar esta medida, porque ocasionaría muchos inconvenientes públicos y un gasto público considerable y se sumaría a las calamidades de los habitantes de esta ciudad, cuyos sufrimientos debieron despertar la simpatía de todos sus conciudadanos. Por lo tanto, después de tomar medidas para determinar el estado y el declive de la enfermedad, pospuse mi determinación, con la esperanza, ahora felizmente realizada, de que, sin peligro para la vida o la salud de los miembros, el Congreso podría reunirse en este lugar, donde estaba siguiente por ley para cumplir. Sin embargo, someto a su consideración si la facultad de posponer la reunión del Congreso, sin pasar el tiempo fijado por la Constitución en tales ocasiones, no sería una enmienda útil a la ley de 1794.

Aunque todavía no puedo felicitarlos por el restablecimiento de la paz en Europa y el restablecimiento de la seguridad de las personas y propiedades de nuestros ciudadanos frente a la injusticia y la violencia en el mar, tenemos, no obstante, abundantes motivos de gratitud a la fuente de benevolencia. e influencia para la tranquilidad interior y la seguridad personal, para temporadas propicias, agricultura próspera, pesquerías productivas y mejoras generales, y, sobre todo, para un espíritu racional de libertad civil y religiosa y una determinación tranquila pero firme de apoyar nuestra soberanía, así como nuestros principios morales y religiosos, contra todos los ataques abiertos y secretos.

Nuestros enviados extraordinarios a la República Francesa se embarcaron, uno en julio, el otro a principios de agosto, para reunirse con su colega en Holanda. He recibido noticias de la llegada de ambos a Holanda, de donde partieron todos en sus viajes a París a los pocos días del 19 de septiembre. Cualquiera que sea el resultado de esta misión, confío en que no se habrá omitido nada de mi parte para llevar la negociación a una conclusión exitosa, en términos tan equitativos que sean compatibles con la seguridad, el honor y los intereses de los Estados Unidos. Nada, mientras tanto, contribuirá tanto a la preservación de la paz y al logro de la justicia como una manifestación de esa energía y unanimidad de la que en muchas ocasiones anteriores el pueblo de los Estados Unidos ha dado tan memorables pruebas, y el ejercicio de aquellos recursos para la defensa nacional que una providencia benéfica ha puesto gentilmente en su poder.

Se puede afirmar con seguridad que nada ha ocurrido desde el aplazamiento del Congreso que haga inútiles las medidas cautelares recomendadas por mí a la consideración de las dos Cámaras en la apertura de su tardía sesión extraordinaria. Si ese sistema era entonces prudente, lo es más ahora, ya que el aumento de las depredaciones refuerza las razones de su adopción.

De hecho, sea cual sea el tema de la negociación con Francia, y si la guerra en Europa continuará o no, tengo la certeza de que no se logrará pronto la tranquilidad y el orden permanentes. El estado de la sociedad ha sido perturbado durante tanto tiempo, el sentido de las obligaciones morales y religiosas se ha debilitado tanto, la fe pública y el honor nacional se han visto tan perjudicados, el respeto a los tratados ha disminuido y el derecho de gentes ha perdido gran parte de su poder. fuerza, mientras que el orgullo, la ambición, la avaricia y la violencia han estado desenfrenadas durante tanto tiempo, no queda ningún fundamento razonable sobre el cual levantar la expectativa de que un comercio sin protección o defensa no será saqueado.

El comercio de los Estados Unidos es esencial, si no para su existencia, al menos para su comodidad, su crecimiento, prosperidad y felicidad. El genio, el carácter y los hábitos de la gente son muy comerciales. Sus ciudades se han formado y existen gracias al comercio. Nuestra agricultura, pesca, artes y manufacturas están conectadas y dependen de ella. En resumen, el comercio ha hecho de este país lo que es, y no puede ser destruido o descuidado sin involucrar a la gente en la pobreza y la angustia. Grandes números son soportados directa y únicamente por la navegación.

La fe de la sociedad está comprometida con la preservación de los derechos de los comerciantes y marineros no menos que los de los demás ciudadanos. Bajo esta perspectiva de nuestros asuntos, me consideraría culpable de negligencia en el deber si me abstuviera de recomendar que hagamos todos los esfuerzos posibles para proteger nuestro comercio y colocar a nuestro país en una postura adecuada de defensa como el único medio seguro de preservar. ambos.

Tengo la expectativa de que hubiera estado en mi poder en la apertura de esta sesión haberle comunicado la agradable información de la debida ejecución de nuestro tratado con Su Majestad Católica respecto a la retirada de sus tropas de nuestro territorio y la demarcación. de la línea de límites, pero según la última inteligencia auténtica, las guarniciones españolas aún continuaban dentro de nuestro país, y no se había iniciado el recorrido de la línea fronteriza. Estas circunstancias son más lamentables, ya que no pueden dejar de afectar a los indios de una manera perjudicial para los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, con la esperanza de que las respuestas que se han dado eliminen las objeciones ofrecidas por los oficiales españoles a la ejecución inmediata del tratado, he juzgado apropiado que sigamos dispuestos a recibir los cargos y dirigir la línea de límites. En el transcurso de la sesión se comunicará más información sobre este tema.

En relación con este desagradable estado de cosas en nuestra frontera occidental, es apropiado que mencione los intentos de agentes extranjeros de alienar los afectos de las naciones indias y estimularlas a hostilidades reales contra los Estados Unidos. Gran actividad ha sido ejercida por aquellas personas que se han insinuado entre las tribus indias que residen dentro del territorio de los Estados Unidos para influir en ellos para que transfieran sus afectos y fuerza a una nación extranjera, para formarlos en una confederación y prepararlos para la guerra. contra los Estados Unidos. Aunque se han tomado medidas para contrarrestar estas infracciones de nuestros derechos, para prevenir las hostilidades indias y para preservar íntegramente su apego a los Estados Unidos, es mi deber observar que para dar un mejor efecto a estas medidas y evitar las consecuencias de una repetición de tales prácticas puede ser necesaria una ley que establezca un castigo adecuado por tales delitos.

Se reunieron en Passamaquoddy Bay en octubre de 1796, y vio las desembocaduras de los ríos en cuestión y las costas e islas adyacentes, y, en opinión de que eran necesarios estudios reales de ambos ríos a sus fuentes, dio a los agentes de las dos naciones instrucciones para con ese propósito, y suspendió la sesión para reunirse en Boston en agosto. Se reunieron, pero las encuestas requirieron más tiempo de lo que se suponía, y no se completaron luego, los comisionados volvieron a suspender la sesión para reunirse en Providence, en el estado de Rhode Island, en junio próximo, cuando podemos esperar un examen final y una decisión. .

Los comisionados nombrados de conformidad con el artículo sexto del tratado se reunieron en Filadelfia en mayo pasado para examinar las reclamaciones de los súbditos británicos por deudas contraídas antes de la paz y que aún les quedan por parte de ciudadanos o habitantes de los Estados Unidos. Varias causas han impedido hasta ahora cualquier determinación, pero ahora se reanuda el negocio y, sin duda, se procesará sin interrupción.

Los comisionados en Londres han tomado varias decisiones sobre las reclamaciones de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos por pérdidas y daños ocasionados por capturas o expropiaciones irregulares e ilegales de sus embarcaciones u otros bienes, de conformidad con el artículo séptimo del tratado. Las sumas concedidas por los comisionados han sido pagadas por el Gobierno británico. Un número considerable de otros reclamos, donde los costos y daños, y no la propiedad capturada, fueron los únicos objetos en cuestión, se han decidido por arbitraje, y también se han pagado las sumas otorgadas a los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos.

Los comisionados nombrados de acuerdo con el artículo vigésimo primero de nuestro tratado con España se reunieron en Filadelfia en el verano pasado para examinar y decidir sobre las reclamaciones de nuestros ciudadanos por las pérdidas que han sufrido como consecuencia de que sus buques y cargamentos hayan sido tomados por los súbditos de Su Majestad Católica durante la última guerra entre España y Francia. Se han reanudado sus sesiones.

