Virginia 1811 U.S. House of Representatives, District 8

Office:
U.S. House of Representatives (Federal)
Title:
U.S. Congressman
Jurisdiction:
Federal
Label:
Virginia 1811 U.S. House of Representatives, District 8
Date:
1811
State:
Virginia
Type:
General
Iteration:
First Ballot
Office/Role:
U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Congressman
Candidates:
John P. Hungerford, John Taliaferro
Candidates: John P. Hungerford[1]John Taliaferro
Affiliation:RepublicanRepublican
Final Result: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]769763
District of Eight769763
King George County[18][19]125114
Lancaster County[20]96122
Northumberland County[21]76228
Richmond County[22]130103
Stafford County[23]26159
Westmoreland County[24]31637

Notes:

[1]Elected.
[2]"Taliaferro contested the election of John P. Hungerford and was seated in his place on December 2, 1811. No revised vote total was given but in Clarke, Cases, 253, the House credits John Taliaferro with a majority of 11." United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, The Official Results, Michael J. Dubin.
[3]"Elections ~ In the contested election of Mr. Hungerford and Mr. Talliaferro, lately decided in Congress, and in favor of the latter, it appeared in evidence, that of 769 votes for Hungerford, 245 were bad; of 763 for talliaferro, 169 were bad, so that of 1532 votes, the whole number polled, 414 were bad." Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger (Norfolk, VA). December 9, 1811.
[4]"John Taliaferro (says a correspondent) will go to Westmoreland, which is the last county in the District, with a majority of 280 odd votes over Hungerford - Westmoreland votes only about 300 - Taliaferro will get 60 - so that he must be elected." The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). April 26, 1811.
[5]"General John Hungerford is elected for the district of King George, etc. by a majority of 6 votes over his opponent John Taliaferro, Esq." The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 29, 1811.
[6]"General John Hungerford, a Federalist, is elected for the district of King George, by a majority of 6 votes over his opponent John Taliaferro, Esq." American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). April 30, 1811.
[7]"In part of our impression on Monday, we stated that General Hungerford, elected to congress for the Westmoreland district, was a federalist. We were misinformed. That gentleman is a minority republican and was chairaman of the caucus at Richmond who advocated Mr. Munroe as President." Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger (Norfolk, VA). May 1, 1811.
[8]"General John Hungerford, whom we erroneously denominated a federalist, some time ago, on the authority of the Alexandria daily Gazette, is elected to Congress by a majority of 6 votes over John Taliaferro Esq." American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD), May 1, 1811; and, Mirror of the Times (Augusta, GA), May 27, 1811.
[9]"General John Hungerford, a Federalist is elected for the district of King George, etc. by a majority of 6 votes over his opponent John Taliaferro, Esq." Farmer's Repository (Charlestown, WV). May 3, 1811.
[10]"General Hungerford, a Federalist, (say the Norfolk Ledger and Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer (Alexandria, VA)) is elected to Congress ~ Not quite so fast, Gentleman ~ If Gen. H. be a Federalist, it is indeed, of very modern growth ~ it is the first time we have heard of it." The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). May 3, 1811.
[11]"General Hungerford, a federalist, is elected to Congress in the place of J. Taliaferro." Trenton Federalist (Trenton, NJ). May 6, 1811.
[12]"Mr. John Hungerford, who was denominated a federalist in our last, on the authority of the Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial and Political (Alexandria, VA), we take pleasure in stating is a firm republican." Farmer's Repository (Charlestown, WV). May 10, 1811.
[13]"Gen. Hungerford was a friend to Col. Monroe's election ~ yet we presume, that the general course of his politics will not be varied by that circumstance. The Federal prints have claimed him as a Federalist ~ but they very often count without their host ~ so far from it. Gen. Hungerford had been uniformly, a firm Republican." The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). May 10, 1811.
[14]"General John Hungerford, the Federal Republican candidate, is elected a member of Congress for the district of King George, etc. by a majority of six votes over his opponent John Taliaferro, Esquire, a Democrat." Poulson's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA). May 1, 1811.
[15]"General John Hungerford, a federalist, is elected for the district of King George, etc. by a majority of six votes over his opponent John Talliaferro, Esg. Mr. H. is claimed by both parties." Fayette and Greene Spectator (Uniontown, PA). May 16, 1811.
[16]The Commitee of Elections: "The result of such examination and comparison is that deduction from both polls, the person challenged who do not appear to have been qualified to vote according to the land list of 1810, Taliaferro has a majority over Hungerford of 121 votes."
[17]"Twelfth Congress, 1811-1813. Committee on Elections. Mr. Findley...Pleasants...Sturges...Emot...Macon...Fisk...Trou (1) John Taliaferro vs. John P. Hungerford, Virginia. Illegal votes. Land lists as evidence. Seat given to petitioner. The sitting member received a majority of 6 votes on the returns, but an examination of the land lists showed a large number of votes cast for both candidates by persons whose names did not apear on the land lists. If all these votes should be deducted petitioner would have a majority of 121 votes. The committee held that the land lists were conclusive only in the absence of all other testimony, and that it was competent for the parties to establish or overthrow the right of persons to vote by other evidence that they were or were not freeholders. The petitioner had, on May 7 and 28, given the sitting member notice of his intention to contest the eletion, and on September 27 given notice to take testimony on October 10, 17, and 22. The testimony was taken, but the sitting member refused to attend. He asked for further time to take testimony, which request was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that he had already had a reasonable time. The committee held that he could not have been expected to procure his testimony before the petitioner had taken his, and, as time then remaining before the session of Congress was insufficient, recommended the postponement. The House refused to grant the request and, by a vote of 66 to 19, gave the seat to the petitioner." A historical and legal digest of all the contested election cases in the House of Representatives of the United States from the First to the Fifty-sixth Congress, 1789-1901. Chester H. Rowell; United States Congress. House Committee on House Administration. Subcommittee on Elections. Washington : Goverment Printing Office. 1901 [1902]. U.S. 56th Cong., 2d sess. House Document, 510. 62.
[18]The Commitee of Elections: "That of the polls taken for the County of Northumberland, John Taliaferro had 114 votes and John P. Hungerford 125 votes and that on such comparison as aforesaid 38 persons who voted for the former gentleman and 50 persons who voted for the latter were not qualified to vote."
[19]The Virginia Patriot (Richmond, VA) lists 126 votes for John P. Hungerford.
[20]The Commitee of Elections: "That of the polls taken for the County of Lancaster, John Taliaferro had 122 votes and John P. Hungerford 96 votes and that on such comparison as aforesaid 20 persons who voted for the former gentleman and 20 persons who voted for the latter were not qualified to vote."
[21]The Commitee of Elections: "That of the polls taken for the County of Northumberland, John Taliaferro had 228 votes and John P. Hungerford 76 votes and that on such comparison as aforesaid 35 persons who voted for the former gentleman and 1 persons who voted for the latter were not qualified to vote."
[22]The Commitee of Elections: "That of the polls taken for the County of Richmond, John Taliaferro had 103 votes and John P. Hungerford 130 votes and that on such comparison as aforesaid, 12 persons who voted for the former and 38 persons who voted for the latter were not qualified to vote."
[23]The Commitee of Elections: "That of the polls taken for the County of Stafford, John Taliaferro had 159 votes and John P. Hungerford 26 votes and that on such comparison as aforesaid 29 persons who voted for the former gentleman were not qualified to vote."
[24]The Commitee of Elections: "That of the polls taken for the County of Westmoreland, John taliaferro had 37 votes and John P. Hungerford 316 votes and that on comparing the pollwith the land list of the year 1810,it appears to the committee that 9 persons who voted for the former and 162 persons who voted for the latter were not qualified to vote."

