Congressmen 1788-1838

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

9th Congress U. S. Congressional Election 9 October 1804 1805-1807 Name Party Vote Name Party Vote Name Party Vote 1st District (3 elected): Died 23 July 1805 before Congress convened Returns for Israel not found. Joseph Clay Dem-Rep 7,427 Oliver Pollock Dem-Rep 1,700 11th District: Jacob Richards Dem-Rep 7,021 Robert Mitchell Dem-Rep 1,514 John B. Lucas Dem-Rep 2,526 Michael Leib Dem-Rep 3,992 5th District: James O’Hara Federalist 1,373 Resigned 14 February 1806 Andrew Gregg Dem-Rep 3,318 William Penrose Dem-Rep 3,685 6th District: 2nd District (3 elected): James Kelly Federalist 1,705 Special Election John Pugh Dem-Rep 6,701 John Stewart Dem-Rep 1,211 8 October 1805 Frederick Conrad Dem-Rep 6,596 Robert Brown Dem-Rep 4,532 7th District: 4th District: John Ross Quid 2,710 John Rea Dem-Rep 1,494 Robert Whitehill Dem-Rep 6,457 Samuel Preston Quid 268 8th District: James Duncan Indep. Rep. 2,674 3rd District (3 elected): William Findley Dem-Rep 1,332 11th District: Christian Lower Dem-Rep 9,079 John Brandon Federalist 727 Samuel Smith Dem-Rep 3,275 John Whitehill Dem-Rep 6,309 No returns from Somerset County. James O’Hara Federalist 2,263 Isaac Anderson Dem-Rep 6,287 9th District: Nathaniel Irish Constitution 681 Thomas Boude Federalist 2,929 John Smilie Dem-Rep - 27 November 1806 Isaac Wayne Federalist 2,814 Unopposed. Returns incomplete. 1st District: 4th District (2 elected): 10th District: John Porter Dem-Rep 2,396 David Bard Dem-Rep 3,245 John Hamilton Dem-Rep 1,068 Richard Falwell Federalist 829 John A. Hanna Dem-Rep 2,931 John Israel Quid, Fed. - Jonas Preston Federalist 53 Boldface indicates winner. Italics indicate incumbent. 9th Congress: 1805-1807 Democratic-Republican - 17 Federalist - 1 ERIE WARREN MCKEAN POTTER TIOGA (Atch. to (Atch. to (Atch. to (Atch. to CRAWFORD Venango) Centre) Lycoming) Lycoming) LUZERNE JEFFERSON WAYNE VENANGO (Atch. to LYCOMING Indiana) 2 MERCER 11 CLEARFIELD 5 3 seats (Atch. to Centre) ARMSTRONG CENTRE BUTLER NORTHUMBERLAND BEAVER NORTHAMPTON INDIANA CAMBRIA MIFFLIN BERKS (Atch to ALLEGHENY 8 BUCKS Somerset) HUNTINGDON 4 3 seats DAUPHIN 2 seats MONTGOMERY 10WESTMORELAND 3 CUMBERLAND WASHINGTON PHILA. LANCASTER 1 FAYETTE SOMERSET BEDFORD 6 CHESTER DELAWARE GREENE 7 FRANKLIN ADAMS YORK PHILA.CITY 9 3 seats Source: Dubin, Congressional Elections, pp. 32-33 13 January 2007.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Congressmen 1788-1838
8th Congress U. S. Congressional Election 12 October 1802 1803-1805 Name Party Vote Name Party Vote 1st District (3 elected): 4th District (2 elected): 11th District: Joseph Clay Dem-Rep 4,363 John A. Hanna Dem-Rep 6,110 John B. Lucas Dem-Rep 2,168 Jacob Richards Dem-Rep 4,316 David Bard Dem-Rep 5,970 John Wilkins Federalist 1,624 Michael Leib Dem-Rep 3,980 David Mitchell Dem-Rep 28 Alexander Foster Federalist 638 George Latimer Federalist 2,895 5th District: Peter Brown Federalist 2,875 Andrew Gregg Dem-Rep 4,258 Jonas Preston Federalist 2,847 Elisha Gordon Federalist 304 6th District: John Stewart Dem-Rep 2,285 2nd District (3 elected): John Edie Federalist 1,748 Robert Brown Dem-Rep 11,456 7th District: Isaac Van Horne Dem-Rep 10,697 John Rea Dem-Rep 2,173 Frederick Conrad Dem-Rep 6,205 Henry Woods Federalist 941 Samuel Sitgreaves Federalist 3,939 John McLene Dem-Rep 147 Nathaniel B. Borleau Federalist 1,682 Lord Butler Federalist 781 8th District: William Findley Dem-Rep 1,531 3rd District (3 elected): Jacob Painter Dem-Rep 1,312 John Whitehill Dem-Rep 9,396 Special Election Isaac Anderson Dem-Rep 9,365 9th District: 2 November 1804 Joseph Hiester Dem-Rep 9,236 John Smilie Dem-Rep 2,718 10th District: Jacob Bower Federalist 4,932 10th District: John Hoge Federalist 477 Joseph Hemphill Federalist 4,853 William Hoge Dem-Rep 2,300 Aaron Lyle Dem-Rep 439 Thomas Boude Federalist 4,829 Resigned 15 October 1804.
