The Iowa Journal of History and Politics/Volume II/Number 1/The First Elections Under the Constitution

by Charles Oscar Paullin

THE FIRST ELECTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION^[1]

This article treats the election of electors and their choice of the first President and Vice-President, and of the election of representatives and senators to the first Congress. Information has been sought chiefly upon the legal provisions which the States made, the political parties and the campaign, and the voting for candidates and its results. Many facts greatly to be desired are either inaccessible or wholly lacking. The printed official records of Georgia, Delaware, and New Jersey are scant. Little information about the first elections of senators has come down to us. This article must therefore lack in completeness and in uniformity of treatment.

New Hampshire, June 21, 1788, won the distinction of making the Constitution effective by giving the ninth vote in its support. The next step towards putting the new system into operation fell to the Congress of the Confederation. Its action was delayed several months by a wrangle over the place where the seat of government should be. Having settled this point in favor of New York, Congress, on September 13, 1788, passed a resolution that the States should appoint electors on the first Wednesday in January, 1789, that these electors should vote for President on the first Wednesday in February, and that the new Congress should meet on the first Wednesday in March^[2]—this last clause fixed Inauguration Day on March 4.

It now devolved upon the States to provide by legislative acts, so far as was necessary, for the election of electors, representatives, and senators, and to proceed to their election. The States at once began to move after the passage of the resolution of September 13, 1788, no State having taken any action previously. With poor facilities for communication and travel, the time for choosing electors, less than four months, was short enough. Pennsylvania passed the necessary legislation during her legislative session of September 2-October 4; Connecticut and Delaware, in October; South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey in November; Maryland in December; and New York in January, 1789. North Carolina and Rhode Island did not adopt the Constitution until some time after it went into effect.

In choosing electors the States followed one of two methods. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts, (except the latter State's two electors at large), elected by popular vote. In Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia the electors were chosen by the legislature. New York was not represented in the first electoral colleges. In all the States the election of representatives was by the people, and of senators, of course, by the legislatures. Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were divided into districts, each of which chose one representative—the method thati snow followed in all the States except South Dakota and Washington.^[3] New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Georgia elected their representatives on a general ticket. In Maryland there was a combination of both methods. Delaware and Rhode Island fall into a class by themselves since each chose but a single representative. In the election of senators two methods were followed—joint ballot, and concurrent vote. The former was adopted by Maryland, North Carolina, and Rhode Island; and the latter, by New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York. Information is lacking as to the remaining States, but probably some followed one method, and some the other.

The election in the five States that chose electors by a popular vote will be first considered. The legislature of Pennsylvania was in session when Congress passed the resolution of September 13, and before it adjourned, October 4, it made provision for a popular election of electors and representatives, both on a general ticket.^[4] Some months before this action the Anti-Federalists, who were quite active in Pennsylvania, took steps towards nominating a ticket for the State.^[5] Near the close of June, 1788, representatives of the county of Cumberland met and issued a call for a State convention to be held at Harrisburg, September 3, and elected delegates thereto. The purpose of this convention was to propose amendments to the Constitution, and nominate candidates for representatives and electors. In September thirty-three leading Anti-Federalists, representing Philadelphia and thirteen counties, met at Harrisburg. Eight Anti-Federalist congressmen were nominated, when an objection was raised that such a ticket would not properly represent the State, whereupon two of the nominees were displaced by Federalists. Ten electors were named. To prevent undue publicity these nominations were kept out of the public prints until November, meanwhile being communicated by letters to the Anti-Federalist leaders.

The Harrisburg convention thoroughly aroused the Federalists, who determined to call a new convention to nominate a ticket friendly to the Constitution. Acting under the advice of committees of correspondence, county meetings were held "to take the sense of the people upon who should receive their franchises for representatives in Congress and for electors." These meetings were advertised in the newspapers and by flaming posters on the trees and at the cross roads. Any one might attend them. They were held in all but one county in the State. By this means delegates were selected, thirty of whom met in convention at Lancaster early in November. Philadelphia instructed her delegates to choose her representatives from a list of six names which she presented to them, and her electors from a like list of six other names.^[6] The nominees of the convention were all Federalists, and were selected so as to give representation to the different geographical units of the State. Before the day of election the Federalists withdrew two of their nominees for representatives, and substituted the two Federalists whom the opposition had brought out at Harrisburg. This ruse was to match that of the Anti-Federalists, who, to add to the popularity of their ticket, had retired two more Anti-Federalists and replaced them with Federalists, thus dividing their congressional ticket equally between the two parties. So far as is known, the convention at Harrisburg and at Lancaster are the first State conventions in the United States held for the purpose of making nominations.^[7]

In Pennsylvania Federal party lines coincided with those of State parties. The men who advocated the existing State Constitution were called Constitutionalists, and were generally Anti-Federalists; their opponents were called Republicans and were generally Federalists.^[8] Each party accused the other of "peculations and pocketing of the public moneys." Extravagant language was common in the public prints, the first campaign in Pennsylvania in this respect proving to be little behind recent ones in that State.