Los Estados Unidos están obligados a compensar las pérdidas y daños sufridos por los súbditos británicos, tras la adjudicación de los comisionados que actúan en virtud del artículo sexto del tratado con Gran Bretaña, y por las pérdidas y daños sufridos por los súbditos británicos a causa de la Captura de sus embarcaciones y mercancías tomadas dentro de los límites y jurisdicción de los Estados Unidos y llevadas a sus puertos, o tomadas por embarcaciones originalmente armadas en puertos de los Estados Unidos, previa adjudicación de los comisionados que actúan bajo el artículo séptimo del mismo tratado. , es necesario que se establezcan disposiciones para el cumplimiento de estas obligaciones.

Las numerosas capturas de navíos americanos por los cruceros de la República Francesa y de algunos por los de España han ocasionado gastos considerables en la formulación y apoyo de las reclamaciones de nuestros ciudadanos ante sus tribunales. Las sumas necesarias para este fin han sido desembolsadas en diversos casos por los cónsules de los Estados Unidos. Por medio de las mismas capturas, gran número de nuestros marineros han sido arrojados a tierra en países extranjeros, desprovistos de todos los medios de subsistencia, y los enfermos en particular han sido expuestos a graves sufrimientos. En estos casos, los cónsules también han adelantado dinero para su ayuda. Por estos avances, esperan razonablemente reembolsos de Estados Unidos.

La ley consular relativa a la gente de mar requiere revisión y enmienda. Las disposiciones para su apoyo en países extranjeros y para su regreso resultan inadecuadas e ineficaces. Parece necesario añadir otra disposición al acto consular. Se han descubierto algunos barcos extranjeros navegando bajo la bandera de los Estados Unidos y con papeles falsificados. Rara vez ocurre que los cónsules pueden detectar este engaño, porque no tienen autoridad para exigir una inspección de los registros y cartas marítimas.

Señores de la Cámara de Representantes:

Es mi deber recomendar a su seria consideración los objetos que la Constitución pone particularmente en su esfera: las deudas e impuestos nacionales.

Desde la decadencia del sistema feudal, mediante el cual la defensa pública se proporcionaba principalmente a expensas de los individuos, se ha introducido el sistema de préstamos, y como ninguna nación puede recaudar en el año mediante impuestos sumas suficientes para su defensa y operaciones militares. en tiempo de guerra, las sumas prestadas y las deudas contraídas se han convertido necesariamente en objeto de lo que se ha denominado sistemas de financiación. Las consecuencias derivadas de la continua acumulación de deudas públicas en otros países deberían advertirnos que tengamos cuidado de evitar su crecimiento en el nuestro. Debe preverse la defensa nacional y el apoyo del Gobierno; pero ambos deben lograrse tanto como sea posible mediante impuestos inmediatos y lo menos posible mediante préstamos.

Los presupuestos para el servicio del año siguiente les serán presentados por mi dirección.

Señores del Senado y Señores de la Cámara de Representantes.

Nos encontramos juntos en un período muy interesante. Las situaciones de las principales potencias de Europa son singulares y portentosas. Conectado con algunos por tratados y con todos por el comercio, ningún acontecimiento importante allí puede ser indiferente para nosotros. Tales circunstancias exigen, con peculiar importunidad, no menos una disposición para unirse en todas aquellas medidas de las que dependen el honor, la seguridad y la prosperidad de nuestro país que para todos los esfuerzos de sabiduría y firmeza.

En todas estas medidas, puede confiar en mi entusiasta y sincera aceptación.

JOHN ADAMS.


¿Cuál es el propósito del Estado de la Unión? Definición y significado

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI AFP

El miércoles, el presidente Joe Biden dará su primer discurso al Congreso desde que asumió el cargo, un gran evento para una nueva administración en el que intentará marcar la agenda de su presidencia.

La entrada al evento será estrictamente solo para invitados y no se permitirán invitados, como consecuencia de ambos restricciones de covid-19 y seguridad adicional implementado a raíz de la insurrección del 6 de enero.

El discurso se produce cuando Biden completa sus primeros 100 días en el cargo, inusualmente tarde para un primer discurso presidencial al Congreso, pero la Casa Blanca dijo que inicialmente se estaba enfocando en su respuesta covid-19. El discurso de esta noche le dará la oportunidad de actualizar al público sobre sus primeros éxitos y defender el recientemente dio a conocer el Plan de Empleo Estadounidense de 2,3 billones de dólares.

¿Es este un discurso sobre el estado de la Unión?

El discurso del Estado de la Unión es una tradición establecida en la Constitución, que establece que el presidente "de vez en cuando dará al Congreso Información del Estado de la Unióny recomendará a su consideración las medidas que juzgue necesarias y convenientes ".

Por lo general, este es un evento anual en el que el presidente describe los planes y las intenciones para el próximo año. Sin embargo, el El primer discurso de cada presidencia es un evento ligeramente diferente. con el nuevo presidente generalmente ofreciendo una perspectiva más a largo plazo de lo que se esperaba.

“Realmente tenemos una oportunidad única en este momento para aprovechar el momento. no solo crean puestos de trabajo, sino que también crean puestos de trabajo a largo plazo ”, dice la directora de comunicaciones de la Casa Blanca, Kate Bedingfield, antes del discurso de Biden al Congreso esta noche. https://t.co/mrVyxXNd3R pic.twitter.com/vx2X8HH7gL

- New Day (@NewDay) 28 de abril de 2021

Como tal, los últimos seis presidentes han optado por titular su primer discurso en una sesión conjunta del Congreso de otra manera. Esta vez, la presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes, Nancy Pelosi, invitó a Biden a la cámara para “Comparta su visión para abordar los desafíos y oportunidades de este momento histórico”.

Sin embargo, aunque puede que no tenga el título de Discurso sobre el estado de la Unión, el Servicio de Investigación del Congreso generalmente los clasifica como iguales porque “cumplen la misma función ceremonial, retórica y política que un Estado de la Unión típico. Por lo tanto, se cuentan y analizan de forma rutinaria con las demás Direcciones Anuales como tales ".

Historia del discurso sobre el estado de la Unión

El primer ejemplo del discurso sobre el estado de la Unión proviene, comprensiblemente, del primer presidente de los Estados Unidos, George Washington. En 1790 pronunció un "Mensaje Anual" al Congreso, el discurso más corto de este tipo hasta la fecha con solo 1.089 palabras.

Tanto Washington como su sucesor, el presidente John Adams, dieron su discurso anual en persona, pero el presidente Thomas Jefferson ofreció el suyo en forma de mensaje escrito. Siguió siendo un mensaje escrito durante más de 100 años hasta El presidente Woodrow Wilson pronunció su discurso de 1913 en persona.

Antes de hablar ante el Congreso sobre el Estado de la Unión, JFK en el elevador del Capitolio de EE. UU., 1962, con el agente del Servicio Secreto Jerry Behn al frente: #USN pic.twitter.com/b8x28cehc6

- Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) 28 de abril de 2021

Fue Wilson quien ayudó a desarrollar el Mensaje Anual en el Estado de la Unión con un giro más político, utilizando la plataforma para promover y delinear su agenda. Sin embargo el nombre "Estado de la Unión" no se introdujo hasta 1947, cuando el presidente Harry Truman estaba en el cargo.

Las últimas décadas han visto a dos presidentes obligados a pronunciar su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión en situaciones más polémicas, con ambos Bill Clinton y Donald Trump pronunciando sus discursos en medio de sus propios juicios de acusación.


La marcha de la democracia: una historia de los Estados Unidos: volumen VI: segunda parte de la crónica anual

Adams, James Truslow

Publicado por Charles Scribner & # 39s Sons, 1945

Usado - Tapa dura
Condición: muy buena

De tapa dura. Estado: Muy bueno. Sin chaqueta. 1ª Edición. Muy buen estado Tapa dura Octavo sin sobrecubierta, 1945, 1ª edición, 352 páginas más un índice pictórico en la parte posterior. Tableros azules brillantes con diseño y título en relieve dorado en el lomo y el tablero frontal. Interior sin marcas y sólido. Un volumen atractivo. Tamaño: 8vo - 7.5 & # 34 a 9.5 & # 34 Tall. Libro.


El primer discurso sobre el estado de la Unión de George Washington: poca pompa y sin aplausos

El presidente entró en territorio inexplorado mientras se preparaba para dirigirse al Congreso.

Era el 8 de enero de 1790, el comienzo de una nueva era de política y gobierno en los Estados Unidos. George Washington, el primer presidente de la nueva nación, había llegado en carruaje al Federal Hall de Nueva York, la capital temporal, para pronunciar un discurso en el primer Congreso.

