Ohio 1818 U.S. House of Representatives, District 4

Office:
U.S. House of Representatives (Federal)
Title:
U.S. Congressman
Jurisdiction:
Federal
Label:
Ohio 1818 U.S. House of Representatives, District 4
Date:
1818
State:
Ohio
Type:
General
Iteration:
First Ballot
Office/Role:
U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Congressman
Candidates:
Samuel Herrick, John C. Wright, John MacLaughlin, William Anderson
Candidates: Samuel Herrick[1]John C. WrightJohn MacLaughlinWilliam Anderson
Affiliation:RepublicanFederalist
Final Result: [2][3][4]36453198491
District of Four36453198491
Belmont County[5]863710--
Coshocton County57473--
Guernsey County[6]487219--
Harrison County20559491
Archer-51-1
Cadiz1222--
Green1102--
North635--
Rock-20--
Short Creek1212949-
Jefferson County[7]1391388--
Monroe County[8]13713--
Muskingum County[9]1425236--
Blue Rock502--
Brush Creek2510--
Falls9769--
Highland30---
Hopewell78---
Jackson314--
Jefferson6046--
Licking405--
Muskingum4715--
Newton1235--
Perry49---
Rich Hill42---
Salem20---
Salt Creek612--
Springfield11820--
Union1031--
Zanesville36554--
Perry County[10]----
Clayton[11]363--
Madison[12]50---

Notes:

[1]Elected.
[2]Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH) and Western Herald and Steubenville Gazette (Steubenville, OH) list Samuel Herrick with 3622 votes and John C. Wright with 3196 votes.
[3]The City Gazette and Commercial Advertiser (Charleston, SC) lists Samuel Herrick with a majority of 426 votes.
[4]"The leaders of the federal party well knew that it would be useless for them to attempt openly to measure strength with the democratic forces of the district. But they also well knew, that local prejudices might be brought to bear against Gen. Herrick in the north-eastern part of the district, where his opponent in 1816 received a strong support . . . Mr. Wright, knowing he could calculate safely on the votes of nearly all the federal party in the district, in addition to most of those in his own vicinity, determined on offering himself again as a candidate . . . The result of the election indeed affors ground for an honest exultation. It is a triumph of principle over faction - a triumph of democratic republicanism over a combination of federalism, quidism, apostacy and personal spite; and we congratulate the republicans of the district on the event." Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH). October 23, 1818.
[5]Western Herald and Steubenville Gazette (Steubenville, OH) lists Samuel Herrick with 865 votes.
[6]Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH) and The Western Herald and Steubenville Gazette (Steubenville, OH) list Samuel Herrick with 464 votes and John C. Wright with 217 votes.
[7]Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH) lists John C. Wright with 1318 votes.
[8]Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH) lists Samuel Herrick with 187 votes.
[9]"At the election of 1816, the majority for Gen. Herrick was 1154. This year, notwithstanding the unprecedented exertions of his enemies, and their blustering predictions to the contrary, his majority (exclusive of Harrison township) is 1189." Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH). October 21, 1818.
[10]Perry County was not in the 4th Congressional District, but the votes of two townships were included with Muskingum County, which was.
[11]The votes of Clayton township are included with the votes of Muskingum County for U.S. Representative.
[12]The votes of Madison township are included with the votes of Muskingum County for U.S. Representative.

References:

Abstract of Votes, Harrison County.
Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH). October 21, 1818.
Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH). October 23, 1818.
Western Herald and Steubenville Gazette (Steubenville, OH). October 24, 1818.
Western Herald and Steubenville Gazette (Steubenville, OH). October 31, 1818.
Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH). November 11, 1818.
City Gazette and Commercial Advertiser (Charleston, SC). November 27, 1818.
Columbus Gazette (Columbus, OH). December 24, 1818.
Muskingum Messenger (Zanesville, OH). December 30, 1818.

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).

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.