The election of congressmen, which elicited most interest, was late in November, and that for electors, early in January. All the Federalist nominees for electors and their ticket for congressmen, which included the two Federalists from the Harrisburg ticket, were elected. Pennsylvania's first congressional delegation was a strong one. It included George Clymer, one of the Signers; Peter Muhlenberg, an Episcopalian clergyman, who had risen to the rank of Major General in the Revolutionary army; his brother, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, first Speaker of the House of Representatives; and Thomas Fitzsimons, a distinguished merchant of Philadelphia. The senators elected were Robert Morris, the financier of the Revolution, and William Maclay, a vain, garrulous man, in whom Pennsylvania set her precedent for sending mediocrities to the Senate. James Wilson was chosen elector. The State's ten electors voted in Reading borough, February 4. As is well known, Washington received the entire electoral vote of this State, and of the other nine States that voted. Pennsylvania gave John Adams eight votes and John Hancock two.

The legislature of New Hampshire, which met November 5, 1788, passed an act, November 12, for the election by the people of electors and representatives on a general ticket, to be held the third Monday in December—the fifteenth.^[9] The votes for electors were to be returned to the legislature, which, on the first Wednesday in January, the date fixed by Congress for the choice of electors, was to ascertain and declare appointed the five electors having the highest number of votes, provided such number was a majority. In case one or more electors of the five highest failed of a majority, the legislature was ordered to choose as many as might be wanting from double the number of candidates having the highest number of votes.^[10]

As in other States, New Hampshire had a Federalist and an Anti-Federalist party or faction, each of which presented candidates. There was, however, no definite line of cleavage between the two parties, and little party organization. The complicated machinery of nomination and election with which we are now so familiar was wholly unknown in New Hampshire, and this was also generally the case in the other States. Major-General John Sullivan, who had vigorously supported the Constitution, was an unsuccessful candidate on the opposition or Anti-Federalist ticket.^[11] His candidacy was largely determined by his own personality and by State politics. At the first election no candidate for representative received a majority, and choice was made from the six highest at a second election held on the first Monday in February, 1789.

On election day no one of the electors received the requisite majority and a selection devolved upon the legislature. The law did not specify the method to be followed in such a case. The House being the most numerous body naturally insisted on a joint ballot, while the Senate stood out for a concurrent vote. A deadlock resulted.^[12] Which body had the best of the argument can not be determined from the words of a reporter of the Hartford Courant, who thought the observations of the Senate were "pertinent, manly, and firm," while those of the House were "ingenious, deep, and well-digested." In the end, in order that the State's vote might not be lost to Washington, the House concurred in the Senate's list. The Senate stubbornly refused to agree to the motions of the House to refer the matter to a joint committee, or to choose the electors by lot from the ten highest on the list.^[13] The five electors were Federalists and all cast their ballots for Washington and Adams. John Langdon, first President pro tem of the Senate, and Paine Wingate were elected senators. The choice of Wingate was made after the Senate had refused to concur in the House's nomination of Nathaniel Peabody, and after Josiah Bartlett had been chosen and had resigned. New Hampshire was represented in the first Congress by Federalists.

Virginia passed an act, November 17, 1788, which provided for a popular election of electors, and made similar provision for representatives, on November 20.^[14] The State was divided into twelve districts, each of which chose one electors. All those who were qualified to vote for members of the Virginia General Assembly were to vote at their respective court houses on the first Wednesday in January "for some discreet and proper person, being a freeholder, and bona fide resident in such district for twelve months." An elector who without excuse failed to vote forfeited two hundred pounds. The electors were allowed ferriage and five pence a mile for traveling expenses, and two shillings a day for attendance. A fine of five hundred pounds was the penalty for giving a voter "money, meat, drink or other reward." For the purpose of electing representatives the State was divided into ten districts. The electorate here consisted of all those qualified to vote for members of the Virginia House of Delegates; and the qualifications for a representative were the same as those for an elector. The date of the election, February 2, 1789, was almost a month later than that for electors.

There was much rivalry between the two parties. Each accused the other of gerrymandering the districts.^[15] The Anti-Federalists were especially active in Virginia. Madison said that nine of the twelve electors and seven of the ten representatives were Federalists. He wrote that one Federalist elector was elected "by a coalition between the two parties in Spottsylvania;" and that this man's opponent received the unanimous vote of Amherst because of his previous declaration "on the subject of the president, which satisfied the Federal party."^[16] In these words we catch a glimpse of the political manœuvring that marked our first elections. The strength of the Anti-Federalists, who were led by Patrick Henry, came from the backwoods districts and from the great planters. Henry was chiefly instrumental in defeating Madison for the Senate, and in electing William Grayson and Richard Henry Lee, both Anti-Federalists. Madison was more successful as a candidate for representative against Monroe, whom he defeated by three hundred votes. Madison wrote many letters in his own behalf, left his seat in the Continental Congress—with reluctance, however,—made speeches in his district, and personally conducted his campaign.^[17] Leaving out Madison, Virginia's first congressional delegation was not a strong one.^[18] One of Virginia's representatives came from Kentucky, which at this time was a part of the mother State, and constituted one of her congressional districts.