Los poderes y responsabilidades del cargo que ocupaba Washington permanecieron indefinidos de manera significativa en los primeros años de la República. Hubo un "presidente electo", escribió el autor Fergus M. Bordewich, "pero poco acuerdo sobre lo que implicaba su trabajo".

Incluso hubo incertidumbre sobre el decoro. El Congreso discutió sobre el título de director ejecutivo y mdash con el vicepresidente John Adams a favor de títulos que suenan aristocráticos como & ldquoSu Alteza & rdquo o & ldquoHis High Mightiness & rdquo, según Bordewich & mdash antes de aceptar dirigirse a él simplemente como & ldquoPresident of the United States & rdquo.


Guerra de rebelión: Serie 097 Página 1029 Capítulo LVIII. CORRESPONDENCIA, ETC.-UNIÓN.

Tercera Brigada.

Bvt. General de brigada ROBERT McALLISTER.

11 de Massachusetts, teniente coronel Charles C. Rivers.

Séptimo Nueva Jersey, Coronel Francis Price.

8vo Nueva Jersey, Mayor Henry Hartford.

11 de Nueva Jersey, Capitán Charles F. Gape.

120 ° Nueva York, teniente coronel Aabram L. Lockwood.

BRIGADA DE ARTILLERÍA.

Bvt. Teniente Coronel JOHN G. PELIGRO.

Massachusetts Light, décima batería, Capitán J. Webb Adams.

1st New Hampshire, Battery M, Capitán George K. Dakin.

1st New Jersey Light, Batería B, Capitán A. Judson Clark.

4to New York Heavy, Compañía C, Capitán Richard Kennedy.

Cuarto Pesado de Nueva York, Compaany L. Teniente Frank Seymour.

Luz de Nueva York, Batería 11, Capitán George W. Davey.

Luz de Nueva York, 12a batería, Capitán Charles A. Clark.

Primera Luz de Rhode Island, Batería B, Teniente James E. Chase.

4th Estados Unidos, Battery K, Bvt. Capitán John W. Roder.

QUINTO CUERPO DEL EJÉRCITO.

Bvt. General de División CHARLES GRIFFIN.

ESCOLTA.

4to Caballería de Pensilvania, Compañía C, Capitán Napoleón J. Horell.

PROVOST GUARD.

104a Nueva York, teniente coronel John R. Strang.

PRIMERA DIVISION.

General de Brigada JOSHUA L. CHAMBERLAIN.

Primera Brigada.

Bvt. General de Brigada ALFRED L. PEARSON.

185a Nueva York, Coronel Gustavus Sniper.

198a Pennsylvania, Capitán John Stanton.

Segunda Brigada.

Bvt. General de Brigada EDGAR M. GREGORY.

187a Nueva York, teniente coronel Daniel Myers.

188a Nueva York, Coronel John McMahon.

189a Nueva York, Coronel Allen L. Burr.

Tercera Brigada.

Coronel J. CUSHING EDMANDS.

1st Maine Sharpshooters (seis compañías), Capitán George R. Abbott.

20th Maine, Bvt. Mayor Atherton W. Clark.

32 de Massachusetts, teniente coronel James A. Cunningham.

1er Michigan, teniente coronel George Lockley.

16 de Michigan, * Coronel Benjamin F. Partridge.

83a Pensilvania, Coronel Chauncey P. Rogers.

91st Pennsylvania, Bvt. Teniente coronel Henry O'Neill.

155a Pensilvania, Mayor John A. Cline.

---------------

* Se adjuntan las compañías de Brady's y Jardine's Michigan Sharpshooters.

---------------

Si tiene problemas para acceder a esta página y necesita solicitar un formato alternativo, comuníquese con [email protected]


Conozca los eventos actuales en
perspectiva histórica en nuestro sitio de Origins.


John Adams: campañas y elecciones

Durante la presidencia de Washington, el vicepresidente Adams se consideró a sí mismo como el heredero aparente. De hecho, eso solo explica su voluntad de soportar ocho años en la vicepresidencia, un cargo desprovisto de poder. Cuando Washington, en su Discurso de despedida, publicado en septiembre de 1796, anunció su intención de retirarse, la nación enfrentó su primera elección presidencial impugnada. Los miembros federalistas del Congreso convocaron y nominaron a Adams y Thomas Pinckney, un residente de Carolina del Sur que había servido al presidente Washington como diplomático, como sus opciones para la presidencia. Los demócratas republicanos en el Congreso también se reunieron y nombraron a Thomas Jefferson y Aaron Burr de Nueva York, que habían servido en el ejército continental y como senador de los Estados Unidos a principios de la presidencia de Washington, como sus opciones. Cada partido nombró dos candidatos presidenciales, porque según la Constitución original, cada miembro del colegio electoral debía emitir dos votos para presidente. El ganador de la elección presidencial fue el individuo que recibió el mayor número de votos, si constituía la mayoría de los votos emitidos. La persona que reciba el segundo mayor número de votos, sea o no mayoría, será el vicepresidente. En el caso de que ningún candidato obtuviera una mayoría de votos, o que dos candidatos empataran con una mayoría de votos, la Cámara de Representantes debía decidir la elección, teniendo cada estado, independientemente de su tamaño, un solo voto.

Cuando la contienda comenzó con toda su fuerza a fines del verano de 1796, solo Aaron Burr, de los cuatro candidatos, emprendió una campaña activa. Los partidarios de los cuatro candidatos, sin embargo, hicieron una vigorosa campaña. La prensa federalista calificó a Jefferson de francófilo, cuestionó su valentía durante la Guerra de Independencia y lo acusó de ateo. Adams fue retratado como un monárquico y un anglófilo que estaba secretamente decidido a establecer una dinastía familiar haciendo que su hijo lo sucediera como presidente.

Adams también tuvo problemas en su propio campo. Corrieron rumores de que su principal rival por el liderazgo entre los federalistas, Alexander Hamilton, favorecía en secreto a Pinckney, ya que sería más maleable que Adams. Muchos creían que Hamilton buscaba que algunos electores federalistas le negaran sus votos a Adams para que Pinckney lo superara.

Al final, Adams ganó por un margen de tres votos. Aunque prácticamente todos los votos de Adams provinieron de los electores del norte (mientras que prácticamente todos los de Jefferson eran de los electores del sur), Adams ganó en gran parte gracias a los votos de dos electores del sur. Un elector de Virginia, de un condado con una fuerte tradición de oposición a los aristócratas plantadores, votó por Adams, al igual que un elector de un distrito comercial en la costa de Carolina del Norte. Jefferson recibió el segundo mayor número de votos, lo que lo convirtió en vicepresidente. Así, la nación tendría un presidente de un partido y un vicepresidente del otro partido.

Siete estados permitieron el voto popular en esta elección. En los nueve estados restantes, las legislaturas estatales eligieron a los miembros del colegio electoral. Por lo tanto, la opinión popular es difícil de comprender en esta votación, aunque Adams parece haber recibido algún apoyo en reconocimiento a su largo y sacrificado servicio durante la Revolución Americana. Los estados del norte también pensaron que había llegado el momento de tener un presidente, ya que un virginiano había ocupado el cargo durante los primeros ocho años de la nueva nación. Además, el apoyo vocal a Jefferson por parte del ministro francés en los Estados Unidos probablemente inclinó algunas papeletas electorales hacia Adams.

Le correspondió a John Adams, vicepresidente y presidente del Senado, contar los votos emitidos por los delegados del colegio electoral. Cuando terminó su conteo, anunció que "John Adams" había sido elegido para suceder a George Washington. El recuento final del colegio electoral fue de 71 votos para Adams contra 68 para Jefferson.

La campaña y la elección de 1800

Adams enfrentó una difícil campaña de reelección en 1800. El Partido Federalista estaba profundamente dividido sobre su política exterior. Muchos se habían opuesto a su decisión de enviar enviados a París en 1799, algunos porque temían que resultaría en una humillación nacional para los Estados Unidos y otros porque esperaban mantener la crisis de la Cuasi-Guerra con fines partidistas. Además, a principios de 1800, Adams despidió a dos miembros de su gabinete, Timothy Pickering, el secretario de estado, y James McHenry, el secretario de guerra, por no apoyar su política exterior. Su despido alienó a numerosos federalistas. Además de las fisuras dentro de su partido, las diferencias entre los federalistas y los republicanos se habían vuelto candentes. Los jeffersonianos estaban furiosos por la creación de un ejército permanente, los nuevos impuestos y las Leyes de Extranjería y Sedición.