References:

Original Report of The Commitee of Elections. The National Archives, Washington, DC.
King George County Poll List. The National Archives, Washington, DC.
Lancaster County Original Election Returns. Library of Virginia, Richmond.
Northumberland County Poll List. The National Archives, Washington, DC.
Richmond County Poll List. The National Archives, Washington, DC.
Stafford County Poll List. The National Archives, Washington, DC.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 15, 1811.
The Virginia Patriot (Richmond, VA). April 16, 1811.
National Intelligencer (Washington, DC). April 18, 1811.
The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). April 19, 1811.
Republican Star or Eastern Shore General Advertiser (Easton, MD). April 23, 1811.
The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). April 26, 1811.
New-York Herald (New York, NY). April 27, 1811.
Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger (Norfolk, VA). April 29, 1811.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 29, 1811.
American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). April 30, 1811.
The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). April 30, 1811.
The Virginia Patriot (Richmond, VA). April 30, 1811.
American, and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). May 1, 1811.
Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger (Norfolk, VA). May 1, 1811.
Poulson's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA). May 1, 1811.
The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). May 3, 1811.
Farmer's Repository (Charlestown, WV). May 3, 1811.
New-York Herald (New York, NY). May 4, 1811.
Trenton Federalist (Trenton, NJ). May 6, 1811.
The Enquirer (Richmond, VA). May 10, 1811.
Farmer's Repository (Charlestown, WV). May 10, 1811.
Fayette and Greene Spectator (Uniontown, PA). May 16, 1811.
Mirror of the Times (Augusta, GA). May 27, 1811.
Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger (Norfolk, VA). December 9, 1811.
The Democratic Press (Philadelphia, PA). December 17, 1811.
Clark, M. Saint Clair and David A. Hall. Cases of Contested Elections in Congress, 1789-1834. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834. 246-247.
Dubin, Michael J. United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997: The Official Results of the Elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 1998. 47, fn 22.
Rowell, Chester H. A Historical and Legal Digest of all the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives of the United States from the First to the Fifty-sixth Congress, 1789-1901. Washington : Goverment Printing Office. 1901. 62.

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).
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).
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.