I'm here today with Joanne Freeman, who is Professor of History at Yale University. And Joanne, I'd like to ask you what you think the significance of the election of 1800 was? >> Well, I think one major aspect of its significance is structural. And that is, this was a new republic, it was an experimental republic, and there was no guarantee that the system was going to function. And that was a fraught election, it was an election that was clearly polarized, it was an election where people truly wondered if the system was going to be able to withstand it. And the fact that it did, and the fact that power was transferred between the two polarized sides really meant something. And I think people at the time understood that, and I think that was, not the proof that the system would work, but an important moment of proof that the system it might have legs, it might actually work. >> As you know, Jefferson characterized this election as the 'Revolution of 1800'. Do you think that's fair? Is that a fair description? >> John Adams didn't think so. John Adams has this wonderful poem which he says, yeah sure, there are revolutions throughout time, things come, things go, there are waves of popular opinion that sweep through, you're not so special Mr Jefferson. I think that maybe not in the sense that Jefferson thought. I truly think - and it's important to remember that there was no assumption at this time that there were going to be permanent political parties, that there would be sweeping back and forth from one party to another - Jefferson could easily have thought that, and did to some degree, that there was this ten year period in which the government was held by people who should not have been holding power. And now that was past and there was going to be a new regime and then a new spirit of governance with new connections to the populace. And if he truly believed that, which he certainly could have, not knowing, hey, there's a two party system and the Federalists or some other party will come back, then yeah, you could see how he would think it was a revolution. Now that said, I don't know if I would actually call it a revolution. I think it does matter that the Federalists were voted out and the Republicans were voted in. And that there was, among the many differences between Federalists and Republicans, the Republicans truly did have a different sense of the populace and their role in the process and the nature of democratic governance and that mattered. So I guess you could say in that sense maybe it had a revolutionary thread. >> Excellent. Do you think there are any lessons to be drawn from 1800 that might inform our understanding of the current election? >> Tricky and sensitive question. Yes, well, I think yes. Because I think in 1800, the election became extremely fraught, extremely polarized. All kinds of threats and nasty accusations, people talking of civil war and anarchy, people stockpiling weapons in the state of Pennsylvania, I believe and Virginia, in case the Federalists illegally or improperly tried to steal the election. I mean, people don't realize, I think, how fraught that election was, and the fact that it reached that point, but the political process that had been set in place was adhered to and followed, and that when it had played out the losers stepped back and allowed that system to continue. I think that matters enormously and I think it's a lesson that is a little stunning to me that we need to be talking about right now. But I think that remembering that this system plays out, it's a fair system. Even if you don't like the system, allowing it to play out and having after it's played out, being willing to step back and allow things to go forward. It's not as though once the election is decided, whoever doesn't win is out. That's not how our political process works. It's set up so that it's a representative government, right? So it's not as though whoever loses will have no opinion or no ability to influence anything. So I think remembering the power of our system of governance and allowing it to do what it does. Even after the election of 1800, when Jefferson was essentially asked, what would you have done if the whole thing broke down, he says, well, we would have had some kind of meeting and fixed it a little bit and it would have gone back into play. So even Jefferson, who was in the middle of this 'revolution', he didn't abandon that system. He assumed that that system would function. >> Joanne Freeman, thank you very much. >> Thanks.