[Show full text]
THE Whiskey Insurrection of 1794 Long Has Been Regarded As One of the Decisive Events in Early American History
THE WHISKEY INSURRECTION: A RE-EVALUATION By JACOB E. COOKE* THE Whiskey Insurrection of 1794 long has been regarded as one of the decisive events in early American history. But on the question of why it was significant there has been a century and a half of disagreement. Fortunately for the historian, how- ever, there have not been many interpretations; indeed, there have been only two. And, as anyone would guess, these have been the Federalist and the anti-Federalist, the Hamiltonian and the Jeffersonian. It is not the purpose of this paper to describe the fluctuating historical reputations of Jefferson and Hamilton; at one period of time (say, *the Jacksonian era) Jefferson was in the ascendancy; at another time (say, the post-Civil War period) Hamilton crowded Jefferson out of the American historical hall of fame. But for the past half-century and longer, the interpretation that our historians have given to the American past has been predi- cated on a Jeffersonian bias, and the Whiskey Insurrection is no exception. The generally accepted interpretation of the Whiskey Insur- rection reads something like this: In March, 1791, under the prodding of Alexander Hamilton and against the opposition of the Westerners and some Southerners, Congress levied an excise tax on whiskey. This measure was an integral part of Hamilton's financial plan, a plan which was designed to soak the farmer and to spare the rich. There was sporadic opposition to the excise in several parts of the country, but the seat of opposition was in the four western counties of Pennsylvania.
[Show full text]
Origins of Federal Common Law: Part Two*
University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 133 JULY 1985 No. 6 ORIGINS OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW: PART TWO* STEWART JAYt Thomas Jefferson wrote Edmund Randolph in August 1799 of the need "to portray at full length the consequences of this new doctrine, that the common law is the law of the US, & that their courts have, of course, jurisdiction co-extensive with that law, that is to say, general over all cases & persons." 1 Closing the letter in the next line, he re- marked, "But, great heavens! Who could have conceived in 1789 that within ten years we should have to combat such wind-mills." 2 Some- what more than a year later, John Marshall commented in a private correspondence: In political controversy it often happens that the precise opinion of the adversary is not understood, & that we are at much labor to disprove propositions which have never been maintained. A stronger evidence of this cannot I think be given than the manner in which the references to the com- mon law have been treated.' © Copyright 1985 by Stewart Jay. All rights reserved. * Part One of this essay appears at 133 U. PA. L. REv. 1003 (1985) [hereinafter cited as Jay, Part One]. t Associate Professor of Law, University of Washington. 1 Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph (Aug. 23, 1799), reprinted in 9 THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 76 (P. Ford ed. 1905). 2 Id. at 76-77. " Letter from John Marshall to St. George Tucker (Nov. 27, 1800), reprinted in Appendix A, infra.