Como en 1796, los miembros federalistas del Congreso se reunieron en la primavera de 1800 y nominaron a Adams y Charles Cotesworth Pinckney de Carolina del Sur, un oficial del ejército continental, miembro de la Convención Constitucional y parte de la comisión diplomática que Adams envió. a Francia en 1797. Los federalistas no designaron una opción para la presidencia, pero pidieron a sus electores presidenciales que emitieran sus dos votos por Adams y Pinckney. Mientras tanto, los demócratas-republicanos nominaron a Jefferson y Burr, sus candidatos en las elecciones presidenciales anteriores, pero designaron a Jefferson como su elección para presidente.

En la campaña que siguió, los federalistas describieron a Jefferson como un no creyente sin Dios y un revolucionario radical; a menudo lo llamaban jacobino, en honor a la facción más radical de Francia durante la Revolución Francesa. Su elección, se acusó, provocaría un reinado de terror en la nación. Los republicanos consideran a Adams como un monárquico y al Partido Federalista como un enemigo del republicanismo, incluido el mayor igualitarismo prometido por la Revolución Americana. El nivel de ataque personal de ambas partes no conocía límites. En un momento, Adams fue acusado de conspirar para que su hijo se casara con una de las hijas del rey Jorge III y así establecer una dinastía para unir Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos. La trama se había detenido, según la historia, solo por la intervención de George Washington, que se había vestido con su viejo uniforme de la Guerra Revolucionaria para enfrentarse a Adams con la espada en la mano. Mientras tanto, Jefferson fue acusado de vivisección y de realizar extraños ritos rituales en Monticello, su hogar en Virginia.

Uno de los mayores enemigos de Adams en esta elección fue Alexander Hamilton, miembro de su propio partido. En octubre, Hamilton publicó un panfleto en el que argumentó que Adams no debería ser reelegido. Denunció que el presidente era emocionalmente inestable, dado a decisiones impulsivas e irracionales, incapaz de convivir con sus asesores más cercanos y, en general, incapaz de ser presidente. Sin embargo, es poco probable que el ataque de Hamilton le haya costado a Adams algún voto electoral.

Al fracasar en ese esfuerzo, Hamilton planeó elegir a Pinckney. Trabajó para persuadir a todos los electores presidenciales federalistas del Norte para que votaran por los dos nominados del partido, Adams y Pinckney, mientras trataba de convencer a algunos electores del sur de que no votaran por Adams. Eso permitiría a Pinckney superar a Adams.

Sin embargo, el plan de Hamilton fracasó. Numerosos federalistas de Nueva Inglaterra, que eran partidarios de Adams, no solo le negaron su segundo voto a Pinckney, sino que el boleto federalista fue superado por sus rivales demócratas-republicanos. Pinckney terminó cuarto en la votación y Adams quedó tercero en votos electorales, mientras que Jefferson y Burr empataron en el primer lugar con setenta y tres votos cada uno.

La nación se había dividido una vez más a lo largo de líneas seccionales. El ochenta y seis por ciento de los votos de Adams fueron emitidos por electores del norte, casi tres cuartas partes de los votos de Jefferson fueron del sur. La disciplina del partido mejoró mucho con respecto a la elección de 1796. En la elección de 1796, casi el 40 por ciento de los electores se había negado a adherirse a las recomendaciones del comité de su partido. En 1800, sin embargo, sólo un elector rompió filas: un elector federalista de Nueva Inglaterra retuvo su segundo voto a Pinckney.

La opinión pública en 1800 es difícil de medir. Sólo cinco estados —en comparación con siete en 1796— permitieron que los votantes calificados eligieran a los miembros del colegio electoral. Las legislaturas estatales tomaron la decisión en los once estados restantes. Además, varios estados abandonaron la elección de electores en los distritos e instituyeron un sistema en el que el ganador se lo lleva todo. Virginia adoptó el formato general, lo que le permitió a Jefferson ganar los veintiún votos de su estado natal. Si la elección hubiera sido por distrito, Adams probablemente habría ganado hasta nueve votos. Además, Adams fue el primer candidato presidencial en ser víctima del infame compromiso de las tres quintas partes acordado en la Convención Constitucional. Esa decisión, que permitió el conteo del 60 por ciento de la población esclava con fines de representación en la Cámara y en el colegio electoral, aumentó la influencia del Sur —territorio demócrata-republicano— en esta contienda. Si no se hubieran contado esclavos, Adams probablemente habría derrotado a Jefferson por un margen de 63-61. Al final, las elecciones giraron en torno al resultado en Nueva York. El Partido Demócrata-Republicano ganó el control de la legislatura de Nueva York en las elecciones de mayo de ese año, principalmente al ganar todos los escaños disputados en la ciudad de Nueva York. El control de la asamblea significó que Jefferson recibiría los doce votos electorales de Nueva York, mientras que Adams había ganado esos votos en 1796.

La victoria de Jefferson en 1800 también se debió a la desunión del Partido Federalista y, lo que es más importante, la organización superior del partido de los demócratas republicanos, lo que permitió al partido conquistar tanto la presidencia como el Congreso. Los demócratas-republicanos comenzaron varios periódicos nuevos y crearon comités de correspondencia para dirigir la distribución de literatura de campaña y planificar reuniones y mítines. Sus victorias se debieron a cuatro años de organización de partidos, campañas políticas sofisticadas y la conformación de una maquinaria partidaria que respondía al temperamento y estado de ánimo del electorado.

Con el empate en las elecciones, la decisión fue remitida a la Cámara de Representantes, según especifica la Constitución. Cada delegación demócrata-republicana en la Cámara apoyó a Jefferson, sin embargo, algunos federalistas del norte favorecieron a Burr, a quien encontraron más agradable que su antiguo némesis de Virginia. Después de treinta y cinco votaciones y cinco días de votaciones, la Cámara quedó estancada. Cada votación había terminado con Jefferson recibiendo ocho votos contra los seis de Burr. Las delegaciones de dos estados, Vermont y Maryland, estaban estancadas y no podían votar. Burr se negó a dimitir a pesar de que se entendía que se había presentado como candidato a vicepresidente en las elecciones generales.

A lo largo de la larga batalla, Alexander Hamilton había instado a la elección de su antiguo rival, Jefferson. He viscerally disliked Jefferson and objected to his democratic and egalitarian principles, but he feared and mistrusted Aaron Burr as an unprincipled opportunist. In the end, however, the outcome in the House appears to have hung on Federalist bargaining with both Jefferson and Burr. In return for their vote, Federalist House members sought a commitment from one or the other to preserve Hamilton's economic program, keep the enhanced Navy intact, and leave Federalist officeholders in their jobs. Burr appears to have refused to bargain. Jefferson, ever after, denied making such a bargain, although several Federalists claimed that he had agreed to their terms. The truth can never be known. What is clear is that on the thirty-sixth ballot, a sufficient number of Federalists broke from Burr and gave their votes to Jefferson. The final House vote was Jefferson with ten states and Burr with four states while two states (South Carolina and Delaware) abstained. With that, Jefferson became the third President of the United States.

When Jefferson assumed office, his opponents stepped down peacefully. This return to domestic tranquility established a powerful precedent for the future. Although it is true that Adams tried to entrench Federalist power in the new administration by appointing Federalist judges in the last weeks of his term, this was viewed as acceptable politics by most observers, yet Jefferson's refusal to honor these last-minute "midnight appointments" led to the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison.


John Adams, 1st Vice President (1789-1797)

On April 21, 1789, John Adams, the first vice president of the United States, began his duties as president of the Senate. Adams's role in the administration of George Washington was sharply constrained by the constitutional limits on the vice presidency and his own reluctance to encroach upon executive prerogative. He enjoyed a cordial but distant relationship with President Washington, who sought his advice on occasion but relied primarily on the cabinet. Adams played a more active role in the Senate, however, particularly during his first term.

