Edward Howard House.

The Iowa Journal of History and Politics online

. (page 1 of 48)
Online LibraryEdward Howard HouseThe Iowa Journal of History and Politics → online text (page 1 of 48)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at http : //books . google . com/|

Digitized by


Digitized by


Digitized by


Digitized by


Digitized by



Digitized by


Digitized by


Digitized by


Digitized by















Digitized by





Digitized by



'"■*'"■ Digitized by Google

Digitized by




Number 1 — January 1904

The First Elections Under the Constitution

Charles Oscar Paullin 3

Some Iowa Mounds — An Anthropological Survey

DuRBK J. H. Ward 84
The Origin and History of the Iowa Idea

George Evax Robsrts 69

Shelby County — ^A Sociological Study John J. Louis 83

The Iowa Daughters of the American Revolution

Caroline Clifford Burbank 102
Some Publications 116

Beckwith— CoUectiofU of the lUinoiM StaU Library (p. 116)

L. 6. Weld

Bowman — The AdminUtration of Iowa, a Study inCenitraliza-

tian (p. 118) B. F. Shambaugh

Rxilhen— Historic Highways cf America (p. 120) . F. £. Horaek

Interstate Commerce Commission — Railways in the U. S. in

1902 (p. 121) J. £. Conner

MacDonald— Setece Stalvtee of United States History (p. 122)

B. F. Shambaugh

Meade— TVimC Finance (p. 128) . F. £. Horaek

Smith — History of the Seventh Iowa Veteran Volunteer In-
fantry (p. 124) J. W. Rich

Spean — History of the Mississippi VaUey to the End of Foreign

Domination (p. 125) L. 6. Weld

Notes and Comment 127

Number 2 — April 1904

The American Political Science Association

Paul S. Rbinsch 155

A Brief History of the Amana Society, 1714-1000

Charles Fred Noe 162

Digitized by



The Iowa Society of the Sons of the American Revolution

Elbbidge Drew Hadley 188

The League of Wisconsin Municipalities

Samuel Edwin Spabling 199

Shelby County — A Sociological Study John J. Louis 218

The Constitution of Colorado Elmer Hebbebt Metbb 256

Some Publications 275

Smith — Arnold's March from Cambridge to Quc5ec (p. 275)

W. C. Wilcox
Johnson — American Bailvoay Transportoition (p. 277) J. E. Conner
Thorpe— ITiZZiam Pepper, M.D., L.L.D (p. 279) B. F. Shambaugh
Chittenden — History of Early 8teamJ)oat Navigation on Mis-

souri Biver (p. 280) F. H. Garver

CromweW— Students' Outline for the History qf the United

States (p. 282) F. E. Horack

Board of Control— BuOetin cf Iowa StaJte InstiJtutions (p. 284)

I. A. Loos
Blanchard — History of iJhA Cession of Louisiana to the United

States (p. 286) F. H. Garver

BuLlhert— Historic Highv>ays qf America (p. 286) . M. Budington
Illinois State Historical Society — Fourth Annuai Meeting

(p. 287) F. E. Horack

Iowa Academy of Sciences— Proceedinj/s for 1902 (p. 280)

T. J. Fitzpatrick
Notes and Comment 291

Number 3 — July 1904

Daniel Webster Hobace E. Deembb 815

First Yearly Meeting of the Iowa Anthropologioal

Association Duben J. H. Wabd 342

Maps Illustrative of the Boundary History of Iowa

Benjamin F. Shambaugh 369

Some Phases of Corporate Regulation in the Territory

of Iowa Fbank Ed wabd Hoback 381

The National University of Agriculture Jesse Macy 394

A Bibliography of Iowa State Publications for 1898

and 1899 Maboabet Budington 399

Digitized by



Some Publications 430

American Historical Association— ^nnuoZ Report /or the Year

190i (p. 480) P. S. Peirce

Martin— lotoa Official Register (p. 482) . . . M. Buding^ton
Willoughby— Tfc« PdUical Theories qf the Ancient World

