Congressmen 1788-1838

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

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. Smith American-Republican 4,043 Boldface indicates winner. Italics indicate incumbent. 11th Congress: 1809-1811 Democratic-Republican - 12 seats Quid, Federalist - 6 Seats ERIE WARREN MCKEAN POTTER (Atch. to (Atch. to (Atch. to TIOGA CRAWFORD Venango) Centre) 1 seat D-R Lycoming) LUZERNE JEFFERSON WAYNE VENANGO (Atch. to LYCOMING Indiana) 2 MERCER 11 CLEARFIELD 5 3 seats (Atch. to Centre) ARMSTRONG CENTRE BUTLER NORTHUMBERLAND 2 seats Q, F BEAVER NORTHAMPTON INDIANA CAMBRIA MIFFLIN BERKS ALLEGHENY 8 HUNTINGDON 4 3 seats BUCKS 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. 40-41, 43. 1 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]
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]
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]
The United States House of Representatives
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES “Tough but doable” was the way Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Executive Director Howard Wolfson described the Democrats' chances of taking back the House of Representative last Friday. Wolfson had a rough week. Charlie Cook, the respected non-partisan political analyst who is listened to by political reporters, and maybe more importantly, by political PACs, wrote that the math just didn’t seem to be there for the Democrats to pick up the net of six seats they’d need to regain control of the House. During the spring and summer, Cook believed that the Democrats could overcome "the math” with their strength on domestic issues. But, despite a slight edge (48% Democrat- 46% Republican) in the “generic ballot question" (“If the election were held today for Congress, for whom would you vote?”) Democrats haven’t put the issues together in a way to produce the tide it would take to move enough races to produce a Democratic House. Last summer, not only Cook, but top Democrats believed that the Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson scandals, along with the plummeting stock market, had created a climate that could sweep the Democrats back. At one point they even fantasized that all 40 or so competitive races could break their way. But, by August, guns had replaced butter as the overarching national political theme, and the Democrats lost that “mo.” A driving force behind the vote on the Iraq resolution was burning desire by the Democratic leadership to get the focus back on the economy. Indeed, the day after the vote, House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle held a high profile economic forum as a signal that the economy was the main concern of Democrats.
[Show full text]
Delegation at the Founding
Delegation at the Founding Julian Davis Mortenson Nicholas Bagley CSAS Working Paper 20-29 Delegations and Nondelegation After Gundy Delegation at the Founding by Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley* Forthcoming, 121 Columbia Law Review (2021) This Article refutes the claim that the Constitution was originally understood to contain a nondelegation doctrine. The founding generation didn’t share anything remotely approaching a belief that the constitutional settlement imposed restrictions on the delegation of legislative power---let alone by empowering the judiciary to police legalized limits. To the contrary, the Founders saw nothing wrong with delegations as a matter of legal theory. The formal account just wasn’t that complicated: Any particular use of coercive rulemaking authority could readily be characterized as the exercise of either executive or legislative power, and was thus formally valid regardless of the institution from which it issued. Indeed, administrative rulemaking was so routine throughout the Anglo-American world that it would have been shocking if the Constitution had transformed the workaday business of administrative governance. Practice in the new regime quickly showed that the Founders had done no such thing. The early federal Congresses adopted dozens of laws that broadly empowered executive and judicial actors to adopt binding rules of conduct for private parties on some of the most consequential policy questions of the era, with little if any guidance to direct them. Yet the people who drafted and debated the Constitution virtually never raised objections to delegation as such, even as they feuded bitterly over many other questions of constitutional meaning. * Professors of Law, University of Michigan.
