Connecticut 1816 House of Representatives, New Haven
- Office:
- House of Representatives (State)
- Title:
- State Representative
- Jurisdiction:
- State
- Label:
- Connecticut 1816 House of Representatives, New Haven
- Date:
- 1816
- State:
- Connecticut
- Type:
- General
- Iteration:
- First Ballot
- Office/Role:
- House of Representatives/State Representative
- Candidates:
- William Bristol, Seth P. Staples, scattering
Candidates: | William Bristol[1] | Seth P. Staples | scattering |
---|---|---|---|
Affiliation: | Democrat | Federalist | |
Final Result: [2][3] | 236 | 157 | 22 |
New Haven County | - | - | - |
City of New Haven | 236 | 157 | 22 |
Notes:
[1]Elected.
[2]"O, SHAME! Triumph of Apostacy and Delusion!!! In this federal town of New-Haven, where four fifths of the FREE-men are the friends of order and 'steady habits,' prejudice, apostacy and fanatacism are triumphant! THe result of the Election this day furnishes the fullest evidence that moral depravity and personal debasement form no barrier to political delusion and sectarian prejudice. - O, SHAME!" Connecticut Journal (New Haven, CT). April 9, 1816.
[3]"The uncommon number of democratic votes was owing to the following facts. 1. Every democrat, who could be found, was brought to the meeting. One of their number stationed at the polls counted them. Their number was 150. 2. The remaining 86 were Episcopalians; who heretofore have been federalists; and who, on that day, voted in a body for the demo. candidate. Of the scattering votes 20 were undoubtedly Episcopalians; as were certainly two of the votes given for Mr. Staples. The smallness of the federal vote may be thus explained: 1. The federal ticket lost 86 Episcopalian votes gone over, and 20 scattering, or 106 in all. 2. Express assurances were given to several of the principal federalists that no union had taken place between the Democrats and Episcopalians. These assurances were believed; and the impression, which they made, extensively circulated among the Federalists. Supposing that they were intended not to lull the watchfulness of the Federalists, but to produce harmonyl yet their only effect was to inspire a false security; and thus to paralise exertion. No attempt was made to get the Federalists out to the polls." Connecticut Journal (New Haven, CT). April 16, 1816.
References:
Connecticut Journal (New Haven, CT). April 9, 1816.
Connecticut Journal (New Haven, CT). April 16, 1816.
Page Images
![handwritten notes](https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/page_images/zp38wf92n%2Ffiles%2F4a0ebae4-70b4-4ebb-9a93-f4bace84432b/full/400,/0/default.jpg)
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.