[Show full text]
The Second Amendment in Action
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 76 Issue 1 Symposium on the Second Amendment: Article 4 Fresh Looks October 2000 The Second Amendment in Action Michael A. Bellesiles Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael A. Bellesiles, The Second Amendment in Action, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 61 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN ACTION MICHAEL A. BELLESILES* INTRODUCTION What follows may be entirely irrelevant. There are those who argue that historical inquiry offers nothing to our understanding of the Second Amendment. This postmodernist position is well represented by Charlton Heston, who has dismissed historical scholarship as not in the least bit relevant and called for historians to stop wasting their time in the archives.1 Akhil Amar recently stated that current understandings of the original meaning of the Second Amendment "might be false as a matter of historical fact but [are] nonetheless true as a matter of constitutional law."' 2 William Van Alstyne insists that historical research into the context of the Second Amendment "doesn't seem to me to make a very great deal of difference against the background of Bunker Hill, and the minutemen, and the imagery that this is the nature of things."3 Postmodernism denies the value and even the validity of historical context, emphasizing instead language and image; truth itself is a rhetorical social construct, it is the critic's representation of the past that matters.
[Show full text]
The Whitehills and Robert Jenkins in Congress / by Miss Martha B
THE WHITEHILLS AND ROB- ERT JENKINS IN CONGRESS James Whitehill, the pioneer ances- tor of this family of prominence, set- tled in Salisbury township, on Pequea creek, a short distance from its source and near the Pequea Presby- terian Church, about two miles from the Old Road and in provincial times called the "King's Highway," in the year 1723. His name appears on the assessment list for the year 1724. Warrants for 700 acres of land were granted to him in the years 1723, 1724 and 1743. Some of this land lay on what was then known as Whitehill's run, now Henderson's run. He also owned land in Cumberland county. In 1736 he was chosen assessor, the board of assessors and County Com- missioners constituting what was called in provincial times the County Board. He was elected County Com- missioner for the years 1739-41, and appointed justice of the peace, serving for the years 1736, 1737, 1741, 1745, 1749 and 1752. James Whitehill was born Febru- ary 1, 1700, in Ireland. He was mar- ried twice, but his first wife's name is not known. He married, secondly, Rachel Creswell, who died on the 29th of June, 1795. James Whitehill died February 2, 1766. They were buried in Pequea Presbyterian Churchyard. John Whitehill, a Congressman. The son of James Whitehill, the pioneer, was born December 11, 1729, in Salisbury township, Lancaster county. He married August 13, 1755, Ann Sanderson. John Whitehill was a zealous patriot, and was prominent in serving on committees at the time of the Revolution, holding many po- sitions of trust, viz.: Appointed Jus- tice of the Peace November 3, 1779; on a committee for inquiring into the state of the Pennsylvania Treasury, February 9, 1780; a member of the Council of Censors, October 20, 1783.
[Show full text]
Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School Fall 11-12-1992 Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Earman, Cynthia Diane, "Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830" (1992). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 8222. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/8222 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOARDINGHOUSES, PARTIES AND THE CREATION OF A POLITICAL SOCIETY: WASHINGTON CITY, 1800-1830 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of History by Cynthia Diane Earman A.B., Goucher College, 1989 December 1992 MANUSCRIPT THESES Unpublished theses submitted for the Master's and Doctor's Degrees and deposited in the Louisiana State University Libraries are available for inspection. Use of any thesis is limited by the rights of the author. Bibliographical references may be noted, but passages may not be copied unless the author has given permission. Credit must be given in subsequent written or published work. A library which borrows this thesis for use by its clientele is expected to make sure that the borrower is aware of the above restrictions.
[Show full text]
In Preparation for the 2012 Presidential Election, Members Of
Contested eleCtion laws: RepResentation, eleCtions, and paRty Building in pennsylvania, 1788–1794 David W. Houpt n preparation for the 2012 presidential election, members of the Pennsylvania GOP have been considering changing the way the Istate awards its electoral votes. Under the current system, the can- didate who wins the greatest number of votes statewide receives all twenty of the state’s votes in the Electoral College. In recent years, heavy Democratic voting in urban areas such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh has offset Republican victories in rural parts of the state. In order to build on their strength in the less-populated areas, Republicans are considering having Pennsylvania award electors based on a district method. While this approach is technically con- stitutional, political commentators have been quick to condemn the proposal as unethical and potentially dangerous.1 This is not, however, the first time a political party has attempted to change election laws to their advantage. The manipulation of election law dates back to the first elections under the Constitution. pennsylvania history: a journal of mid-atlantic studies, vol. 79, no. 3, 2012. Copyright © 2012 The Pennsylvania Historical Association This content downloaded from 128.118.152.206 on Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:12:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms pennsylvania history Concern over the lack of representation in the British Parliament was one of the major reasons the colonists decided to declare independence.2 The Revolution established the principle of actual representation—that all regions of a state or the nation ought to be represented in the legislature, and that federal representation ought to be apportioned by population in the House of Representatives—but there were still many questions about what that meant in practice.