Two Federalist electors in Virginia did not vote. For Vice-President Adams received five votes; Clinton, three; Jay, one; and Hancock, one. Clinton's votes came from the three Anti-Federalist electors. The votes for Jay and Hancock were probably thrown away from fear that Adams would defeat Washington. Madison thought Virginia took little interest in the election of the Vice-President.

Massachusetts, November 20, provided for a popular election of representatives, and, with some restrictions, of all the electors, except the two at large.^[19] Such provision was not made without disclosing a difference of opinion in the General Court. Most, if not all, the Anti-Federalist members together with a fraction of the Federalists favored a choice of electors by the people, and of representatives, not by districts, but at large. Another faction of the Federalists wished the electors be chosen by the legislature and the representatives by districts.

According to the statute of November 20, the State was divided into eight congressional districts. The electorate of each district voted for a representative and also for two candidates for elector. From the two electors that received the most votes the General Court selected one. The General Court also chose the two electors at large. The law required a majority to elect a representative, and in case no one received so many votes, the Governor was authorized to order another election, choice now being made between the two highest. This method caused much delay in several districts, especially the western ones, where the embers of Shays' rebellion were still alive, and party feeling consequently ran high. Only four districts elected a representative at the first election. The Worcester district chose an Anti-Federalist, a partisan of Shays; but the most westerly counties elected a decided Federalist—Theodore Sedgwick. In the Middlesex district Elbridge Gerry, who was opposed by Gorham, his late colleague in the Federal Convention, had to make two trials and publicly declare his allegiance to the Constitution, before he received the requisite majority. ^[20] The contest was especially warm in the Boston district, where Fisher Ames, the orator, who had won deserved distinction as the advocate of the Constitution, was opposed by Samuel Adams, Rufus King and Harrison Gray Otis being also candidates.^[21] Otis had no chance, King's non-residence in Massachusetts was against him, and Adams' stand on the Constitution had been to equivocal, so Ames was elected. There were at least three candidates in the Essex district.^[22] Massachusetts' first congressional delegation contained seven Federalists and one Anti-Federalist.

Massachusetts elected senators by a concurrent vote of the two houses.^[23] Caleb Strong was the first choice of the House, and the Senate at once concurred. After two or three days of disagreement between the two houses over the second choice, a nominee of the Senate, Tristram Dalton, was selected. Strong had been a member of the Federal Convention. Of Massachusetts' ten members in the first Congress, eight were graduates of Harvard, and one had all but completed the course at Yale.

All the electors were Federalists. They met on the first Wednesday in February at the Boston state house, and cast ten votes each for Washington and Adams. The electors had their ballots prepared before meeting; they quickly organized, voted, and adjourned. The Worcester Spy reports: "There was not a word spoken, except in the choice of chairman."^[24]

The Maryland legislature passed a law, December 22, ordering the election of electors and representatives by a popular vote.^[25] The electors were to be chosen on a general ticket. Five were allotted to the Western Shore and three to the Eastern. For choosing representatives the State was divided into six districts. A representative must reside in his district; but each voter could vote for six candidates, or in other words for the general ticket. The election was free, and the voting via voce, a common method at this time. It took place early in January, 1789, and lasted about five days, the number of days being fixed by law.

Probably the elections caused more excitement in Maryland than elsewhere.^[26] The campaign was marked by public meetings, published addresses, reciprocal accusations of fraud between the parties, and a general canvass of country as well as town. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists had a ticket. Some insight into the manner of conducting the campaign and the voting may be gained from the following contemporary account. The Baltimore Journal of January 13, 1789, says that the election of representatives and electors "was finally to establish the political character of the citizens of Baltimore; and therefore both parties exerted their utmost power to carry the characters they set up. A very respectable committee of this place addressed the Federals and called on them to support the Federal ticket, in which Mr. William Smith, Esq., of this town—a genuine Federal, a merchant of the first reputation, of an independent fortune and considerable family connextions, was named for this district, and against whom the Anti-Federalists opposed Mr. Samuel Sterett, a young gentleman of fair character and respectable connexion. The contest lasted four days (almost the whole time allowed by law), and the Federals were crowned by conquest—Mr. Smith having, at the close of the polls, a majority of seven votes. Thus our beloved Constitution was triumphant over its base enemies, and the trump of Federalism drowned the expiring cries of the Anti-Federalists in this town."^[27] The tide of Federalism in Baltimore, as elsewhere, was running high. But as was true here, the party often won by a small majority. The political control which the Federalist leaders in Baltimore exercised over the rank and file may be seen in the words: "A very respectable committee of this place addressed the Federals and called on them to support the Federal ticket."