(p. 484) B. F. Shambaugh

Peirce— 7^ Freedmen's Bureau (p. 486) . K. F. Geiser

Howe— The United States and Porto Rico (p. 487) . F. E. Horack
Stevens— TAe Black Hawk War (p. 488) . D. J. H. Ward

Steele — Check List cf the PiMicationa of the State cf Iowa

(p. 440) T. J. Fitzpatrick

Notes and Comment 450

Number 4 — October 1904

The Negro and Slavery in Early Iowa Louis Pelzeb 471

Some Phases of Corporate Regulation in the

State of Iowa Frank Edward Horack 485

Assembly Districting and Apportionment

in Iowa Benjamin F. Shambaugh 520

Some Publications 604

Beardshear — A Boy Again and Other Prose Poems (p. 604)

G. E. MacLean
Iowa Department of Agricoltore — The Iowa Tear Book cf

AgrieuUure (p. 607) T. J. Fitzpatrick

Wilcox— Tftc American City: a Problem in Democracy (p. 600)

F. E. Horack
Iowa Park and Forestiy Association — Proceedings (p. 610)

T. J. Fitzpatrick
Thwaites— Hbto Oeorge Rogers Clark Won the Northwest and

Other Essays in Western History (p. 612) . H. G. Plum

Iowa Academy of Sciences— Proceedings for 190S (p. 618)

T. J. Fitzpatrick
Notes and Comment 615

Index 625

Digitized by


Digitized by


of History cind Politics

JANUARY Nineteen Hundred Four
Volume Two . . Nnmber One

Digitized by


Digitized by



This article treats of 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 songht chiefly upon the legal pro-
visions 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
are 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 uni-
formity 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 sys-
tem 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 set-
tled this point in favor of New York, Congress, on Septem-
ber 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

1 This article was originally prepared as a paper for a seminar in American
Constitational History conducted by Professor J. Franklin Jameson at the Uni-
yersity of Chicago.

Digitized by



Wednesday in February, and that the new Congress should
meet on the first Wednesday in March^ — ^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 elec-
tion. 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 com-
munication 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, Geor-
gia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey in November; Maryland
in December; and New York in January, 1789. North
Carolina and Ehode Island did not adopt the Constitution
until some time after it went into effect.

In choosing electors the States followed one of two meth-
ods. 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 repre-
sented in the first electoral colleges. In all the States the
election of representatives was by the people, and of sen-
ators, of course, by the legislatures. Massachusetts, New
York, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were
divided into districts, each of which chose one represent-

1 Jowmah qfthe ContinenUU Conffress^ Sept 18, 1788.

Digitized by



ative — the method that is now followed in all the States
except South Dakota and Washington. V New Hampshire,
Connecticat, 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 bnt a single representative. In the election of sen-
ators two methods were followed — ^joint ballot, and concur-
rent vote. The former was adopted by Maryland, North
Carolina, and Ehode Island; and the latter, by New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, and New York. Information is lack-
ing 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 reso-
lution 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.^ Some months
before this action the Anti- Federalists, who were quite
active in Pennsylvania, took steps towards nominating a
ticket for the State.' Near the close of June, 1788, repre-
sentatives of the county of Cumberland met and issued a
call for a State convention to be held at Harrisburg, Sep-
tember 3, and elected delegates thereto. The purpose of

1 B. C. Griffith, The Nation, Oct. 80, 1902, 848.

•Bioren, Laws of Penn»t/lvania, n, i87; McMaster and Stone, Penrai/lvania
and the Federal ConetUutUm, 672.

s Walton, Nominating Conventions in American Historical Review, II, 262. Mc-
Master and Stone, Pennejflvania and the Federal Conetitution, 662. P. L. Ford,
Hanidnirg Coweeniion of 1788 (Pamphlet, 40 p.).

Digitized by



this convention was to propose amendments to the Gonstitn-
tion, and nominate candidates for representatives and elec-
tors. In September thirty -three leading Anti-Federalists,
representing Philadelphia and thirteen counties, met at Har-
risbarg. Eight Anti- Federalist congressmen were nom-
inated, when an objection was raised that snch 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 Hanisburg convention thoroughly aroused the Fed-
eralists, who determined to call a new convention to nomi-
nate 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 news-
papers 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
otiier names.^ The nominees of the convention were aU
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 nomi-

i Scharf and Westcott, History cf PhUadelphia, I, 462-8.