As president of the Senate, Adams cast 29 tie-breaking votes. His votes protected the president's sole authority over the removal of appointees, influenced the location of the national capital, and prevented war with Great Britain. On at least one occasion he persuaded senators to vote against legislation that he opposed, and he frequently lectured the Senate on procedural and policy matters. Adams's political views and his active role in the Senate made him a natural target for critics of the Washington administration. Toward the end of his first term, he began to exercise more restraint in the hope of realizing the goal shared by many of his successors: election in his own right as president of the United States

A Family Tradition of Public Service

John Adams was born in Braintree, Massachusetts, on October 19, 1735, into a family with an established tradition of public service. As a child, he attended town meetings with his father, who was at various times a militia officer, a deacon and tithe collector of the local congregation, and selectman for the town of Braintree. Determined that his namesake attend Harvard College, the elder Adams sent young John to a local "dame" school and later to Joseph Cleverly's Latin school. Adams was an indifferent student until the age of 14, when he withdrew from the Latin school to prepare for college with a private tutor, "Mr. Marsh." Adams entered Harvard College in 1751 and plunged into a rigorous course of study. After his graduation in 1755, he accepted a position as Latin master of the Worcester, Massachusetts, Grammar School. The following year, finding himself "irresistibly impelled" toward a legal career, Adams apprenticed himself to James Putnam, a local attorney. He continued to teach school while reading law at night until his admission to the Boston Superior Court bar on November 6, 1758.

His legal studies completed, Adams returned to Braintree to establish his legal practice, which grew slowly. In the spring of 1761, on the death of his father, Adams inherited the family farm&mdasha bequest that enabled him, as a "freeholder" with a tangible interest in the community, to take an active part in town meetings. He served on several local committees and led a crusade to require professional certification of practitioners before the local courts. In February 1761, on one of his regular trips to Boston to attend the Court of Common Pleas, Adams observed James Otis's arguments against the writs of assistance before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Adams recalled in later years that Otis's impassioned oratory against these general search and seizure warrants convinced Adams that England and the colonies had been "brought to a Collision," and left him "ready to take arms" against the writs. However, Adams's political career remained limited to local concerns for several more years until 1765, when he played a crucial role in formulating Massachusetts's response to the Stamp Act.

A Lawyer and a Legislator

As a member of the town meeting, Adams drafted instructions for the Braintree delegate to the Massachusetts provincial assembly, known as the General Court, which met in October 1765 to formulate the colony's response to the Stamp Act. Adams's rationale, that the colonies could not be taxed by a parliament in which they were not represented, and that the stamp tax was "inconsistent with the spirit of the common law and of the essential fundamental principles of the British constitution," soon appeared in the Massachusetts Gazette y Boston News Letter. His cousin, Samuel Adams, incorporated John's argument in the instructions that he drafted for the Boston delegates, and other towns adopted the same stance.

With the repeal of the Stamp Act, Adams focused his energies on building his law practice and attending to the demands of the growing family that followed from his marriage to Abigail Smith in 1764. Finding few opportunities for a struggling young attorney in Braintree, the young family moved in 1768 to Boston, where John's practice flourished. Adams soon found himself an active participant in the local resistance to British authority as a consequence of his defense of John Hancock before the vice admiralty court for customs duty violations. He argued in Hancock's defense that the Parliament could not tax the colonies without their express consent and added the charge, soon to become a part of the revolutionary rhetoric, that the vice-admiralty courts violated the colonists' rights as Englishmen to trial by jury. Although the crown eventually withdrew the charges against Hancock, Adams continued his assault on the vice-admiralty courts in the instructions he wrote for the Boston general court representatives in 1768 and 1769.

Adams subsequently agreed to defend the British soldiers who fired upon the Boston mob during the spring of 1770. His able and dispassionate argument on behalf of the defendants in the Boston massacre case won his clients' acquittal, as well as his election to a brief term in the Massachusetts assembly, where he was one of Governor Thomas Hutchinson's most vocal opponents. The enmity was mutual when the general court elected Adams to the Massachusetts council, or upper house, in 1773, the governor denied Adams his seat. The general court reelected Adams the following year, but Hutchinson's successor, Thomas Gage, again prevented him from serving on the council. The general court subsequently elected Adams to the first and second Continental congresses. Although initially reluctant to press for immediate armed resistance, Adams consistently denied Parliament's right to regulate the internal affairs of the colonies, a position he elaborated in a series of 13 newspaper essays published under the name "Novanglus" during the winter and spring of 1775. Like Adams's other political writings, the Novanglus essays set forth his tenets in rambling and disjointed fashion, but their primary focus&mdashthe fundamental rights of the colonists&mdashwas clear.

An Architect of Independence

An avowed supporter of independence in the second Continental Congress, Adams was a member of the committee that prepared the Declaration of Independence. Although Thomas Jefferson of Virginia composed the committee draft, Adams's contribution was no less important. As Jefferson later acknowledged, Adams was the Declaration's "pillar of support on the floor of Congress, its ablest advocate and defender." New Jersey delegate Richard Stockton and others styled Adams "the 'Atlas' of independence." Adams further served the cause of independence as chairman of the Board of War and Ordnance. Congress assigned to the board the onerous tasks of recruiting, provisioning, and dispatching a continental army as chairman, Adams coordinated this Herculean effort until the winter of 1777, when Congress appointed him to replace Silas Deane as commissioner to the Court of Paris.

Adams served as commissioner until the spring of 1779. On his return to Massachusetts, he represented Braintree in the state constitutional convention. The convention asked him to draft a model constitution, which it adopted with amendments in 1780. Adams's model provided for the three branches of government&mdashexecutive, legislative, and judicial&mdashthat were ultimately incorporated into the United States Constitution, and it vested strong powers in the executive. "His Excellency," as the governor was to be addressed, was given an absolute veto over the legislature and sole power to appoint officers of the militia. Throughout his life, Adams was an advocate of a strong executive. He believed that only a stable government could preserve social order and protect the liberties of the people. His studies of classical antiquity convinced him that republican government was inherently vulnerable to corruption and inevitably harbored "a never-failing passion for tyranny" unless balanced by a stabilizing force. In 1780 Adams considered a strong executive sufficient to achieve this end. In later years, he grew so fearful of the "corruption" he discerned in popular elections that he suggested more drastic alternatives&mdasha hereditary senate and a hereditary executive&mdashwhich his opponents saw as evidence of his antidemocratic, "monarchist" intent.

Before the Massachusetts convention began its deliberations over Adams's draft, Congress appointed him minister plenipotentiary to negotiate peace and commerce treaties with Great Britain and subsequently authorized him to negotiate an alliance with the Netherlands, as well. Although Adams's attempts to negotiate treaties with the British proved unavailing, in 1782 he finally persuaded the Netherlands to recognize American independence&mdash"the happiest event and the greatest action of my life, past or future." Adams remained abroad as a member of the peace commission and ambassador to the Court of St. James until 1788. On his return to the United States, he found to his surprise that he was widely mentioned as a possible candidate for the office of vice president of the United States.

Although George Washington was the inevitable and unanimous choice for president, there were several contenders for the second office. At the time of the first federal elections, political sentiment was divided between the "Federalists," who supported a strong central government and toward that end had worked to secure the ratification of the Constitution, and the "Antifederalist" advocates of a more limited national government. Adams was the leading Federalist candidate for vice president. The New England Federalists strongly supported him, and he also commanded the allegiance of a few key Antifederalists, including Arthur Lee and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. Benjamin Rush and William Maclay of Pennsylvania also backed Adams, hinting that he could assure his election by supporting their efforts to locate the national capital in Philadelphia. Other contenders were John Hancock of Massachusetts, whose support for the new Constitution was predicated on his assumption that he would assume the second office, and George Clinton, a New York Antifederalist who later served as vice president under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

As much as he coveted the vice presidency, Adams did not actively campaign for the office, refusing the deal proffered by Rush and Maclay. Maclay later explained that the Pennsylvanians played to Adams's "Vanity, and hoped by laying hold of it to render him Useful." They failed to take into account the strong Puritan sense of moral rectitude that prevented Adams from striking such a bargain, even to achieve an office to which he clearly felt entitled. Maclay, who served in the Senate for the first two years of Adams's initial vice-presidential term, never forgave Adams and petulantly noted in his diary that the vice president's "Pride Obstinacy And Folly" were "equal to his Vanity."

