A.Americans are leaving They will go to the polls today for a critical election. People are anxious, hopeful and afraid about the election and its aftermath. But that’s not the only electoral test facing American democracy. An earlier competition has a lot to say today.

The 1800 presidential election was a first-rate crisis involving extreme polarization, wild accusations, and name-calling; Federalist John Adams was labeled a “hermaphrodite” by Republicans, and Federalists warned that Thomas Jefferson would destroy Christianity. . People in both states began stockpiling weapons to take over the government if necessary to win over Jefferson. Federalist members of Congress considered canceling the election; thousands of people laid siege to the Capitol to learn the outcome; and received 36 votes to resolve the long-standing, painful bond between Jefferson and Aaron Burr in the House.

We are not looking at a repeat of the 1800 election; history does not repeat itself. But two key components of this electoral storm speak loudly today: the threat of violence and the proposed solution to the electoral turmoil after the end of the contest.

Tthat unfortunate truth democratic government often involves violence. When the promises and scope of democracy expand, they almost always entail an anti-democratic backlash; Sometimes it includes threats and violence. Black men who gained the right to vote during the Civil War were met with openly hostile threats, intimidation, and voter suppression during Reconstruction. Growing demands for civil rights for Black Americans in the 1960s led to violent beatings and murders. In both periods, white Americans who felt they had power and felt threatened by the expanded rights and opportunities democratically granted to racial minorities resorted to violence.

Elaine Godfrey: The real election risk comes later

At the end of the 18th century, the Federalists were a party of overreach. They favored a strong central government with the power to enforce its rules and were less than satisfied with the democratic politics of resistance, protest, and pushback. They wanted Americans to vote for the candidates they preferred, then step aside and let the better ones govern them.

Federalists were dismayed when Jefferson and Burr, both Democratic Republicans, received an equal number of electoral votes. They faced a nightmarish choice between Jefferson, an anti-Federalist Republican, and Burr, an unpredictable and opportunistic politician whose loyalty was unknown. They mostly favored Burr, who seemed more likely to compromise with the Federalists.

Tied elections are given to the House of Representatives to decide, with each state receiving one vote. Given the chance to steal the election, Federalists in and out of Congress began to plot; perhaps they could have blocked the election of both candidates and chosen an interim president until they found a better solution.

The Federalists’ talk of intervention did not go unnoticed. Governors in Pennsylvania and Virginia began stockpiling weapons in case the government needed to replace Jefferson. This was not a destructive effort; Jefferson knew about James Madison and James Monroe’s efforts, telling them that the threat of resistance “by arms” gave the Federalists pause. “We thought it best to declare clearly and unequivocally that the middle states would arm themselves on the day such an act of usurpation took place.”

After all, there was no violence. But the threat was very real; It was a product of the Federalists feeling that they were entitled to enough political power that they did not want to lose it through democratic means. And losing is an important component of democracy. Elections are a contest with winners and losers. Democracy relies on these free and fair contests to appoint power according to the preferences of the American people. People who feel they have power become hostile to these contests. They do not accept unknown results. They want inevitability, immunity and impunity, so they attack the structures of democracy. They belittle electoral processes, manipulate the political process, and threaten their opponents. Sometimes the result is violence. This is the stance taken by former President Donald Trump and his supporters in the 2024 elections. As in 1800, a sense of decisive power threatens our democratic process.

Tthat choice The year 1800 was only the fourth presidential race in American history, and only the 1796 election, the first in which George Washington was not a candidate, was contested. After the crisis of 1800, some people began to look for better options. At least one Federalist, distressed by the turmoil of 1800, favored ending popular presidential elections altogether. Considering elections a few years later, Connecticut Federalist James Hillhouse proposed a change in the constitutional method of electing presidents. He suggested that the president should be elected from among senators. A box could be filled with balls, mostly white and one colored, and each senator eligible for the presidency would draw a ball from the box, proceeding in alphabetical order. The senator who drew the colored ball would become president. Chief Justice John Marshall, agreeing that presidential contests were dangerous, declared the plan as good as any other.

Most people did not go this far, but both Federalists and Republicans understood that the threat posed by bitterly contested partisan elections could be dire. Although the presidency was transferred peacefully from one party to another, the road to this transfer was difficult. Stockpiling weapons? The threat of armed resistance? Seize the presidency? The whole nation seems shaken by political passions, divided in two?

In March 1801, a Republican asked Jefferson: “What would have happened if he had not been elected President?” Jefferson’s answer is remarkable. In this case it wrote“The federal government would have a clock or a clock stop… a convention called by Republican members of Congress… implemented in 8 weeks, repairing the constitution where it was flawed, and wrapping it up again.

The political process will save the nation. A congress. Maybe we can change the Constitution. Jefferson argued that the solution to the crisis lay in the tried-and-true constitutional processes of government. In his words, they were “a peaceful and legitimate source to whom we have the habit of implicit obedience.”

David A. Graham: How so close?

This is the purpose of the Constitution, which is the road map of political processes. As Americans, we agree to abide by its standards or use constitutional and legal political means to change them. When people attack the Constitution, threaten it, ignore it, violate it, they are striking a blow to the constitutional covenant that holds us together as a nation. We often don’t think about this agreement, or even realize it’s there, until it’s challenged.

This brings us to the present day. Today’s election presents a stark choice. Americans can either respect the basic constitutional structures of our government or trample them with denials and lies. The Constitution is far from perfect. It needs to be amended. But this is our procedural starting point for change.

By voting, you show your belief in this process. You declare that you believe in the opportunities that democracy offers, even if they sometimes have to be fought for. Democracy is not an endpoint; It’s a process. This election is our opportunity to pledge our commitment to this process, to the constitutional agreement that sustains our nation. The choice is ours.