A graphic picture of the election days is contained in a letter written by a German farmer in Western Maryland to a gentleman in Baltimore. He says: "We had pain when we heard of the people in your district, that they were wrong, and we thought it right to call the friends of the new government to give in their votes at the court house, and so made out so many as 1,164 for the Federal ticket, and no man said against it. The last day you would wonder to see so much people together, two or three thousand, may be, and not one 'anti.' An ox roasted whole, hoof and horn, was divied into morsels, and every one would taste a bit. How foolish people are when so many are together and all good natured! They were so happy to get a piece of Federal ox as ever superstitious Christians or anti-Christians were to get relics from Jerusalem."^[28] This occasion was more social and festive than are election days now.

In Maryland twenty-two men were voted for as electors. The eight men receiving the most votes were elected, and were all Federalists. One elector apparently received every vote cast, the total number of votes being, about 7,656; another fell less than one hundred votes behind the first. The Federalist candidates, where the party lines were drawn, received about 5,500 votes, and the Anti-Federalists came almost entirely from Baltimore and Annapolis and the adjacent counties of Harford, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Prince George. To the west of the Blue Ridge there were no Anti-Federalist votes. In the two westernmost counties, Washington and Frederick, which cast one-fourth of the vote of the State, the unpopular party found but two supporters. The Eastern Shore was overwhelmingly Federalist; in four counties but three opposing votes were cast.^[29] The Anti-Federalist vote in Maryland represents the personal following of a few leaders rather than opposition to the Constitution.^[30] The Federalist complexion of Western Maryland may be attributed to its fertile soil, commercial connections, prosperous conditions, and German population.

The proper method of electing senators was much discussed by the Maryland legislature. Finally the two houses agreed to elect by a joint ballot; no person, however, should be chosen, "unless by a majority of the attending members of both houses." It was also agreed that the senators should be divided between the Eastern and Western Shore. Each Shore nominated two candidates. John Henry of the Eastern Shore was chosen on the second ballot, and Charles Carroll of the third. Carroll was a rich Roman Catholic, and became the last surviving Signer. Maryland was represented in the first Congress by Federalists. Only six of the State's eight electors voted on February 4. One was prevented by the ice in the rivers, and the other was kept at home by the gout. The six gave their suffrages for Vice President to Robert H. Harrison, a Maryland jurist, and a "favorite son."

The elections in the States in which the legislatures chose the electors will be next considered. Early in January, 1789, the legislature of Connecticut appointed this State's seven electors, thinking that a selection made in this manner would more likely "be exercised with judgment and discretion," than it would be if left to the people.^[31] In October, 1788, the legislature agreed on a method of choosing representatives, according to which the electorate voted for a list of candidates three times as numerous as the number of representatives to be chosen. The names of the successful ones were then published, and some weeks later at a second election the required one-third was voted for. A third election might be necessary, as it took a majority to elect. This was the method that Connecticut followed in choosing Assistants.^[32] The venerable Roger Sherman headed the congressional delegation from this State. He had signed the famous Declaration, and had been a member of the Federal Convention. Jonathan Trumbull was also elected representative, and became a candidate for Speaker of the first House, receiving a "respectable vote."^[33] Five of Connecticut's seven members in the first Congress were college graduates—all were Federalists.

Connecticut was represented in the first Senate by Oliver Ellsworth, who later became Chief Justice of the United States, and by William S. Johnson, sometime president of Columbia College. Both men had been influential members of the Federal Convention. For Vice-President the State gave Adams five votes and Samuel Huntington two. The votes cast for Huntington had been taken from Adams at the suggestion of Alexander Hamilton, who was fearful lest Adams should have more votes than Washington and thus defeat him.^[34] Adams never forgave Hamilton for this and impugned his motives in it.

Delaware made provision for the election of her representative probably in October, certainly not later than October 28.^[35] The legislature chose the electors. This state gave its three votes to John Jay for Vice-President. The first senators were George Read, one of the Signers, and Richard Bassett; both men had been members of the Federal Convention. Delaware's three members in the first Congress were Federalists.

South Carolina's act is dated, November 4, 1788.^[36] It vested the appointment of electors in the legislature, and prescribed the oath of office. For choosing representatives the State was divided into five districts. The elections were to be held at the same time and places and conducted in the same manner, as the elections to the lower house in the State. The Governor and Council were authorized to examine the returns and ascertain who were elected; and in case of a vacancy the Governor was to order a new election. The Anti-Federalists were successful in the upland districts. The congressional delegation stood two for the Constitution and two against it, with the party preferences of the fifth member, Thomas Tudor Tucker, in doubt.^[37] The Charleston district was represented by Wm. Smith, a Federalist. David Ramsay of South Carolina, the historian of the Revolution, in a petition to the House, which was presented, April 15, 1789, challenged Smith's right to his office on the ground that he was ineligible by reason of his long absence abroad. The consideration of this petition was the initial work of the first committee on elections of the House. In the end Smith was seated, one vote only being against him.^[38] Pierce Butler, member of the Federal Convention, and Ralph Izard, who had been in the diplomatic service, were made senators. Both men were Federalists. South Carolina gave John Hancock one vote for Vice-President and John Rutledge six.

