Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Seeing Jefferson Anew: In His Time and Ours (review)

Seeing Jefferson Anew: In His Time and Ours (review) the egregiously antidemocratic operation of the three-fifths rule, which boosted the slave states' electoral vote. (In the view of some historians, the ``three-fifths'' rule was responsible for Thomas Jefferson's election, an argument to which Sharp devotes regrettably little attention).5 On the other hand, in the congressional elections of 1800, there was a dramatic rise in voter turnout by Republicans and a sweeping democratic mandate for change: The new Seventh Congress included 68 Republicans and 38 Federalists, a dramatic shift from the 60 Federalists and 46 Republicans elected in 1798.6 In retirement, Jefferson observed that the election of 1800 was ``as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776,'' which was ``effected,'' he said, ``by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrages of the people.''7 It was not Jefferson's selection but the suffrages of the people in congressional and local elections that was truly revolutionary. An drew W. R obe rtso n is an associate professor of history at Lehman College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He is the author of The Language of Democracy: Political Rhetoric in the United States and Britain, 1790­1900 (Ithaca, NY, 1995) and http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of the Early Republic University of Pennsylvania Press

Seeing Jefferson Anew: In His Time and Ours (review)

Journal of the Early Republic , Volume 33 (1) – Feb 6, 2013

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-pennsylvania-press/seeing-jefferson-anew-in-his-time-and-ours-review-28UixwXqoT
Publisher
University of Pennsylvania Press
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Historians of the Early American Republic.
ISSN
1553-0620
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

the egregiously antidemocratic operation of the three-fifths rule, which boosted the slave states' electoral vote. (In the view of some historians, the ``three-fifths'' rule was responsible for Thomas Jefferson's election, an argument to which Sharp devotes regrettably little attention).5 On the other hand, in the congressional elections of 1800, there was a dramatic rise in voter turnout by Republicans and a sweeping democratic mandate for change: The new Seventh Congress included 68 Republicans and 38 Federalists, a dramatic shift from the 60 Federalists and 46 Republicans elected in 1798.6 In retirement, Jefferson observed that the election of 1800 was ``as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776,'' which was ``effected,'' he said, ``by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrages of the people.''7 It was not Jefferson's selection but the suffrages of the people in congressional and local elections that was truly revolutionary. An drew W. R obe rtso n is an associate professor of history at Lehman College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He is the author of The Language of Democracy: Political Rhetoric in the United States and Britain, 1790­1900 (Ithaca, NY, 1995) and

Journal

Journal of the Early RepublicUniversity of Pennsylvania Press

Published: Feb 6, 2013

There are no references for this article.