It’s fitting this new era begins by discussing another. The 1789 Presidential Election ushered in a new order that would eventually give rise to one of the world’s great superpowers. It did not, however, look anything like the elections of today.
The United States after the Revolutionary War
It’s important to recall at the end of the 18th Century, the United States was far from a superpower. Victory in the Revolutionary War resulted in many things, but it didn’t result in riches, nor did it result in Britain exiting the colonies. It instead left an infant nation asking, “now what?”
Enter the first political camps – the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Though the terms relate to their respective views on the Constitution, there are broader definitions. The Federalists sought to create a strong central government with the power to perform actions such as collecting taxes and declaring war. They were concentrated in the large northern cities – New York City, Boston, Philadelphia – all of which were major ports. By contrast, the Anti-Federalists were concentrated in the southern colonies along with the rural areas of the north. They believed the majority of governing power should be held by the states, as it had with the war debt repayments.
The Constitutional Convention
Delegates from each state arrived in Philadelphia in May 1787 with the intent of evolving the Articles of Confederation into a stronger, universal framework. For fans of Hamilton, this is the end of Act I. How many delegates were sent was, again, decided by the states. For the sake of this piece, we will focus on Article II, Section I which reads as follows:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
In effect, the Framers created an open ballot. There were no formal campaigns, nominations, PAC’s, or political parties to organize the effort. The only entity providing structure was the elector system, a precursor to the Electoral College. It would be the electors choosing the president, but the states deciding how their electors were chosen. In Georgia, South Carolina, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York the state legislature chose the electors. In Pennsylvania and Delaware there were statewide elections, each ballot requesting a list of ten and three names, respectively. The top ten and three vote-getters were chosen. Virginia had the closest system to that of the present day. The state was divided into twelve electoral districts, each selecting one winner. However, these twelve electoral districts were different than the ten congressional districts the state legislature outlined.
The disorder didn’t stop there. As North Carolina and Rhode Island had yet to ratify the Constitution, they would not participate the election. New York, though it had ratified the Constitution, was left out due to the state legislature’s disagreement on how to choose its electors.
The 1789 Election
Come January 7, 1789, there were 69 electoral votes up for grabs. George Washington took all of them, a record that’s highly unlikely to be broken. John Adams came in second with 34. The remaining 35 were taken by a variety of characters. We will profile four of these forgotten candidates.
John Jay
In third place with nine (9) electoral votes was John Jay from New York. His resume is arguably more impressive than that of John Adams. Prior to the Revolutionary War he served as a representative for the First Continental Congress, then as the President of the Second Continental Congress. He spent most of the war in Spain as the United States’ ambassador, intermittently returning to New York, during which he drafted the state’s constitution and served as its first Chief Justice. At the end of the war he stood next to Adams and Benjamin Franklin as they negotiated the Treaty of Paris.
When he returned to the United States he was appointed Secretary of Affairs, the precursor to the Secretary of State. During this time he also drafted five of the Federalist Papers, No. 2-5 and No. 64, alongside Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Despite his involvement, Jay wasn’t the zealous revolutionary like many of his contemporaries. He believed the relationship with Britain was salvageable, a belief some would argue affected his ability to capture a higher office position. Upon Washington’s victory, he appointed Jay as the nation’s first Chief Justice.
John Rutledge
The only southerner to make the cut with six (6) votes. His first significant appointment came in 1765, where, at the age of 26, he became the youngest representative of the Stamp Act Congress. He used this position as a springboard to a successful legal career. In 1776 he was elected governor of South Carolina. Immediately he faced British and Cherokee attacks on Charleston, both of which he successfully defended. The British would capture Charleston in 1780, forcing Rutledge into exile while fighting for more support from the Continental Congress. He resigned from his governorship in 1782.
In the years leading up to the election Rutledge became one of the most influential Framers. Among his most important contributions was the concept of a single individual overseeing the executive branch, aka the president. He also advised against incorporating the abolition of slavery, arguing it would cause the Constitution to fall out of favor with the southern colonies. Both ideas were implemented. He was appointed as the first Supreme Court Justice in 1789 underneath John Jay.
John Hancock
Perhaps the most recognized name on this list. However, despite his universal recognition as a Founding Father, Hancock was cast from a different mold. He came from considerable wealth. Following his schooling he went to work for his uncle’s successful mercantile firm, ultimately becoming the owner. As such, his opinions of the British were generally supportive. That was until 1768 when one of his ships, the Liberty, was unlawfully searched by British customs. In court, Hancock was represented by none other than fellow Bostonian John Adams. The charges were dropped, but Hancock wouldn’t forget the incident. He was now a revolutionary, although not as radical as another fellow Bostonian, Samuel Adams.
Another distinction between him and his fellow Founding Fathers was his apparent lack of skill as an orator and writer. Despite this, he was one of the primary architects of the Declaration of Independence. No surprise then he was the first to sign it. During the war, after his tenure as president of the Second Continental Congress, he served as the governor of Massachusetts. His governorship ended in 1785, after which he dedicated his time to philanthropy.
George Clinton
The other, and arguably more influential New Yorker. After serving the British during the French and Indian War, Clinton, like many of the names in this piece, went to law school and set up his own practice. At the dawn of the Revolution in 1775 he was appointed Brigadier General in the state militia and tasked with defending the Hudson River Valley. After successfully doing so for 15 months, he was promoted to Brigadier General in the Continental Army. One month later, in April 1777, he ran for lieutenant governor, and not only won, but also won the governor’s race. He served the office from 1777-95, then again from 1801-04, making him the second longest-tenured governor in United States history.
His victories against rogue British troops and Iroquois in western New York made him a champion of the rural population. Although he agreed there needed to be a stronger central government, he disagreed with many of the Federalist’s policies. Specifically, he wanted the ability for New York to raise its own militia and to reclaim territories in the western state. The latter, along with the state’s economic prowess during the post-revolution years, became the basis for the state’s nickname – the Empire State. He became the Anti-Federalist leader, refusing to sign the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added in 1791.
The 1789 Election in 2025
In 1804 the 12th Amendment instituted the modern president-vice president voting system. The primary driver of this change was John Adams’ presidency and its effect on the 1800 election. In 1796 Thomas Jefferson, a prominent Anti-Federalist, earned the second most votes to Adams, a prominent Federalist. These opposing ideologies first manifested in their views of the French Revolution. Adams viewed the violence as a sign the French people were too radical to govern themselves. Jefferson, though he detested the violence, saw it as a necessary step for France to abolish the monarchy. The divide between the two procreated into their respective parties, deepening their divide.
To avoid this internal turmoil, Jefferson ran alongside fellow Democratic-Republican (Anti-Federalist) Aaron Burr (Sir). Their dual campaign worked, too well; both received 73 electoral votes. A tie between two candidates was left to the House of Representatives, who at the time were majority Federalists. Jefferson ultimately prevailed as a result of Alexander Hamilton’s “lesser of two evils” directive.
This piece left me with two takeaways. First, a fascinating thought experiment of how modern elections, given AI, social media, and other technologies, would’ve panned out. How many Jays and Hancock’s would’ve been in the mix? Second is an appreciation for iteration and process. Even the Founding Fathers, universally regarded as some of the greatest minds in history, couldn’t foretell every scenario, and therefore couldn’t appreciate the effects of an oversimplified election procedure.
It’s a testament to the infinite complexities the world offers regardless of how much society advances. The only solution is consistent monitoring and iteration. That is why the Constitution has 27 Amendments, and us exponentially more…