In the book “A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America’s First Presidential Campaign”, author Edward J. Larson tells of the American presidential election of 1800 in an exciting narrative instead of examining the campaign. The candidates were John Adams, the previous president, and Thomas Jefferson, Adams’ vice-president. Larson tells of the long-time friendship between the two and how they eventually evolved into political rivals. Adams was a representative of the Federalists party while Jefferson was with the newly formed Democratic-Republican party. Their election was characterized by attacks from opposing parties using familiar crooked tactics. In this narrative, Larson conveys “America’s First President Campaign”…show more content… “…a raging and widespread war between royalists and republicans in Europe greatly intensified these partisan tensions in America…” (23-24) With this war being fought with political parties as the opposing sides, their stances make sense because they follow the concepts of each party. Readers are informed of the French Revolution that way when the two political parties of the election state their alignment with the war, we are able to understand what they believe in and what they prefer without being explicitly told. Personally, I liked that Larson tells what is happening in two parts of the world and how they connect and relate to America. Many times students are not taught that two events in history occurred around the same time just in different parts of the world. It is also often neglected how they worked to cause a certain result. Thomas Jefferson made his stance clear. He “continued steadfastly to side with the revolutionaries in France even as violence there spiraled out of control.” (26-27) Jefferson wished to be supportive of the revolution because he saw similarities from the American Revolution. He saw France prospering in the future. This firm stance is what led to Jefferson and his political party to be attacked and branded. They were viewed as radicals just because Jefferson decided to side with the French revolutionaries.…show more content… Larson states that “[d]espite the division between High Federalists and moderates that threatened to tear apart their party from the top down, most New Englanders remained loyal to both the Federalist Party and Adams.” (154) People of that area saw Adams as a hero and would not change their loyalty to the candidate. Hamilton could not get them to like him no matter what he said to build himself up, or to tear Adams down. The High Federalists were accused of wanting friendly relations with Britain in order to promote an entitled and elite society within the states. I like that Larson provided the foundations of the High Federalists’ party. It gives readers a sense of why the moderates and High Federalists split during this election and what their individual views are. On the opposite side, Jefferson set in motion principles that would be for the Republican party. “These principles…fit into three basic categories: restoring civil liberties; curbing the excessive growth and power of the national government, particularly of its executive branch; and protecting states’ rights.” (155) These three principles were seen as an election platform of sorts. They gave a broad overview of what Jefferson was running for, shutting down all other rumors. Jefferson was painting himself as somebody defending the Constitution, rather than the Federalists,
