Virginia 1803 State Senate, Class 2, District 6

Office:
State Senate (State)
Title:
State Senator
Jurisdiction:
State
Label:
Virginia 1803 State Senate, Class 2, District 6
Date:
1803
State:
Virginia
Type:
General
Iteration:
First Ballot
Office/Role:
State Senate/State Senator
Candidates:
Lewis Wolfe, George North
Candidates: Lewis Wolfe[1]George North
Affiliation:FederalistDemocrat
Final Result: [2]20001158
District of Six20001158
Berkeley County368267
Frederick County[3][4][5][6]731274
Hampshire County[7]397366
Hardy County30739
Jefferson County[8][9]197212

Notes:

[1]Elected.
[2]"In Frederick, Mr. Wolfe had a majority of 457 and not 469 as stated before. Majority in Jefferson for North, 15...Majority in Hardy for Wolfe, 300, Do. in Hampshire, 31, Do. in Berkeley, 101, Do. in the district for Wolfe 874. This is the same Mr. Wolfe who opposed L. Washington at the last Senatorial election, and had then nearly as many against him, as he has now a majority in his favor." The Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer and Northern Neck Advertiser (Martinsburg, WV). April 29, 1803.
[3]Interim returns from the end of the first day of polling: From Winchester, April 5. "Yesterday the Election...commenced at the courthouse in this town ~ the state of the poll, at sundown, was as follows: For Senator Lewis Wolfe 516, George North 236." Petersburg Intelligence, April 15, 1803; and, The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA), April 13, 1803.
[4]The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA), April 12, 1803, reports the same, Winchester, April 5, 1803, interim results, Lewis Wolfe, Esq. 516, George North, Esq. 256. Subsequently, The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA), April 19, 1803, lists the final results, Lewis Wolfe 731, George North, 274.
[5]"Winchester, April 11. At the final close of the poll, for a representative to Congress, and a Senator and two Delegates to the Legislature of this Commonwealth, on Wednesday evening last, at the Court House in this town, the numbers appeared as follows, viz." Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer (Alexandria, VA). April 16, 1803.
[6]"In Frederick county, Mr. Wolfe obtained a majority of 469, so that when North's majority in Jefferson is deducted, there will still remain 454 for Wolfe, which will no doubt secure his election in the district." Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). April 25, 1803.
[7]Martinsburg, April 22. "We have just been favoured with a statement of the poll in Hampshire on Tuesday evening last...George North 326, Lewis Wolfe 356." The Republican; or, Anti-Democrat (Baltimore, MD), May 6, 1803; and, Poulson's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA), April 29, 1803. Note on transcription for this quotation indicates that "This is not a complete return."
[8]"Winchester, April 19...An election for a member to represent the District composed of the counties of Jefferson, Berkeley and Hampshire, in the congress of the United States, and for a State Senator and two Delegates, was held in Jefferson county last week. ~ The result is as follows:" The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 30, 1803.
[9]Martinsburg, April 15. "The following is the result of the election, held on Tuesday last in Charles Town, for Jefferson County." The Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer and Northern Neck Advertiser (Martinsburg, WV). April 15, 1803.

References:

Winchester Gazette (Winchester, VA). April 11, 1803.
The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). April 12, 1803.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 13, 1803.
The Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer and Northern Neck Advertiser (Martinsburg, WV). April 15, 1803.
Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer (Alexandria, VA). April 15, 1803.
Petersburg Intelligencer (Petersburg, VA). April 15, 1803.
The Republican; or, Anti-Democrat (Baltimore, MD). April 15, 1803.
Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer (Alexandria, VA). April 16, 1803.
Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). April 16, 1803.
The True American and Commercial Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA). April 19, 1803.
The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). April 19, 1803.
The Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser (Richmond, VA). April 23, 1803.
The Republican; or, Anti-Democrat (Baltimore, MD). April 25, 1803.
Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). April 26, 1803.
The Virginia Telegraphe, and Rockbridge Courier (Lexington, VA). April 26, 1803.
The Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer and Northern Neck Advertiser (Martinsburg, WV). April 29, 1803.
Poulson's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA). April 29, 1803.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). April 30, 1803.
Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer (Alexandria, VA). May 3, 1803.
The Virginia Argus (Richmond, VA). May 4, 1803.
The Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser (Richmond, VA). May 4, 1803.
Poulson's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA). May 6, 1803.
The Republican; or, Anti-Democrat (Baltimore, MD). May 6, 1803.
Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia, PA). May 7, 1803.
The Scioto Gazette (Chillicothe, OH). May 14, 1803.
Alexandria Advertiser and Commercial Intelligencer (Alexandria, VA). May 16, 1803.
Hudson Gazette (Hudson, NY). May 17, 1803.
The Recorder (Richmond, VA). May 18, 1803.
The Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser (Richmond, VA). May 21, 1803.
Leonard, Cynthia Miller, ed. The General Assembly of Virginia, July 30, 1619 - January 11, 1978: A Bicentennial Register of Members. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1978.

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).

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.