The principal threat to Adams came from Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton, who perceived in the New Englander's popularity and uncompromising nature a threat to his own career aspirations. Acting secretly at Hamilton's behest, General Henry Knox tried but failed to persuade Adams that he was too prominent a figure in his own right to serve as Washington's subordinate. When Hamilton realized that Adams commanded the overwhelming support of the New England Federalists and could not be dissuaded, he grudgingly backed his rival but resolved that Adams would not enjoy an overwhelming electoral victory.

Hamilton exploited to his advantage the constitutional provision governing the election of the president and vice president. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution authorized each presidential elector to cast votes "for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." The candidate with the greatest number of electoral votes would become president and the candidate with the next-highest number would become vice president. The Constitution's framers created the vice presidency, in part, to keep presidential electors from voting only for state or regional favorites, thus ensuring deadlocks with no candidate receiving a majority vote. By giving each presidential elector two ballots, the framers made it possible to vote for a favorite-son candidate as well as for a more nationally acceptable individual. In the event that no candidate received a majority, as some expected would be the case after George Washington passed from the national stage, the House of Representatives would decide the election from among the five largest vote getters, with each state casting one vote.

The framers, however, had not foreseen the potential complications inherent in this "double-balloting" scheme. Hamilton realized that if each Federalist elector cast one vote for Washington and one for Adams, the resulting tied vote would throw the election into the House of Representatives. Hamilton persuaded several electors to withhold their votes from Adams, ostensibly to ensure Washington a unanimous electoral victory. Adams was bitterly disappointed when he learned that he had received only 34 electoral votes to Washington's 69, and called his election, "in the scurvy manner in which it was done, a curse rather than a blessing."

Hamilton's duplicity had a more lasting effect on the new vice president's political fortunes: the election confirmed his fear that popular elections in "a populous, oppulent, and commercial nation" would eventually lead to "corruption Sedition and civil war." The remedies he suggested&mdasha hereditary senate and an executive appointed for life&mdashprompted charges by his opponents that the vice president was the "monarchist" enemy of republican government and popular liberties.

Adams took office as vice president on April 21, 1789. Apart from his legislative and ceremonial responsibilities, he did not assume an active role in the Washington administration. Although relations between the two men were cordial, if somewhat restrained, a combination of personality, circumstance, and principle limited Adams's influence. Adams attended few cabinet meetings, and the president sought his counsel only infrequently. Hesitant to take any action that might be construed as usurping the president's prerogative, he generally forwarded applications for offices in the new government to Washington. As president of the Senate, Adams had no reservations about recommending his friend Samuel Allyne Otis for the position of secretary of the Senate, but he declined to assist Otis's brother-in-law, General Joseph Warren, and Abigail's brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, in obtaining much-needed sinecures. Adams was similarly hesitant when Washington solicited his advice regarding Supreme Court nominations.

Although Washington rarely consulted Adams on domestic or foreign policy matters, the two men, according to Adams biographer, John Ferling, "jointly executed many more of the executive branch's ceremonial undertakings than would be likely for a contemporary president and vice-president." Washington invited the vice president to accompany him on his fall 1789 tour of New England&mdashan invitation that Adams declined, although he met the president in Boston&mdashand to several official dinners. The Washingtons routinely extended their hospitality to John, and to Abigail when she was in the capital, and Adams frequently accompanied the president to the theater.

For his own part, Adams professed a narrow interpretation of the vice president's role in the new government. Shortly after taking office, he wrote to his friend and supporter Benjamin Lincoln, "The Constitution has instituted two great offices&hellipand the nation at large has created two officers: one who is the first of the two&hellipis placed at the Head of the Executive, the other at the Head of the Legislative." The following year, he informed another correspondent that the office of vice president "is totally detached from the executive authority and confined to the legislative."

But Adams never really considered himself "totally detached" from the executive branch, as the Senate discovered when he began signing legislative documents as "John Adams, Vice President of the United States." Speaking for a majority of the senators, William Maclay of Pennsylvania quickly called Adams to account. "[A]s President of the Senate only can [y]ou sign or authenticate any Act of that body," he lectured the vice president. Uneasy as some senators were at the prospect of having a member of the executive branch preside over their deliberations, they would permit Adams to certify legislation as president of the Senate, but not as vice president. Never one to acquiesce cheerfully when he believed that important principles were at stake, Adams struck an awkward compromise, signing Senate documents as "John Adams, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate."

To the extent that Adams remained aloof from the administration, his stance was as much the result of personality and prudence as of principle. He held the president in high personal esteem and generally deferred to the more forceful Washington as a matter of course. Also, as his biographer Page Smith has explained, the vice president always feared that he would become a "scapegoat for all of Washington's unpopular decisions." During the furor over Washington's 1793 proclamation of American neutrality, a weary Adams confided to his wife that he had "held the office of Libellee General long enough."

In the Senate, Adams brought energy and dedication to the presiding officer's chair, but found the task "not quite adapted to my character." Addressing the Senate for the first time on April 21, 1789, he offered the caveat that although "not wholly without experience in public assemblies," he was "more accustomed to take a share in their debates, than to preside in their deliberations." Notwithstanding his lack of experience as a presiding officer, Adams had definite notions regarding the limitations of his office. "It is not for me," he assured the Senate, "to interrupt your deliberations by any general observations on the state of the nation, or by recommending, or proposing any particular measures."

Adams's resolve was short-lived. His first incursion into the legislative realm occurred shortly after he assumed office, during the Senate debates over titles for the president and executive officers of the new government. Although the House of Representatives agreed in short order that the president should be addressed simply as "George Washington, President of the United States," the Senate debated the issue at some length. Adams repeatedly lectured the Senate that titles were necessary to ensure proper respect for the new government and its officers. Pennsylvania senator William Maclay complained that when the Senate considered the matter on May 8, 1789, the vice president "repeatedly helped the speakers for Titles." The following day, Adams "harangued" the Senate for 40 minutes. "What will the common people of foreign countries, what will the sailors and soldiers say," he argued, "George Washington president of the United States, they will despise him to all eternity." The Senate ultimately deferred to the House on the question of titles, but not before Adams incurred the lasting enmity of the Antifederalists, who saw in his support for titles and ceremony distressing evidence of his "monarchist" leanings.

Adams was more successful in preventing the Senate from asserting a role in the removal of presidential appointees. In the July 14, 1789, debates over the organization of executive departments, several senators agreed with William Maclay that removals of cabinet officers by the president, as well as appointments, should be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Adams and his Federalist allies viewed the proposal as an attempt by Antifederalists to enhance the Senate's powers at the expense of the executive. After a series of meetings with individual senators, Adams finally convinced Tristram Dalton of Massachusetts to withdraw his support for Maclay's proposal. Richard Bassett of Delaware followed suit. When the Senate decided the question on July 18 in a 9-to-9 vote, Adams performed his sole legislative function by casting a tie-breaking vote against Maclay's proposal. His action was purely symbolic in this instance, however, as a tie vote automatically defeats a measure.

During the protracted debates over the Residence bill to determine the location of the capital, Adams thwarted another initiative dear to Maclay's heart: a provision to establish the permanent capital "along the banks of the Susquehannah," in convenient proximity to the Pennsylvania senator's extensive landholdings. The disgruntled speculator attributed his defeat to the vice president's tie-breaking votes and the "barefaced partiality" of Adams's rulings from the chair. Maclay was enraged that Adams allowed frequent delays in the September 24, 1789, debates, which permitted Pennsylvania senator Robert Morris, whose sympathies lay with Philadelphia, to lobby other senators against the Susquehannah site. After Morris' motion to strike the provision failed, Adams granted his motion to reconsider over Maclay's strenuous objection that "no business ever could have a decision, if minority members, were permitted to move reconsiderations under every pretense of new argument." Adams ultimately cast the deciding vote in favor of Morris's motion.

The vice president's frequent and pedantic lectures from the chair earned him the resentment of other senators, as well. Shortly after the second session of the First Congress convened in January 1790, John Trumbull warned his friend that he faced growing opposition in the Senate, particularly among the southern senators. Adams's enemies resented his propensity for joining in Senate debates and suspected him of "monarchist" sentiments. Trumbull cautioned that "he who mingles in debate subjects himself to frequent retorts from his opposers, places himself on the same ground with his inferiors in rank, appears too much like the leader of a party, and renders it more difficult for him to support the dignity of the chair and preserve order and regularity in the debate." Although Adams denied that he had ever exceeded the limits of his authority in the Senate, he must have seen the truth in Trumbull's observations, for he assured his confidant that he had "no desire ever to open my mouth again upon any question." Acutely aware of the controversy over his views and behavior, Adams became less an active participant and more an impartial moderator of Senate debates.

