Maryland 1810 U.S. House of Representatives, District 5

Office:
U.S. House of Representatives (Federal)
Title:
U.S. Congressman
Jurisdiction:
Federal
Label:
Maryland 1810 U.S. House of Representatives, District 5
Date:
1810
State:
Maryland
Type:
General
Iteration:
First Ballot
Office/Role:
U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Congressman
Candidates:
Alexander MacKim, Peter Little, Nicholas Moore, Joshua Barney
Candidates: Alexander MacKim[1]Peter Little[2]Nicholas MooreJoshua Barney
Affiliation:RepublicanRepublicanRepublicanRepublican
Final Result: [3][4][5][6][7]2811260424802256
District of Five2811260424802256
City of Baltimore[8]1595172412201672
Ward One273367168276
Ward Two191165180234
Ward Three14483143173
Ward Four13298103101
Ward Five131147108144
Ward Six366253291232
Ward Seven19041591326
Ward Eight[9]163196136186
Baltimore County12168791260584
Cheney's[10]434388326249
Collenberger's9711010849
Merryman's1177113622
Murray's[11]217141239181
Nace's[12]6197731
Reister's[13]924714158
Towson's[14]2032523531

Notes:

[1]Elected.
[2]Elected.
[3]The October 3, 1810 edition of the Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD) lists 2816 votes for Alexander MacKim, 2478 votes for Nicholas Moore and 2263 votes for Joshua Barney.
[4]The October 10 edition of the Maryland Herald, and the October 5, 1810 edition of the True American list 2831 votes for Alexander MacKim, 2619 for Peter Little, 2133 votes for Nicholas Moore and 2251 votes for Joshua Barney.
[5]The October 5, 1810 edition of the National Intelligencer lists 2831 votes for Alexander MacKim, 2619 for Peter Little, 2486 votes for Nicholas Moore and 2251 votes for Joshua Barney.
[6]The October 3, 1810 edition of the Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD) lists another return of 2816 votes for Alexander MacKim, 2478 votes for Nicholas Moore and 2263 votes for Joshua Barney.
[7]The October 12 edition of the City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser lists 2831 votes for Alexander MacKim, 2619 for Peter Little, 2486 votes for Nicholas Moore and 2251 votes for Joshua Barney.
[8]The October 2, 1810 edition of American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD) and the October 3, 1810 edition of the Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD) list 1725 votes for Peter Little.
[9]The American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD), October 2, 1810, lists 168 votes for Alexander MacKim.
[10]The October 4, 1800 edition of the Whig, the October 4, 1810 edition of the Democratic Press, the October 2, 1810 edition of the Federal Gazette, the October 5 edition of the True American, the October 2, 1810 edition of American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD) and the October 2, 1810 edition of the Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD) list 242 votes for Joshua Barney.
[11]The October 4, 1800 edition of the Whig, the October 4, 1810 edition of the Democratic Press, the October 2, 1810 edition of the Federal Gazette, the October 5 edition of the True American, the October 2, 1810 edition of American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD) and the October 2, 1810 edition of the Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD) list 144 votes Alexander MacKim.
[12]The October 4, 1810 edition of the Democratic Press, theOctober 5 edition of the True American and the October 2, 1810 edition of American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD) list 41 votes for Alexander MacKim.
[13]The October 4, 1810 edition of the Democratic Press, the October 5 edition of the True American list 93 votes Alexander MacKim.
[14]The October 4, 1800 edition of the Whig,, the October 2, 1810 edition of American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD) and the October 2, 1810 edition of the Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD), the October 4, 1810 edition of the Democratic Press, theOctober 2, 1810 edition of the Federal Gazette, the October 5 edition of the True American list 238 votes Alexander MacKim, 38 votes for Peter Little, 243 votes for Nicholas Moore and 25 votes for Joshua Barney.

References:

Original Election Certificate. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis.
American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). October 2, 1810.
Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD). October 2, 1810.
Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). October 2, 1810.
Baltimore Evening Post (Baltimore, MD). October 3, 1810.
American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). October 4, 1810.
Baltimore Whig (Baltimore, MD). October 4, 1810.
The Democratic Press (Philadelphia, PA). October 4, 1810.
National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser (Washington, DC). October 5, 1810.
The True American and Commercial Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA). October 5, 1810.
Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). October 8, 1810.
Hagers-Town Gazette (Hagerstown, MD). October 9, 1810.
The Maryland Herald, and Hager's-Town Weekly Advertiser (Hagerstown, MD). October 10, 1810.
The City Gazette and Daily Advertiser (Charleston, SC). October 12, 1810.

Page Images

handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).
handwritten notes
Phil's original notebook pages that were used to compile this election. These notes are considered a draft of the electronic version. Therefore, the numbers may not match. To verify numbers you will need to check the original sources cited. Some original source material is available at the American Antiquarian Society).

These election records were released on 11 January 2012. Versions numbers are assigned by state. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are complete and are in Version 1.0. All other states are in a Beta version. For more information go to the about page.