The legislature of Georgia met somewhat earlier than usual, November 4, to make arrangements for the federal elections.^[39] This State appointed its five electors, and chose its congressmen on a general ticket. William Few, the leading senator, and Abraham Baldwin, the most able of the State's three representatives, had been members of the Federal Convention. The other senator was James Gunn. Georgia was represented in the first Congress by Federalists.^[40] This State scattered its vote for Vice-President among four candidates. General Lincoln was the only one so complimented who had a continental reputation, the other three being "favorite sons."

New Jersey chose her six electors through the legislature and elected her four representatives on a general ticket. The election was held for the most part in February and March, 1789. There were two tickets, known as the eastern and western, taking their names from the sections where their supporters were massed.^[41] The western ticket was successful, but under circumstances that gave ground for mutual accusations of injustice. On March 18 the votes of twelve counties were counted by the Governor and his Council, and the four men having the most votes were declared elected.^[42] The remaining county, Essex, continued to hold open the polls—the New Jersey law being silent as to the length of the election—until they were closed on April 27 by a proclamation of the Governor. Both the Governor and the people of Essex county had acted irregularly; the one in determining the result of the election before all the votes were in, and the other in not closing the polls at a proper time. Petitions for and against the validity of the election were sent to the House of Representatives, which body referred them, April and May, 1789, to the committee on elections. After full consideration of the matter the House, on September 2, found the four congressmen "duly elected." Most talented of the four was Elias Boudinot, of Huguenot descent, and a former president of the Continental Congress. All were Federalists. The first senators were Jonathan Elmer, and William Paterson, the latter a most influential member of the Federal Convention; both were Federalists. For Vice-President New Jersey gave John Jay five votes, and Adams, one. The defection from Adams has been attributed to the influence of Hamilton.

In New York, Governor Clinton issued a proclamation on October 13 assembling the legislature at an earlier date than usual—December 8.^[43] In his annual address he said nothing about putting the Constitution into operation—one indication of the apathy with which it was regarded in New York. On first assembling the Anti-Federalists were chiefly interested in calling a new convention to revise the Constitution. Sometime in December the Senate passed bills for choosing electors and senators by a concurrent vote, and a few days later the Assembly provided for their election by joint ballot. Neither party would accept the other's work. Each naturally favored the method which was the most to its own interest. The Anti-Federalists, who had a decided ascendency in the Assembly could carry all on a joint vote, and the Federalist Senate by insisting on a concurrent vote could create a deadlock, and then bargain for one half of the offices as the price for breaking it. A prolonged wrangle ensued. The Federalists offered to compromise on the basis of each house naming a senator and one half of the electors, but the other side refused.^[44] The legislature adjourned without action, and New York was unrepresented in her first electoral college. This is the first instance where a legislature failed to elect senators because of party animosities. Towards the close of the first session of Congress, July, 1789, New York elected senators by a concurrent vote of the two houses. Philip Schuyler was first agreed upon. For second choice the two houses finally united on Rufus King, each having in turn at first rejected him.^[45] King had lately come to New York from Massachusetts, which State he had represented in the Federal Convention. The two senators were Federalists, that party having obtained control of the legislature in a recent State election.

New York had less trouble in choosing representatives. It passed an act, January 27, 1789, which divided the State into six districts.^[46] Beginning with the first Tuesday in March an election for representatives, about five days in length, was held—choice being made by a plurality vote. The electors must possess a freehold of twenty pounds, or rent a tenement of the yearly value of forty shillings, except in New York and Albany where such property qualifications were not necessary. The methods of election were so slow that the result seems not to have known until April. George Bancroft says the Federalists were successful in four districts out of six.^[47] Their strength lay in New York city and the southern counties, and that or their opponents in the northern and western counties.

North Carolina ratified the Constitution, November 21, 1789, and at once passed a law for the election of senators and representatives.^[48] The State was divided into five congressional "divisions," each of which was composed of two superior court districts. A representative must have resided in his "division" one year. The manner of holding the election was the same as for members of the General Assembly, and the time was the first Friday in February, 1790. Benjamin Hawkins and Samuel Johnston were chosen senators on a joint ballot and by a majority vote.

Rhode Island having ratified the Constitution, May, 1790, at once provided for her first federal elections.^[49] The senators were chosen by the General Assembly "joined in a grand committee, and not in separate houses, and by ballot and not otherwise." An election of a representative was ordered by the legislature to be held by the town meetings on the last Tuesday in August, 1790. Returns were to be sent to the legislature, which should determine whether any one had obtained a majority, and in case no one had so many votes, it should order another election on the tenth day succeeding the count. In this election choice was made between those the whole number of whose votes in the preceding election constituted a majority. And if again no election resulted, a third election was held to choose between the two that stood highest in the second. Theodore Foster and Joseph Stanton, Jr., whose names have long been forgotten outside of their own State, were the first senators.