Although stung by Trumbull's comments and the censure of less tactful critics, Adams continued to devote a considerable portion of his time and energy to presiding over the Senate Abigail Adams observed that her husband's schedule "five hours constant sitting in a day for six months together (for he cannot leave his Chair) is pretty tight service."

In the absence of a manual governing Senate debates, Adams looked to British parliamentary procedures for guidance in deciding questions of order. Despite complaints by some senators that Adams demonstrated inconsistency in his rulings, Delaware senator George Read in 1792 praised his "attentive, upright, fair, and unexceptionable" performance as presiding officer, and his "uncommonly exact" attendance in the Senate.

Still, as a national figure and Washington's probable successor, Adams remained controversial, particularly as legislative political parties emerged in the 1790s. Although sectional differences had in large part shaped the debates of the First Congress, two distinct parties began to develop during the Second Congress in 1791 to 1793. The Federalists, adopting the name earlier used by supporters of the Constitution, were the conservative, prosperous advocates of a strong central government. They supported Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's proposals to assume and fund the states' revolutionary debts, encourage manufactures, and establish a Bank of the United States. Hamilton's fiscal program appealed to the mercantile, financial, and artisan segments of the population but sparked the growth of an agrarian-based opposition party&mdashinitially known as Antifederalists and later as "Republicans"&mdashled by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Adams supported Hamilton's fiscal proposals and, with the Federalists still firmly in command of the Senate and the controversy over public finance largely confined to the House of Representatives, he emerged unscathed from the partisan battles over fiscal policy.

The outbreak of the French Revolution prompted a more divisive debate. Republicans greeted the overthrow of the French monarchy with enthusiasm while the Federalists heard in the revolutionaries' egalitarian rhetoric a threat to the order and stability of Europe and America. France's 1793 declaration of war on Great Britain further polarized the argument, with the Republicans celebrating each British defeat, the Federalists dreading the consequences of a French victory, and both belligerents preying on American shipping at will. While Washington attempted to hold the United States to a neutral course, his vice president&mdashwho considered political parties "the greatest political evil under our Constitution," and whose greatest fear was "a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other"&mdashbecame, as he had anticipated, the target of concerted Republican opposition.

Adams articulated his thoughts on the French Revolution and its implications for the United States in a series of newspaper essays, the Discourses on Davila. He predicted that the revolution, having abolished the aristocratic institutions necessary to preserve stability and order, was doomed to failure. He warned that the United States would share a similar fate if it failed to honor and encourage with titles and appropriate ceremony its own "natural aristocracy" of talented and propertied public men. Adams even went so far as to predict that a hereditary American aristocracy would be necessary in the event that the "natural" variety failed to emerge. The Davila essays were consistent with Adams's longstanding belief that a strong stabilizing force&mdasha strong executive, a hereditary senate, or a natural aristocracy&mdashwas an essential bulwark of popular liberties. They also reflected his recent humiliation at the hands of Alexander Hamilton. Still smarting from his low electoral count in the 1788 presidential election, Adams observed in the 32nd essay that "hereditary succession was attended with fewer evils than frequent elections." As Peter Shaw has noted in his study of Adams's character, "it would be difficult to imagine&hellipa more impolitic act." The Discourses on Davila, together with Adams's earlier support for titles and ceremony, convinced his Republican opponents that he was an enemy of republican government. Rumors that Washington would resign his office once the government was established on a secure footing, and his near death from influenza in the spring of 1790, added to the Republicans' anxiety. In response, they mounted an intense but unsuccessful campaign to unseat Adams in the 1792 presidential election.

Persuaded by Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison to run for a second term, George Washington was again the obvious and unanimous choice for president. Adams was still the preferred vice-presidential candidate of the New England Federalists, but he faced a serious challenge from Republican candidate George Clinton of New York. Although many of his earlier supporters, including Benjamin Rush, joined the opposition in support of Clinton, Adams won reelection with 77 electoral votes to 50 for Clinton. On March 4, 1793, in the Senate Chamber, Washington took the oath of office for a second time. Adams, as always, followed Washington's example but waited until the Third Congress convened on December 2, 1793, to take his second oath of office. No one, apparently, gave much thought to the question of whether or not the nation had a vice president&mdashand a successor to Washington, should he die in office or become incapacitated&mdashduring the nine-month interval between these two inaugurations.

Early in Adams's second vice-presidential term, France declared war on Great Britain. Washington's cabinet supported the president's policy of neutrality, but its members disagreed over the implementation of that policy. Hamilton urged the president to issue an immediate proclamation of American neutrality Jefferson warned that only Congress could issue such a declaration and counseled that delaying the proclamation would force concessions from France and England. Recognizing the United States's commercial dependence on Great Britain, Hamilton proposed that the nation conditionally suspend the treaties that granted France access to U.S. ports and guaranteed French possession of the West Indies. Secretary of State Jefferson insisted that the United States honor its treaty obligations. The secretaries similarly disagreed over extending recognition to the emissary of the French republic, "Citizen" Edmond Genêt.

Adams considered absolute neutrality the only prudent course. As a Federalist, he was no supporter of France, but his reluctance to offend a former ally led him to take a more cautious stance than Hamilton. Although Washington sought his advice, Adams scrupulously avoided public comment he had "no constitutional vote" in the matter and no intention of "taking any side in it or having my name or opinion quoted about it." After the president decided to recognize Genêt, Adams reluctantly received the controversial Frenchman but predicted that "a little more of this indelicacy and indecency may involve us in a war with all the world."

Although Adams, as vice president, had "no constitutional vote" in the administration's foreign policy, he cast two important tie-breaking foreign policy votes in the Senate, where Republican gains in the 1792 elections had eroded the Federalist majority. In both cases, Adams voted to prevent war with Great Britain and its allies. On March 12, 1794, he voted in favor of an embargo on the domestic sale of vessels and goods seized from friendly nations. The following month, he voted against a bill to suspend American trade with Great Britain. Despite these votes, Adams made every effort to stay aloof from the bitter controversy over foreign policy, remaining silent during the Senate's 1795 debates over the controversial Jay Treaty. Privately, Adams considered the Jay Treaty essential to avert war with Great Britain, but the Federalists still commanded sufficient votes to ratify the treaty without the vice president's assistance.

The popular outcry against the Jay Treaty strengthened Washington's resolve to retire at the end of his second term, and he announced his intentions in September 1796. Although the majority of the Federalists considered Adams the logical choice to succeed Washington, Hamilton preferred their more pliant vice-presidential candidate, former minister to Great Britain Thomas Pinckney. The Republican candidates were Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Once again Hamilton proved a greater threat to Adams than the opposition candidates. The Federalists lost the vice presidency because of Hamilton's scheming and came dangerously close to losing the presidency as well. Repeating the tactics he had used to diminish Adams's electoral count in the 1788 election, Hamilton tried to persuade South Carolina's Federalist electors to withhold enough votes from Adams to ensure Thomas Pinckney's election to the presidency. This time, however, the New England Federalist electors learned of Hamilton's plot and withheld sufficient votes from Pinckney to compensate for the lost South Carolina votes. These intrigues resulted in the election of a president and vice president from opposing parties, with president-elect Adams receiving 71 electoral votes to 68 for Thomas Jefferson.

Vice President Adams addressed the Senate for the last time on February 15, 1797. He thanked current and former members for the "candor and favor" they had extended to him during his eight years as presiding officer. Despite the frustrations and difficulties he had experienced as vice president, Adams left the presiding officer's chair with a genuine regard for the Senate that was in large part mutual. He expressed gratitude to the body for the "uniform politeness" accorded him "from every quarter," and declared that he had "never had the smallest misunderstanding with any member of the Senate." Notwithstanding his earlier pronouncements in favor of a hereditary Senate, Adams assured the members that the "eloquence, patriotism, and independence" that he had witnessed had convinced him that "no council more permanent than this&hellipwill be necessary, to defend the rights, liberties, and properties of the people, and to protect the Constitution of the United States." The Senate's February 22 message expressing "gratitude and affection" and praising his "abilities and undeviating impartiality" evoked a frank and emotional response from Adams the following day. The Senate's "generous approbation" of his "undeviating impartiality" had served to "soften asperities, and conciliate animosities, wherever such may unhappily exist," for which the departing vice president offered his "sincere thanks."

