Maryland 1792 U.S. House of Representatives, District 5

Office:
U.S. House of Representatives (Federal)
Title:
U.S. Congressman
Jurisdiction:
Federal
Label:
Maryland 1792 U.S. House of Representatives, District 5
Date:
1792
State:
Maryland
Type:
General
Iteration:
First Ballot
Office/Role:
U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Congressman
Candidates:
Samuel Smith, Charles Ridgely
Candidates: Samuel Smith[1]Charles Ridgely
Affiliation:FederalistAnti-Federalist
Final Result: [2]16151027
District of Five16151027
Town of Baltimore1075134
Baltimore County540893

Notes:

[1]Elected.
[2]Charles Ridgely was a well know Federalist from Baltimore County and Samuel Smith became a leader in the Republican party. However, some books listed these candidates in the opposite parties during the early 1790's. Parties were still forming and many opinions changed in the period shortly after the Constitution was adopted. Though Samuel Smith did not run for Congress in 1792 specifically as a Federalist, his election was looked upon as a victory for the Administration (at the time in the hands of the Federalist). Alexander Hamilton established a rapport with him and they exchanged correspondence. Smith also voted with the Administration on most major pieces of legislation. Sometime during 1794 Samuel Smith began to move slowly into the Republican cam There were two men with the name Charles Ridgely from Baltimore County who were involved in politics at the same time. Both were elected to the House of Delegates at the same time and appear to have been at least in this early time period, Anti-Federalists.

References:

Original Election Returns. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis.
Baltimore Daily Repository (Baltimore, MD). October 5, 1792.
Baltimore Evening Post and Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). October 5, 1792.
The Mail; or Claypoole's Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, PA). October 10, 1792.
The Maryland Gazette (Annapolis, MD). November 1, 1792.

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.