date

[in copyist’s hand] 1819 May 24
[in copyist’s hand]

1819 May 24

Defence of Ballot

Canvassings, from Fearon

2

Since the first choice of M r Jefferson, the presidential Elections are managed by private Meetings (or Caucus) of the democratic Members of Congress, previous to Elections: they settle among themselves who shall be president. This is what is called getting “the appointment in Caucus”, and an instance never occurs of the votes being in opposition to Caucus. When they have determined upon who they wish to be President, they sent Circulars to their different states, pointing out, by a sort of congé d’elire, who they have resolved should be elected: and as the right of voting for Presidents is confined to a very limited number, there is no instance of the Caucus being disobeyed. M r Munroe being a Democrat was, as a matter of course, voted for by the democratic states; and those of New England being federal, would not, I believe, give a vote upon the occasion. It appears that the Members of the Washington Caucus were almost equally divided between M r Crawford and M r Munroe; but that some accommodation being agreed upon, the latter got “the appointment”. Had his rival obtained this, he and not M r Munroe would have been voted for by the democratic states, as a matter of course. These are alarming facts; for thus we see that the very men (the Members of Congress) who are directly excluded by the Constitution from voting, become, by means of a secret something unknown to that Constitution, and at variance with both its letter and Spirit, the real Electors to the Presidentship. How necessary are the most unceasing vigilance, and the greatest degree of public principle and public virtue, to preserve even the best Institutions from gross perversion! No oligarchy can ever be more dangerous than this, which deludes the people with a belief

that
Similar Items
  • Title: [[mainly in copyist’s hand] 1819 May]
    Description: [mainly in copyist’s hand]

    1819 May 24

    Defence of | | Ballot

    Caucussing from Fearon

    p. 320

    *1

    1

    Fearon pp. 320 to 325. Elections. In all the electioneering addresses which I have seen, it is deserving of remark, that the defeated party complain of the corrupt influence of “Caucus”. I have often enquired the meaning of this term, or the nature of the power exercised, but have not received any very satisfactory information. An American Writer says that it is a “cant term for those private meetings which are held by the political parties, previous to Elections, for the purpose of agreeing upon Candidates for office, or concerting any measure which they design carrying, at the subsequent public meeting.” The other day I called upon a resident of this City, a person of some political importance. Aware that the subject is already and very variously discussed throughout the States, I casually enquired, “Who do you think, Sir, will be your next President”? He gave no reply, except by a significant nod. I followed up my enquiry by, “Do you think, Sir, M r Adams will be selected?” To which he answered with decided confidence, “No; I guess not, Sir; we have the man, we have the man, we know our man. Crawford (the present Secretary of the Treasury) had it in caucus last time within a few.” I enquired what he meant by having it in Caucus; for that M r Munroe was elected by an overwhelming Majority. His answer was – “Ah! I guess you don’t understand our modes; when you have been here a few years, you will comprehend these things. Only mind, I tell you Adams never can be President; for he will not be able to do any thing with Caucus”. From Minute Enquiry, I understood that this thing called Caucus, was practically invented by M r John Adams, during his Presidentship; and that it is now universally practised in the Election to every office in America.

    Since
  • Title: [[in copyist’s hand] 1819 May 24]
    Description: [in copyist’s hand]

    1819 May 24

    Defence of Ballot.

    Canvassing, from Fearon

    3

    that they are all-powerful, and the Electors of their Chief Magistrate, while virtually they are the mere tools of a faction, and have not a voice in the matter. By a reference to the proceedings of Congress, it would appear that this vitally important subject was brought under their public consideration in 1816; upon which M r Rufus King, and General Harper, made the following observations, every syllable of which deserves your most marked attention.

    M r King said, “If there was any part of the Constitution, deemed by its framers and advocates to be better secured than any other against the enterprises which have since occurred, it was the very provision on the subject of Election to the Presidency – The idea was, that the Actions of that particular agency, which has since controlled it, was as much displaced by the Constitutional plan of electing the President and Vice-President, as could possibly be devised. We all know the course which this thing has taken. The Election of a President of the United States is no longer that process which the Constitution contemplated. In conformity with the original view of the Authors of that Instrument, I would restore, as thoroughly as possible, the freedom of Election to the people. On the Contrary, our progress in Government is not for the better; it is not likely, hereafter, to be in favour of popular rights. It was with the people the Constitution meant to place the Election of the Chief Magistrate; that being the source of the least liable to be corrupt. But if, under the name of the liberty of the

    people, we put this power into other hands, with different interests, we place it in a situation in which the rights of the people are violated. Men now live,

    who
  • Title: [[copyist’s hand] nd [wm 1818]]
    Description: [copyist’s hand]

    nd [wm 1818]

    To Erskine

    3.

    This is what Honourable Gentlemen are ready enough to tell you: and amongst the readiest, far more so, than those whose special care it is, that, in the case of those seats, the property of which, composing as in their language it does the most honourable part of their property, is in the same language sacred and inviolable, all freedom shall be effectually excluded as possible: and whose negative, accompanied with their avowed or unavowed observance is ready for the only mode of voting in which freedom is possible.

    In the United States, notwithstanding the improvements there made on an institution they have not yet brought Election business to that state of perfection which the theory insists upon: they have not yet devised a mode of Election which shall end without having been begun. In the mean time, for giving beginnings to Elections, they have devised an Instrument called a Caucus. To keep clear of definitions, this Caucus is neither more nor less than a Rump. M r Cobbet saw the thing; and in conjunction with it, the name. For the particular purpose to which he saw an advantage in applying it, there remained nothing for him to do but to substitute to that American an English name. Copying from M r Cobbet the new name and the application, M r Perry has put the Whig stamp upon it; and now it forms part of the language.

    Those to whom in any instance the result of the consultation carried on in a Caucus is favourable, will now say – though not exactly perhaps in Your Lordship’s language, in such elegant language as it may be in their power to find – that it is an instrument for enabling “enlightened men who can see clearly the interests of their Country, to use their influence with persons less qualified to investigate those subjects”: those to whom it is unfavourable will say with M r Cobbet and M r Perry that it is an instrument composed of “that most miserable junto which so long disgraced the City” (naming it or the other Election district whatever it may be) “by a fraudulently acquired and extremely absurd ascendancy.”

    Accuse me not, My Lord, of any such design as that of injuring the harmony between your Lordship and so intimate a friend. Nothing can be more perfect than the concord. By the “enlightened men” Your Lordship meant the enlightened men who formed M r Lamb’s Committee: by “the miserable junto”, M r Perry meant their adversaries – M r Hobhouse’s Rump.

    But,