Talk:Matthew Lyon

Deciding vote for Jefferson?
I question the claim that Matthew Lyon decided the Jefferson-Burr election -- for a few reasons. First, in the U.S. House, each state's representatives voted to determine which candidate to support, and then cast one ballot for that state. In 1801, there were 16 states, so a candidate needed 9 to win. Jefferson won 8 states on 35 ballots, and Burr won 6, with 2 in the "no result" column. Jefferson won 10 states on the 36th. Since he won by a margin that was larger than required, who can say one vote in particular was THE deciding vote?

Second, for 35 ballots, Vermont's vote didn't count because Lyon voted for Jefferson and Lewis Morris voted for Burr, so there as no majority and Vermont was counted as "no result". On the 36th ballot, Morris absented himself; Lyon voted for Jefferson, and so Vermont was awarded to Jefferson as one of the 10 states he carried. But Lyon didn't do anything different on the 36th ballot than he had on the previous 35 -- MORRIS did. If anyone cast the "deciding vote", wouldn't it be Morris, whose decision to absent himself enabled Jefferson to carry Vermont?

Third, on the 36th ballot, Morris's decision to absent himself and allow Jefferson to carry Vermont wasn't the only change -- Maryland had been in the "no result" column for 35 ballots. On the 36th, two Maryland Federalists agreed to cast blank ballots, which gave Jefferson Maryland. In addition, Federalist James A. Bayard of Delaware, that state's only Representative, had voted for Burr on the first 35 ballots. On the 36th, he cast a blank ballot, moving Delaware from Burr to "no result". In addition, a South Carolina Congressman decided to depart for home before the 36th ballot, which moved South Carolina from Burr to "no result". Some accounts indicate that it was Bayard who organized the effort among himself, Morris, and the Maryland Federalists.

The net result was that on ballot 36, Jefferson went from 8 states to 10, and Burr went from 6 states to 4. Two states were tied and so in the "no result" column, and Jefferson was elected.

I can't see my way clear to validating the claim that Lyon cast THE deciding vote. He didn't do anything differently -- Bayard, Morris, and the Maryland Federalists (Craik and Baer) did. I think this claim regarding Lyon is overblown, as sometimes happens when biographers praise their subjects too much and try to accentuate their importance.

So, does anyone else have an opinion on the claim that Lyon decided the 1801 presidential election in the U.S. House? I think it's hyperbole and should be removed.

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be overblown but that's what the cited source states: History of Kentucky


 * And while other sources state the same: Century Magazine, National Park Service, The Journal, Volume 16, Champ Clark's My Quarter Century of American Politics, Volumes 1-2 though there might be other sources that state a different elector or electors cast the deciding vote/s.


 * If you find multiple reliable sources that state Lyon wasn't the deciding elector then I would say that content could be added along the lines of "some say he did [sources] and some say he didn't [sources]." Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can find a source that proves a negative -- that Lyon WASN'T the deciding vote.


 * You can certainly find sources that attribute Jefferson's victory in the 1801 House election to the actions of others -- chiefly Bayard. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Volume 25. Documents Relating to the Presidential Election in the Year 1801, by by Richard Henry Bayard.  Princetonians, 1784-1790: A Biographical Dictionary.  These works all give credit (if that's the right word) to Bayard for Jefferson's election.


 * The Magazine of History, with Notes and Queries, Volumes 19-20. A New History of the United States: The Greater Republic. A History of Political Parties in the United States, Volume 1.  History of Delaware, 1609-1888.  These sources all give collective credit to Bayard, Morris, Craik, and Baer.


 * "A Picturesque Politician of Jefferson's Time", The Century magazine. Matthew Lyon: "New Man" of the Democratic Revolution, 1749-1822.  American National Biography, Volume 14.  These sources all ascribe credit to Lyon.


 * There are some side arguments that have cropped up in history -- for instance a Bayard descendant who also served in Congress spoke and wrote about the 1801 election, and suggested that Lyon accepted an inducement to vote for Jefferson. Matthew Lyon's son James was a printer and newspaper publisher, and was alleged to have been appointed as the official Congressional printer as a reward for Matthew Lyon's vote.  But of course, Lyon was a dedicated Jeffersonian, and never wavered during the 36 ballots, so this charge seems unlikely to be true.  In fact, Lyon swore that he'd been offered bribes from Federalists to change his vote to Burr, and had declined them.


 * If this claim for Lyon was going to be re-written, I'd think it should probably be something closer to the facts, without the definite claim that his vote decided the election for Jefferson -- that is, that on the 36th ballot, several individuals either didn't vote or cast blank ballots, and that Lewis's decision not to vote enabled Lyon's vote for Jefferson to put Vermont in Jefferson's column. The actions of several individuals on the 36th ballot, not just one elected Jefferson.  To me claiming Lyon cast THE deciding vote would be like claiming that a member of the Electoral College cast THE deciding vote for Trump last year.  But Trump's margin was 77 electoral votes, so no one of the 77 electors can be said to have cast THE deciding vote.