[Show full text]
Ninth Congress March 4, 1805, to March 3, 1807
NINTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1805, TO MARCH 3, 1807 FIRST SESSION—December 2, 1805, to April 21, 1806 SECOND SESSION—December 1, 1806, to March 3, 1807 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1805, for one day only VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—GEORGE CLINTON, of New York PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—SAMUEL SMITH, 1 of Maryland SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—SAMUEL A. OTIS, of Massachusetts SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—JAMES MATHERS, of New York SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—NATHANIEL MACON, 2 of North Carolina CLERK OF THE HOUSE—JOHN BECKLEY, 3 of Virginia SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOSEPH WHEATON, of Rhode Island DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—THOMAS CLAXTON CONNECTICUT GEORGIA John Boyle SENATORS SENATORS John Fowler Matthew Lyon James Hillhouse Abraham Baldwin Thomas Sandford Uriah Tracy James Jackson 10 Matthew Walton REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE John Milledge 11 Samuel W. Dana REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE MARYLAND John Davenport Joseph Bryan 12 Calvin Goddard 4 Dennis Smelt 13 SENATORS Timothy Pitkin 5 Peter Early Robert Wright 20 Roger Griswold 6 David Meriwether Philip Reed 21 Lewis B. Sturges 7 Cowles Mead 14 Samuel Smith Jonathan O. Moseley Thomas Spalding 15 REPRESENTATIVES John Cotton Smith 8 William W. Bibb 16 Theodore Dwight 9 John Archer Benjamin Tallmadge KENTUCKY John Campbell Leonard Covington SENATORS Joseph H. Nicholson 22 DELAWARE John Breckinridge 17 Edward Lloyd 23 SENATORS 18 John Adair Patrick Magruder 19 Samuel White Henry Clay William McCreery James A. Bayard Buckner Thruston Nicholas R. Moore REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVES Roger Nelson James M.
[Show full text]
Xxi.-Party Struggles Over the First Pennsylvania Constitution
t. K XXI.-PARTY STRUGGLES OVER THE FIRST PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION. By SAMUEL B. HARDING. In speaking of the violence manifested in Pennsylvania by the opponents of the Federal Constitution, Madison says, in one of his letters to Jefferson: 1 "The cause of the inflamma- tion, however, is much more in their State factions than in the system proposed by the convention." In this statement he gives the clew to the whole course of the contest in that State. The most superficial examination of the writings of those par- ticipating in it soon brings one face to face with this fact. Yet nowhere in the later writings about the Constitution, so far as the present writer is aware, is this fact taken sufficiently into account. Bancroft quotes this statement from Madison, but gives no elucidation of it; Curtis ignores the question; and Professor McMaster, despite his research in this field, by no means makes clear the relation of State to Federal politics in this connection. A brief account, therefore, of the party struggles in the State during and immediately following the Revolution, and the way in which these influenced the contest over the Federal Constitution, may not be without some gen- eral interest to students of American history. At the beginning of the contest with Great Britain the con- trol of affairs in Pennsylvania was still in the hands of the aristocratic element of the province, which centered in Phila- delphia and the richer and more thickly settled counties adja- cent thereto, and whose power politically was supported by the requirement of a £50 property qualification for the fran- chise.