There was a well nigh universal demand that Washington should be the first President. The people, the press, and the political leaders gave voice to this almost universal feeling. In New York there seems to have been, however, some objection to so strong a Federalist as Washington. It is said that the opponents to the Constitution had agreed to unite on someone other than Washington, probably on George Clinton. Mr. J. C. Hamilton in his Life of Alexander Hamilton says that Franklin's fitness for the office was canvassed in New York.^[50] In August, 1788, it was rumored in Massachusetts that Hancock was aiming at the presidency.^[51]

Since the President was to be a southern man, the justice of giving the North the Vice-President was generally recognized. Pennsylvania had no candidate. Hamilton was the most distinguished Federalist in New York, but was ineligible on account of his youth and his nativity, not to speak of other disqualifications. John Jay was favorably mentioned for the position. The Anti-Federalists brought forward George Clinton. On November 4, 1788, the leaders of this party in New York, calling themselves "Federal Republicans," and moved by a desire to promote the immediate amending of the Constitution, addressed a circular letter to the several States in behalf of George Clinton for Vice-President.^[52] Some Virginia sympathizers, including Patrick Henry, had already pronounced in his favor. No other movement of equal extent was made during the first campaign to concert the action of the States. The failure of New York to choose electors completely disconcerted the plans of Clinton's friends. The lesser New England States having no candidates, choice was narrowed to Massachusetts' "favorite sons." Hamilton at first suggested Knox or Lincoln, but later favored Adams. Trumbull of Connecticut named Bowdoin.^[53] The claims of Samuel Adams and John Hancock were considered.^[54] In the end the Federalists in a general way united on John Adams as being the most available and worthy. Several States, however, preferred their "favorite sons" to Adams.

The thirteen original States were entitled under the Constitution, which made a somewhat arbitrary apportionment until the first census should be taken, to sixty-five representatives, twenty-six senators, and ninety one electoral votes. By the failure of North Carolina and Rhode Island to promptly adopt the Constitution, and of New York to appoint electors, the number of electors was reduced to seventy-three. It was further diminished to sixty-nine by the absence on the day of voting of two electors each in Maryland and Virginia. Before the adoption of the twelfth amendment, the electors voted for two candidates; the person who received the most votes, if a majority of all the electors appointed, was elected President, and the person who stood second became Vice President. Washington received the full strength of the electoral colleges. The other sixty-nine votes were divided among various candidates as follows: John Adams, 34; John Hay, 9; John Rutledge, 6; Robert H. Harrison, 6; John Hancock, 4; George Clinton, 3; Samuel Huntington, 2; John Milton, 2; James Armstrong, 1; Edward Telfair, 1; and Benjamin Lincoln, 1.^[55] The deflection from Adams of five votes in New Jersey, and of two each in Connecticut and Virginia has been attributed to the fears of the electors lest Washington should be defeated.

The first elections resulted in a distinct victory for the Federalists. Their success in the fight over the adoption of the Constitution, and the immediate subsidence of party spirit, which followed the close of that contest, gave them a decided advantage. The Anti-Federalists were left in most States without a well-defined issue. It was a period of transition in our party history. Now that the Constitution was assured there was a growing disposition, though by no means a unanimous one, to give it a fair trial. The Federalist leaders were, consequently, quite generally able to manipulate the elections, finding most trouble in New York and Virginia. Neither the electoral vote of Washington nor of Adams furnishes a measure of the relative strength of the two parties. Washington's candidacy was not partisan, but national, and Adams' vote was cut down through fear that it would exceed that of the head of the ticket, and by the pressure of local sentiment in behalf of "favorite sons." A better test is the complexion of the first House of Representatives, which contained ten Anti-Federalists, distributed among the States as follows: Massachusetts, one; New York, two; Virginia, three; North Carolina, two; and South Carolina, two. It is barely possible that fuller information may add to this number, but not more than four at the most. The number of Federalists reduces to about fifty-five. There were but two avowed Anti-Federalists in the Senate.

The members of the first Congress were generally moderate men. Candidates of the type of Hamilton or Henry did not run well. Already, availability, inoffensive partisanship, and a fairly neutral record were elements of successful candidacy. The absence of the well known leaders of both parties is quite conspicuous. A few may have declined the honor. Charles Pinckney says he might have been senator from South Carolina, but did not desire the position.^[56] The absence of such men as the Pinckneys, Hamilton, and Samuel Adams dimmed the brilliancy of the first Congress, but probably lessened little its capacity for effective service. It contained many men of talent, character, and wide legislative experience. Fisher Ames said of the House soon after entering it: "There are few shining geniuses, there are many who have experience, the virtues of the heart, and the habits of business."^[57] He thought the Senate a "very respectable body."

Rarely, if ever, has congress been composed of men who were possessed with so large and varied experience in legislation and the construction of constitutions. Remembering that 26 senators and 65 representatives were elected to the first Congress, 13 senators and 9 representatives had been members of the Federal Convention.^[58] The relatively low number of representatives is significant in its showing that membership in the "immortal convention" was no especial recommendation to "the people." There were 18 senators and 36 representatives who had been in the Continental Congress. Twenty-one senators had experience in one or the other, or both of these federal bodies. There were 18 senators and 39 representatives who had served in State legislatures. As many as 25 senators and 52 representatives had been members of either Federal Convention, the Continental Congress, or a State legislature. In addition to seeing service in these bodies, many members had taken part in State constitutional conventions.