[Show full text]
Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine
THE WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL MAGAZINE Volume 44 December 1961 Number 4 OUR MAGAZINE Alfred P. James K 8 thetne 5t0lxstory otof mankind,manl(in6, Ki5tol^history 18is monumental in botnboth 3i2esize an6and character. Its proportions are known to those who have read "* r% \u2666-! s4«4«"* A « « O T^O AsHlr4/4widelyAl^r and\u25a0*\u25a0! dug evenATfA«i modestly\u2666V^.i^\r4 r*4*I v in4-*^ its4" voluminousirr\ll4«V11t1A14H records.**^^%/*\\u2666• C1 Its most striking character, not universally realized, is that it is me- morialistic. Memorial building is a feature of normal successful life. His- torical societies and historical museums are an aspect of this human desire. Inmemorialism they have their major function and accom- plishment. Like all historical societies and museums the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania is fundamentally monumental. Its building is a monument to regional history. Its library, like all historical libraries, is essentially memorialistic as indicated by the selection and nature of its books. Its manuscript collection is definitely me- morial. So also is its museum. Portraits, pictures, and artifacts, however artistic some of them may be, are mainly memorialistic. Memorialism as a purpose and function, features the meetings, addresses, tours, and numerous other activities of the Society. The publications of an historical society are its most important and probably its most enduring aspect of monumentalism tinged with memorialism. Short of the destruction of man and his civilization nothing can greatly alter this fact. The main direct publication of this Society has been its maga- zine, The Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine. What is the nature, the worth of this publication, considered here as the most important and probably most enduring monument of the His- Written in August, 1961, during the annual vacation month, by Dr.
[Show full text]
Pennsylvania and the War of 1812
University of Kentucky UKnowledge United States History History 1970 Pennsylvania and the War of 1812 Victor Sapio Western Carolina University Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sapio, Victor, "Pennsylvania and the War of 1812" (1970). United States History. 77. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_united_states_history/77 Pennsylvania & the War of 1812 This page intentionally left blank Pennsylvania & the War of 1812 Victor A. Sapio The UNIVERSITY PRESS of KENTUCKY Standard Book No. 978-0-8131-5425-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 70-94070 Copyright © 1970 by THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY Lexington, Kentucky 40506 Serving Berea College, Centre College af Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University, Kentucky State College, Morehead State University, Murray State University, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Western Kentucky University. To Baby This page intentionally left blank Contents Acknowledgments ix Introduction I r. Expansion as a Cause for War 6 n. Economic Depression as a Cause for War 25 :m. The Nation's Honor and the Party's Welfare 45 IV. Pennsylvania and Economic Coercion 8z v. Party Solidarity as a Motive for War z28 vr. Pennsylvania at War z67 Conclusion I94 Bibliographical Note zgg Index 2oz This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgments I wish to thank Dr.
[Show full text]
War Sentiment in Western Pennsylvania: 1812
WAR SENTIMENT IN WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: 1812 BY MARTIN KAUFMAN* M UCH has been written on the War of 1812, and many his- torians have attempted to determine its causes. The tradi- tional explanation is the one set forth bly Julius W. Pratt.' By making a study of Congressional votes and sentiment Pratt found that thle war was favored by the representatives of the Western and Southern states and opposed by those of the Northeastern states. He concluded that the Western states favored the war, be- lieving that the Indian problem would l)e solved if the British were removed from Canada, while the Southern states favored war in the hope of annexing Florida. Pratt did not look upon Pennsylvania as a frontier state, and he did not consider it in formulating his thesis.2 Since Pennsyl- vania, however, provided more votes for war than any other state sixteen of her eighteen Representatives and both her Senators voted for war-the actions of her Congressmen must be explained in order to determine accurately the causes of war. It is generally assumed by historians that President James Madison favored war in order to bring an end to impressment- and to terminate other violations of neutral rights, and that the Indian depredations of the previous few years played a minor role in the President's decision. For example, in the war message of June 1, 1812, Madison noted the Indian problem only in passing, making it clear that impressment and violations of neutral rights were the major reasons for sending the message to Congress.3 It is not easy to determine the precise motives which led Senators and Representatives to vote for or against the War of 1812, but in somre cases the motives are quite clear.
[Show full text]