[Show full text]
National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
NPS Form 10-900-b OMBMo (Jan. 1987) . s >-:,- « r; ^'rj fT? ! :"v' ; - I: ; i; V/ l£ United States Department of the Interior \^\ National Park Service uu \ :; > National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing__________________________________________ Vtiiskey Rebellion Resources in Southwestern Pennsylvania________________ B. Associated Historic Contexts____________________________________________ Whiskey Rebellion in Southwestern Pennsylvania_____________________ C. Geographical Data___________________________________________ Southwestern Pennsylvania - Allegheny, Bedford, Fayette, Greene, Somerset, Washington and Westmoreland Counties I I See continuation sheet D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR/ftart 60 and tlffevSecreprV |f the Interior's Standards for Planning and Evaluation. DR. BRENT D. GLASS |V/^<AN\ \U V 17^/^7 l/ 7-)//^ r Signature of certifying official Date PA HISTORICAL & MUSEUM COMMISSION State or Federal agency and bureau 1, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Re gister as a basis for/evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
[Show full text]
Notes and Queries : Historical, Biographical and Genealogical
P E N NSYLVANIA State Library r \ i I- V* • . M I* ( V;.. o 'T.' ' I/,.'.. w \ • J "t-. I' I-.. >1 L' » I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from This project is made possible by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services as administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Education through the Office of Commonwealth Libraries https://archive.org/details/notesquerieshistOOunse_ NOTES and QUERIES HISTORICAL, BIOGRAPHICAL--GENEALOGICAL RELATING CHIEFLY TO INTERIOR PENNSYLVANIA. EDITED BY WILLIAM HENRY EGLE, M. D., M. A. Annual Volume, 1896. HARRISBURG, PEInNA. : Harrisburg Publishing Company, S-R 929.3748 N845 1896 C.4 Notes and queries . .. 5 5 ) INDEX. Anti-^Masonic Throes, in, 146, 160 “Buy a Broom,” 37 j “Big Tree,” death and burial of Cameron School Building, dedica- at Philadelphia, 159 tion of, 228 | Biographical Notes, 26, 43 “Canal Literature,” 66 Biographical Sketches; j Capp Family in Pennsylvania,.... 155 Atlee, Samuel John, 94 Capitol, the first, and where the | Babb, Samson 205 Governors lived, 225 | ' Ball, Thormond, 180 Centenarian, a Dauphin County, . 14 Benner, Gen. Philif), 215 Chillisquaque Presbyterian Church, 187 Black, John and James, 180 Chisolm, Judge W. W., assassina- j Blair, Dr. Isaiah, 193 tion of 199 [ Brady, “Old Sam,” 20 Cumberland Valley Worthies, ..43, 122 Butler, Lord, 95 Diamond Wedding Anniversary, . 114 Butler, William, 200 Disberry, Joe, 204 '51 I of, O-' Buj'ers, John, 181 Earl 3% John, ninetieth birthday' 151 j 0 Chambers, James, 191 Early', Martin, golden wedding
[Show full text]
Congressmen 1788-1838
11th Congress U. S. Congressional Election 1809-1811 11 October 1808 Name Party Vote Name Party Vote Name Party Vote 1st District (3 elected): Roger Davis Dem-Rep 10,161 Robert Philson Dem-Rep 1,502 Benjamin Say Dem-Rep 7,598 William Witman Dem-Rep 10,121 9th District: Resigned June 1809. 4th District (2 elected): John Smilie Dem-Rep 3,183 John Porter Dem-Rep 7,589 Robert Whitehill Dem-Rep 8,807 Thomas Meason Federalist 1,550 William Anderson Dem-Rep 7,559 David Bard Dem-Rep 8,774 Joseph Hemphill Federalist 6,123 John Gloninger Federalist 3,228 10th District: Derick Peterson Federalist 6,098 William Alexander Federalist 3,165 Aaron Lyle Dem-Rep 3,425 Charles W. Hare Federalist 6,052 John Hamilton Quid, Fed 1,053 5th District: 2nd District (3 elected): George Smith Dem-Rep 7,191 11th District: Robert Brown Dem-Rep 9,218 John Bull Federalist 1,549 Samuel Smith Dem-Rep 6,206 John Ross Quid, Fed 9,167 Alexander Foster Federalist 2,885 William Milnor Quid, Fed 9,095 6th District: John Pugh Dem-Rep 9,090 William Crawford Dem-Rep 3,506 John Hahn Dem-Rep 9,026 James Kelly Federalist 3,188 Roswell Wells Quid, Fed 8,941 7th District: 3rd District (3 elected): John Rea Dem-Rep 3,496 Special Election Matthias Richards Quid, Fed 10,652 Andrew Dunlap Federalist 2,191 10 October 1809 Daniel Hiester Quid, Fed 10,625 8th District: 1st District: Robert Jenkins Quid, Fed 10,524 William Findley Quid, Fed 2,718 Adam Seybert Dem-Rep 5,936 John Whitehill Dem-Rep 10,216 John Kirkpatrick Dem-Rep 1,732 Richard R.
[Show full text]