I'm here today with Annette Gordon-Reed of Harvard University and Peter Onuf, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. Peter and Annette are the co-authors of a recent book on Thomas Jefferson called the Most Blessed of the Patriarchs. And I'd like to ask them today what they think the significance of the election of 1800 was. So I guess we'll ask you, Annette, first. Annette, what do you think the significance of the election of 1800 was? >> Well, it was significant for the reason that people say, that it was the first peaceful transfer of power between what were considered parties in the new American nation. And it proved that it could be done. It was contentious, and Jefferson called it the 'Revolution of 1800', but the main significance was that it sort of showed that the American system could actually work. The tremendous problem with the nation, of course, is getting from one to the next without bloodshed, and we managed to do that. >> And they did it by establishing in Jefferson's mind at least and for his followers the continuity between 1776 and 1800, 1801 when he gave his inaugural address. It was the culmination or reiteration of the Revolution of 1776 and that's perfectly right that it's a transition. But it's a transition that's justified by continuity. >> So do you both think that Jefferson's characterization of this election is the 'Revolution of 1800' is justified? >> Yeah, of course it's not that there was a tremendous shift in policy. Jefferson showed restraint in purging Federalist officeholders, so there was some real continuity in the personnel of government. Most importantly continuity in fiscal military policy, so that the United States didn't change its form of government. But much like the American revolution had not changed property relations or the rule of war, there's real continuity across that regime change as well. What was important was the sense that the people owned the Revolution. And this reaffirmed the idea that it was a people's revolution. And this is, I think, the most important thing about the Revolution and Jefferson's election and that is it legitimized this new form of republican government. That's the great challenge of this period, because republican government doesn't make any sense in the context of contemporary notions of rule based on an idea of royal succession, aristocracy, hierarchy, inequality. 'All men are created equal', this is the reaffirmation of that principle of political equality, government by consent, and this was the people's choice. And that's why Jefferson said there was a mighty wave of public opinion that spread across the land and it led to my ascension, not as a great man or as a dominant figure, or a kind of a republican king, but as the embodiment, the voice of the people with a mandate from the people. >> And it was, I'd consider it can be considered a revolution in the sense as well that it began the effective destruction of the Federalist party. Jefferson comes into office as the people's choice. He is succeeded by James Madison, Monroe. There's a brief interlude with Adams there, and then Jackson. We've never had a political party that had such dominance for such a long period of time. So in that sense, of course it didn't change the nature of the American government, the structure of it, but it put in place a way of thinking about politics, a way of thinking about the people's relationship to the government, Jeffersonianism that lasted very, very long, We, as I said, we've not put together that kind of dominance in American history since then. >> Do you think there are any lessons from 1800 that are applicable as we face the election of 2016? >> The United States faced enormous existential threats in 1800 and 1801. The very existence of the union and the success of the revolution were in question. What we face now, unlike 1800 or the Civil War crisis in the 1850s, early 1860s is a polarization and a crisis that's not based on anything real. It's based on the modern form of expressive politics, of tapping into people's rage, anger, and passion. And there's plenty of passion and plenty of anger in the 1790s, yet it's about something that is real, and that is the very survival of the Republic. This kind of passion that we're witnessing now could endanger the future of the Republic, I don't think there's any question about it, but it's not based on geo-political realities, it's not based on the condition of the American people in any meaningful sense, yet it's a pathological function of the excess of expressive polititcs. >> Well I don't know, I don't think I can answer that question because I don't know what's going to happen. I think the real tell will be after the election. What happens, will this continue? I mean there's reason to think that it will. I'm not so sure that it's not anything real. It's real to the people who are feeling it. The country is changing, the question of whether or not this is a white person's country is a real question and many people believe that it is. And that is what is at stake now, for a number of people. That is stoking the anger and that's not ephemeral. I think that that's a tangible, actual thing. It's not geopolitical, although we do know that these kinds of things are happening in Europe as well, the same tapping into nativism, a sort of racialized nativism. That kind of thing is not mist totally. I think it's real but we don't really know what's going to happen here until after the election. If he's able to keep this, stoke the fires keep things going it could be a rough time. I mean every day you hear people talking about things that you would never have thought people would talk about or saying things, part of the discourse, that's the beginning of some really, really ugly things and I don't think we can minimize that. >> Yeah, I agree with you and I do think it could be seen on the broader sense as the crisis of the nation-state form, modern world. And of course that demands the kind of legitimacy, the nation-state, that is a popular buy-in, that we've been talking about in the emergence of American democracy and the American nation-state. And we may be at the end of that sort of relationship of people to their government. >> Annette Gordon-Reed, Peter Onuf, thank you very much for your time and for sharing your insights with us.