The first Congress makes a very favorable showing in the amount of college training which its members had received.^[59] There were 11 senators and 19 representatives who were graduates of colleges, and in addition to these, 12 senators and 19 representatives who had had more or less of academic training. Harvard was represented in the Senate by four graduates; Princeton, three; Yale, one; Oxford, one; and Cambridge, one. Nine of the representatives were graduates of Harvard; three, Yale; and three, Princeton. A comparison of the first Congress with the fifty-seventh^[60] as regards the number of college graduates in each is interesting and curious, but may not prove very enlightening because of the uncertainty as to the content of different college curriculums. In the first Senate 42 per cent of the members, and in the last 35 per cent were graduates of colleges. The percentages in each of the two houses figures out the same, 29. In the fifty-seventh Congress twenty-one members had attended Yale, to eleven, Harvard, apparently indicating a reversal of the relative weight of the two colleges in the legislative halls of the nation.

In the first elections the voting was either viva voce or by ballot, both methods being common at this time.^[61] Maryland and Virginia voted viva voce; and New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina used the ballot. The court house was a favorite voting place in the South, and the town house in New England. In South Carolina the parish church was much used. Polling places were comparatively few, in some States only one to a county.^[62] The distance which a voter travelled and the time he therefore consumed in voting were several times the present requirements. Colonel Timothy Pickering writing from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, January, 1789, says: "The citizens of Philadelphia would hardly travel from five to one hundred miles to attend any election whatever. But the people of this county must do it, or our elections will be small."^[63] As only five States chose electors by the people, there is no popular vote for the first presidential election. The figures for the vote in the first congressional election are scattering. An estimate of the total vote based upon such statistics are as accessible may be ventured. The number of voters in Maryland was 7,784 which number is 3.6 per cent of 217,000, the free population of the State according to the census of 1790. If the same ratio held in all the States the total vote would be 116,000. Let us compare these figures recent ones. In the presidential election of 1880 the ratio of population to voters was 18.6 (total population,^[64] 49,400,000, total vote, 9,200,000), or a little more than five times that in Maryland. The percentage for New Hampshire in the congressional election of 1788 is the same as for Maryland—3.6 (free population 142,000; voters, 5,126.)^[65] The percentage in Massachusetts is 3, (free population, 379,000; voters, 11,460); and in Pennsylvania, leaving out Fayette county, 3.5.^[66] The large increase in the relative numbers of voters that has taken place in the last century is ascribable to the popularization of the suffrage, to the wider interest in politics now taken by the electorate, to the improved facilities for getting to and from the polls, and the large increase in the number of the polling places.

Additional light on the vote in the first congressional election is cast by statistics of other elections occurring about the same time. The electoral vote in New Hampshire^[67] in 1788 was 4,028, or 2.8 per cent of the State's free population. In Madison's electoral district the number of voters was 1,290 which number is 2.7 per cent of 47,00, the total white population of the district.^[68] The vote in Pennsylvania for delegates to the convention which adopted the Constitution was 3 per cent of the free population; that in a State election of 1790, 6.9 per cent.^[69] Princess Anne county, Virginia, in the congressional election, (the one whose vote we are trying to ascertain) January, 1789, cast 272 votes, which number is 6 per cent of the total white inhabitants of the county.^[70] The vote for the Governor of New York in 1789 was 3.9 per cent of the free population of the State;^[71] at the same election in New York city the ratio was 9.4. During the years, 1780-1789, 3 per cent of Massachusetts' population voted in the State elections.^[72] From these figures the total vote in the first congressional election may be estimated at from 75,000 to 125,000, or from three to three and one-half per cent of the free population, (3,200,00). There was little popular interest in the first elections. What Colonel Timothy Pickering said of the people of Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, in general is true of the rural population of all the States: "They know little about the new government, and of course felt little interest in the election."^[73] In Virginia it was reported that not more than one-half and in some counties not more than one-fifth of the people voted for electors.^[74] The electorate, which generally speaking was based on the possession of a freehold, the poorer classes being therefore excluded, was on the whole indifferent. The voting was done chiefly by a small minority of interested property holders, a disproportionate share of whom in the northern States resided in the towns, and the wealthier and more talented of whom like a close corporation controlled the politics.

Some Pennsylvania statistics furnish a basis for an estimate of the ratio on the number of actual voters to the electorate in that State. The congressional vote of 1788 in Pennsylvania was about 15,000. A contemporary authority thinks that about 70,000 freemen in the State were entitled to vote.^[75] The ratio of voters to electorate was probably therefore roughly that of 15,000 to 70,000. In other words in 1788 no more than one-fourth of the eligible voters of Pennsylvania cast their ballots. It is interesting to compare this ratio with that of the presidential election of 1880, when the number of voters in the United States was five-sixths of the electorate. It seems then that the American people at the close of the nineteenth century exercised more frequently their privilege of voting, especially at federal elections, and took a deeper interest in political affairs, than did the Fathers at the close of the eighteenth. In these facts may be seen some of the efforts of a century of popular education and democratization.