Adams served as president from 1797 to 1801. He failed to win a second term due to the popular outcry against the repressive Alien and Sedition Acts, which he had reluctantly approved as necessary wartime measures, as well as the rupture in the Federalist Party over the end of hostilities with France. Hamilton was determined to defeat Adams after the president responded favorably to French overtures for peace in 1799, and he was further outraged when Adams purged two of his sympathizers from the cabinet in May 1800. In a letter to Federalist leaders, Hamilton detailed his charges that Adams's "ungovernable indiscretion" and "distempered jealousy" made him unfit for office. With the Federalist Party split between the Hamilton and Adams factions, Adams lost the election. After 35 ballots, the House of Representatives broke the tied vote between Republican presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson and vice-presidential candidate Aaron Burr in Jefferson's favor.

Adams spent the remainder of his life in retirement at his farm in Quincy, Massachusetts. In an attempt to vindicate himself from past charges that he was an enemy of American liberties, Adams in 1804 began his Autobiography, which he never finished. He also wrote voluminous letters to friends and former colleagues toward the same end. In 1811 Adams resumed his friendship with Jefferson, and the two old patriots began a lively correspondence that continued for 15 years. Although largely content to observe political events from the seclusion of Quincy and to follow the promising career of his eldest son, John Quincy, Adams briefly resumed his own public career in 1820, when he represented the town of Quincy in the Massachusetts constitutional convention. Adams died at Quincy on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of American independence.


Group portrait made from a composite of 2 photoprints of Company I, first Wisconsin Volunteer Cavalry. Standing in back: M.P. Stone, Hiram Gee. Next row: unidentified, John A. Read, and Amandus Barnes. Next row: William Horton, Joseph Eschenbaugh. Front row: Henry P. O'Connor, Wilson and John Fransworth. Most of the men of the regiment were from Menomonie, Wisconsin. View the original source document: WHI 6387

The 1st Wisconsin Cavalry was organized at Camp Harvey in Kenosha between September 1, 1861, and February 2, 1862. It mustered in on March 10, 1862, and left for St. Louis, Missouri, on March 17, 1862, where it was stationed at Benton Barracks until April 28.

It traveled to Camp Girardeau, Missouri, on April 28, 1862, where it was attached to a series of Union cavalry brigades that fought in Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama over the next four years. The regiment fought at the Battle of Chickamauga on September 19-20, 1863, in the Atlanta Campaign the following year, and helped capture Confederate president Jefferson Davis on May 10, 1865.

The 1st Cavalry lost a total of 401 men during service. Six officers and 67 enlisted men were killed. Seven officers and 321 enlisted men died from disease.

View a longer history
View the roster
View a list of casualties
View original documents
View assignments to brigades, divisions, corps and armies

[Source: Estabrook, Charles E, ed. Records and sketches of military organizations: population, legislation, election and other statistics relating to Wisconsin in the period of the Civil War. (Madison, 1914?)]


War of the Rebellion: Serial 097 Page 1049 Chapter LVIII. CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.-UNION.

Third (Reserve) Brigade.

Brigadier General ALFRED GIBBS.

2nd Massachusetts, Colonel Casper Crowninshield.

6th Pennsylvania (six companies),* Colonel Charles L. Leiper.

1st United States, Lieutenant Gustavus Urban.

6th United States, Major Robert M. Morris.

4th U. S. Artillery, Batteries C and E, Captain Marcus P. Miller.

THIRD DIVISION.

Bvt. Major General GEORGE A. CUSTER.

First Brigade.

Colonel ALEXANDER C. M. PENNINGTON.

1st Connecticut, Colonel Brayton Ives.

3rd New Jersey, Lieutenant Colonel William P. Robeson, jr.

2nd New York, Colonel Alanson M. Randol.

2nd Ohio, Colonel A. Bayard Nettleton.

Second Brigade.

Colonel WILLIAM WELLS.

3rd Indiana (two companies),## Lieutenant Benjamin F. Gilbert.

8th New York, Colonel Edmund M. Pope.

15th New York, Colonel John J. Coppinger.

22nd New York, Lieutenant Colonel Horatio B. Reed.

1st Vermont, Lieutenant Colonel Josiah Hall.

Third Brigade.

Colonel HENRY CAPEHART.

1st New York (Lincoln), Colonel Alonzo W. Adams.

1st West Virginia, Lieutenant Colonel Charles E. Capehart.

2nd West Virginia (seven companies), Lieutenant Colonel James Allen.

3rd West Virginia, Lieutenant Colonel John S. Witcher.

ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,

SECOND DIVISION.

Major General GEORGE CROOK.

First Brigade.

Brigadier General HENRY E. DAVIES, jr.

1st New Jersey, Major Walter R. Robbins.

10th New York, Colonel M. Henry Avery.

24th New York, Major William A. Snyder.

1st Pennsylvania (five companies), Captain Warren L. Holbrook.

Second Brigade.

Bvt. Brigadier General J. IRVIN GREGG.$

4th Pennsylvania, Lieutenant Colonel Alender P. Duncan.

8th Pennsylvania (eight companies), Lieutenant Colonel William A. Corrie.

16th Pennsylvania, Major William H. Fry

21st Pennsylvania, Colonel Oliver B. Knowles.

Third Brigade.

Bvt. Brigadier General CHARLES H. SMITH.

1st Maine, Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan P. Cilley.

2nd New York Mounted Rifles, Colonel John Fisk.

6th Ohio, Lieutenant Frank C. Loveland.

13th Ohio, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen R. Clark.

Artillery.

2nd United States, Battery A, Bvt. Major William N. Dennison.

---------------

*On temporary duty at corps headquarters.

#Detailed as General Sheridan's escort.

##Reported absent from brigade.

$On leave Colonel Samuel B. M. Young, 4th Pennsylvania Cavalry, temporarily commanding.

---------------

If you have trouble accessing this page and need to request an alternate format contact [email protected]


Learn about current events in
historical perspective on our Origins site.


The Union Forever: A TL

Back home safe and sound. Thanks for the warm wishes. Now, here's an update. ¡Salud!

On March 22, Hafizullah Khan the Emir of Afghanistan made a formal visit to Peshawar in the newly acquired territory from former British India. At Peshawar, historically the winter capital for the Durrani Empire, Hafizullah Khan elevated himself to shah or king. A few days later Hafizullah Khan traveled east and ceremonially tossed a clump of dirt into the Indus River cementing the new eastern border of his kingdom.

In April, with the United Kingdom having withdrawn its troops by the end of the previous year, the Dominion of India held its first open elections. As expected the pro-independence groups gained a majority in the new Indian parliament. Their first order of business upon taking office was to formally dissolve their ties to the crown and proclaim the establishment of the Indian Republic. In the following months, British humanitarian aid began to pour in helping to alleviate the worst of the famine. However many other issues continued to plague the new nation, and the weak coalition government under Premier Mundakkal Mirdha struggled to keep the country afloat.

On July 14, what became known as the Bastille Day bombings rocked Algiers killing 19 people. A separatist organization known as the Algerian Independence Front took credit for the attack. While French authorities responded quickly and apprehended several members in the following weeks many in Paris began to worry about whether Algeria would head the way of India.

los 1959 World’s Fair is hosted in Amsterdam.

In October, German scientists Martin Probts and Jurgen Durr announced the discovery of the double helix structure of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms.

Utgard96

Glad to see you're home safe, Mac. I believe this is the time for the men to cheer and the boys to shout and for all to feel gay (in the sense of "happy")?

Also glad to see that the Indian debacle is over, and interested about the possibilities for Algeria. Especially seeing as how the French situation there IOTL was extremely similar to what the British underwent in India ITTL.

Beedok

EnglishCanuck

Dathi THorfinnsson

Wouldnt Probts and Durr have discovered Sauerstofflos Kernlichesauer, SlKS?

Or some such. My Chemical German is . not good.

Utgard96

Wouldnt Probts and Durr have discovered Sauerstofflos Kernlichesauer, SlKS?


Ver el vídeo: Οι εξελίξεις στο Αφγανιστάν και η σημασία τους για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση (Diciembre 2021).