 * Billmckern (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The source does say it decided the election, though I am fine with rewriting it like you say. I'm curious in what way Bayard decided the election - with his efforts or with a specific vote like with Lyon? Thanks for the help here Bill. Cake  (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Several of the accounts I read indicate that it was the Federalist Bayard who told his caucus that it was up to them to break the stalemate by electing Jefferson, or risk having the government fail and the Constitution be rendered moot. Those who agreed to go along -- Lewis Morris of Vermont, and William Craik and George Baer Jr. of Maryland -- told Bayard he could speak for them and try to extract concessions from Jefferson on the issues most important to them in exchange for them casting blank ballots or absenting themselves from the next vote.


 * After meeting with a Jefferson emissary, Congressman Samuel Smith of Maryland, Bayard was satisfied that Jefferson would not turn Federalist appointees out of office en masse, would not dismantle the U.S. Navy, and would not repudiate the national debt.  These conditions were acceptable to Bayard, Morris, Craik, and Baer, who then proceeded to cast blank ballots (Bayard, Craik, Baer) or absent themselves from the voting (Morris), thus enabling Jefferson to carry 10 states on the 36th ballot and win the presidency.


 * Jefferson, of course, later denied having made any promises. As it happened, circumstances -- conflict with the Barbary pirates -- required extensive use of the Navy, so Jefferson couldn't dismantle it, even though he wanted to.  He did in fact keep most civil service appointees in office regardless of party affiliation, though he did replace Federalist leaders holding federal posts when possible, and did work to get the Midnight Judges act repealed, which meant that Adams's Federalist jurists lost their positions.  He also worked with his Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, to devise a sinking fund which paid down the debt, enabling the government to avoid repudiation.  Generally, Bayard and his allies got what they wanted -- even if Jefferson denied having explicitly promised it to them.


 * It seems to me that if anyone had anything to do with "deciding" the election after the 35th ballot, it was Bayard, who lined up Federalist allies, got their permission to meet with Jefferson's spokesman on their behalf, and obtained (or at least thought he obtained) concessions from Jefferson. Bayard's initiative and his report of the conversation with Samuel Smith convinced Morris, Craik, and Baer to stick with Bayard in changing their votes from Burr to blank, or staying away during the voting.  It was these four collectively, following Bayard's initiative, who produced the changed result on the 36th ballot.


 * In addition to later arguing in the press with Jefferson about whether Jefferson had made any promises, Bayard also backed up Aaron Burr when Burr was accused of having attempted to bribe Federalist electors to stay in Burr's camp. Bayard wrote to Burr and also provided information to the press denying that Burr had made such an attempt.  Bayard also went to great lengths to make clear that he voted for Burr, a personal friend, on the first 35 ballots out of conviction that Burr was preferable to Jefferson as president, and that he organized the effort that produced Jefferson's victory on the 36th ballot out of sincere belief that if he didn't, the government might cease to function effectively and the Constitution might prove to be hollow.


 * Bayard also denied allegations that Jefferson had bribed him. In fact, Bayard declined Jefferson's appointment as ambassador to France explicitly because he did not want to be accused of having personally profited from Jefferson's victory.


 * Billmckern (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, especially on Gallatin, for to get rid of Gallatin and Benjamin Franklin Bache is how Jeffersonians took "Alien and Sedition". What do you think the source on Lyon is trying to say? Is it just wrong, or can we reconcile the accounts? Lyon cast one of the decisive votes for Jefferson?  Cake  (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume the source giving Lyon credit is just engaging in a little hyberbole.


 * Another example I noticed a while ago and worked to fix was that of Henry Cruse Murphy, a Congressman and mayor of Brooklyn.


 * Several sources say Murphy missed being elected president by one vote in 1852. When I looked into it I found that what happened was the 1852 Democratic National Convention was deadlocked between Douglas, Buchanan, and Cass.  The Virginia delegation decided to try breaking the impasse by selecting a dark horse -- a northerner with southern sympathies -- who they agreed to support as a unit.  In the Virginia caucus, they decided by one vote to support Pierce over Murphy.  Virginia introduced Pierce's name and supported him en masse, as they had agreed.  The groundswell happened, and Pierce was nominated.  He then defeated Winfield Scott in the general election.


 * It seems to me that saying Murphy missed the presidency by one vote is an attempt to puff up the subject. There's no guarantee that if Murphy had been selected, Virginia would have voted as a unit.  Or that he'd been nominated.  Or that he'd have remained alive through election day.  Or that he'd have won the general election.  It's over the top to presume that events would have unfolded for Murphy exactly as they did for Pierce.  I think it's just the claim of an overly generous biographer.


 * Billmckern (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried to temper the language and focus on it being decisive for Vermont rather than the election - and I wonder if we should mention Morris. Cake  (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See if you like the additional detail I provided. If so I'll go back and add references.


 * Billmckern (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I tried to clear up some over-linking and redundant bits. Lyon's vote for Jefferson is so often the punctuation mark after his release from jail, but I see it's often overblown. Glad to have it cleared up.  Cake  (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been adding references to try to fill in the gaps. I've also added so additional material on the Fair Haven Gazette -- in fact, I created an article for it earlier today.


 * Billmckern (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw that. Neat about the Rutland Herald - who knew? Cake (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)