C. O. Paullin

Chicago, Illinois

1. This article was originally prepared as a paper for a seminar in American Constitutional History conducted by Professor J. Franklin Jameson at the University of Chicago.
2. Journals of the Continental Congress, Sept. 13, 1788.
3. E. C. Griffith, The Nation, Oct. 30, 1902, 348.
4. Bioren, Laws of Pennsylvania, II, 437; McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 672.
5. Walton, Nominating Conventions in American Historical Review, II, 262. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 552. P. L. Ford, Harrisburg Convention of 1788 (Pamphlet, 40 p.).
6. Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia, I, 452-3.
7. Dallinger, Nominations for Elective Office, in Harvard Historical Series, IV, Chapter I.
8. Hildreth, History of the United States, IV, 39.
9. Stanwood, History of Presidency, 22.
10. New Hampshire, State Papers, XXI, 877-78.
11. Amory, Life of Sullivan, 240.
12. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, 525-6.
13. New Hampshire, State Papers, XXI, 373-445.
14. Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XII, 648.
15. Rowland, George Mason, II, 309.
16. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, 449, 457-8.
17. Idem, 439-40; Ford, Washington, XI, 357; S. M. Hamilton, Monroe, I, 199.
18. Bancroft, History of the United States, VI, 467.
19. Laws and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1788-9, 258.
20. Hildreth, History of the United States, IV, 42.
21. Wells, Samuel Adams, III, 277.
22. King, Rufus King, I, 348.
23. King, Rufus King, I, 345-6.
24. Stanwood, History of Presidency, 28.
25. Scharf, History of Maryland, II, 547-8.
26. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, 526.
27. Scharf, History of Maryland, II, 548.
28. Scharf, History of Maryland, II, 548.
29. Idem, 549-60.
30. Libby, Distribution of Vote on the Federal Constitution, in Bulletin of the University of Washington. 32.
31. Sparks, Correspondence of Eminent Men, IV, 288.
32. Statutes of Connecticut, Edition of 1796, 154.
33. Letters and Writings of Madison, I, 461.
34. Works of John Adams, I, 445; Stanwood, History of Presidency, 27.
35. Booth, Laws of Delaware, II, 931-2.
36. Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, 584.
37. King, Rufus King, I, 359.
38. Annals, 1st Congress, 1780-1791, 143, 168, 231, 329, 397, 408.
39. Stevens, History of Georgia, II, 388-9.
40. Letters and Writings of Madison, I, 451.
41. Sparks, Correspondence of Eminent Men, IV, 453.
42. Annals, 1st Congress, 1789-1791, 213, 231, 396, 409, 637-8, 756-7, 835. Letters and Writings of Madison, I, 453-4.
43. Hammond, History of Political Parties in New York, I, 34-7; Jenkins, History of Political Parties in New York, 34.
44. Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton, I, 488; McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, 525.
45. King, Rufus King, I, 354.
46. Cook, Laws of New York, 1789-96, 12.
47. Bancroft, History of the United States, VI, 467.
48. Iredell, Laws of North Carolina, 1791, 661-62; Moore, History of North Carolina, I, 396.
49. Records of Rhode Island, X, 385-6.
50. Stanwood, History of Presidency, 26.
51. King, Rufus King, I, 343.
52. Leake, John Lambe, 325-6.
53. Sparks, Correspondence of Eminent Men, IV, 239.
54. Letters and Writings of Madison, I, 437.
55. Annals 1st Congress, 1789-1791, 17.
56. King, Rufus King, I, 359.
57. Ames, Fisher Ames, I, 33.
58. For the most perfect list of members see Jameson's Dictionary of United States History, 163.
59. Appleton, Cyclopedia of American Biography. No member is counted as a graduate unless so recorded, no matter if the total number of years of his college training exceeds four.
60. Congressional Director for Fifty-seventh Congress.
61. American Historical Review, Schouler, 665-674; Lalor, Cyclopedia, I, 198.
62. For a fully treatment of the voting unit, see G. D. Luetscher, Early Political Machinery in the United States.
63. Upham, Timothy Pickering, II, 426.
64. Hart, Practical Essays on American Government, 24, 30, 34.
65. New Hampshire, State Papers, XXI, 433.
66. Pennsylvania Packet, January 1, January 20, 1789.
67. New Hampshire, State Papers, XXI, 437.
68. Letters and Writings of Madison, I, 449.
69. Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia, I, 453, 463.
70. Notes of Professor Jameson.
71. Hammond, History of Political Parties of New York, I, 41.
72. New England Magazine, Jameson, Did the Fathers Vote, 1890, 488.
73. Upham, Timothy Pickering, II, 426.
74. Pennsylvania Packet, February 10, 1789.
75. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 460. This estimate, which is probably high, was made by the dissenting minority in the Pennsylvania Convention which adopted the Constitution.