Digitized by



nees for representatives, and snbstitnted the two Federalists
whom the opposition had brought out at Harrisbnrg. This
rose 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 divid-
ing their congressional ticket equally between the two
parties. So far as is known, the conventions at Harrisburg
and at Lancaster are the first State conventions in the United
States held for the purpose of making nominations.^

In Pennsylvania Federal party lines coincided with those
of State parties. The men who advocated the existing State
Constitution were called Constitutionalists, and were gener-
erally Anti- Federalists; their opponents were called Sepub-
licans and were generally Federalists.^ 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 Janu-
ary. 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
Greneral in the Revolutionary army; his brother, Frederick

» DaUinger, Nominationa for Elective QJlce, in Harvard Historical Series^ IV,
Chapter I.

• Hildreth, History of the United States, IV, 89.

Digitized by



AuguBttiB Muhlenberg, first Speaker of the House of Bepre-
sentatives; and Thomas Fitzsimons, a distingaished merchant
of Philadelphia. The senators elected were Robert Morris,
the financier of the Revolution, and William Maday, 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 Beading
borough, February 4. As is well known, Washington re-
ceived 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.^ 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 de-
clare 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.*

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 cleav-
age between the two parties, and little party organization.

1 Stanwood, History cf Presidency^ 22.
*New Hampehire, State Papers^ XXI, 877-78.

Digitized by



The complicated machinery of nomination and election with
which we are now bo familiar was wholly unknown in New
Hampshire, and this was also generally the case in the
other States. Major-General John Sullivan, who had vig-
orously supported the Constitution, was an unsuccessful
candidate on the opposition or Anti-Federalist ticket^ 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.* Which body had
the best of the argument can not be determined from the
words of a reporter of the Hartford Courartt^ 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 commit-
tee, or to choose the electors by lot from the ten highest on
the list' The five electors were Federalists and all cast

s Amoiy, Life qf SuUiwin, 240.

•McMaster, History of the People of the United SUOee, I, 625-6.

• New Hampehire, Stale Papers, XXI, 87&-446.

Digitized by



their ballots for Washington and Adams. John Langdon,
first President pro tern 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 nomi-
nation of Nathaniel Peabody, and after Josiah Bartlett had
been chosen and had resigned. New Hampshire was repre-
sented in the first Congress by Federalists.

Virginia passed an act, November 17, 1788, which pro-
vided for a popular election of electors, and made similar
provision for representatives, on November 20.^ The State
was divided into twelve districts, each of which chose one
elector. All those who were qualified to vote for members
of the Virginia General Assembly were to vote at their re-
spective 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 rep-
resentative 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

1 Hening, Staiutea cf Virginia, XII, 648.

Digitized by



accused the other of gerrymandering the districts.^ The
Anti -Federalists were especially active in Virginia. Mad-
ison 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 unanimons vote of Amherst because of his pre-
vious declaration '*on the subject of the president, which
satisfied the Federal party. "^ In these words we catch a
glimpse of the political manoeuvring that marked our first
elections. The strength of the Anti -Federalists, who were
led by Patrick Henry, came fi'om the backwoods districts
and from the great planters. Henry was chiefly instru-
mental in defeating Madison for the Senate, and in electing
WUliam Grayson and Richard Henry Lee, both Anti -Fed-
eralists. 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 be-
half, left his seat in the Continental Congress — with re-
luctance, however, — made speeches in his district, and per-
sonally conducted his campaign.^ Leaving out Madison,
Virginia's first congressional delegation was not a strong
one.* One of Virginia's representatives came from Ken-
tucky, 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

1 Rowland, George Mason, II, 809.

• Letters and Other WrUinga cf James Madisouj 449, 457-8.

• Idem, 489-40; Ford, Washinffton, XI, 857; S. M. Hamilton, Monroe, I, 199.
•Bancroft, History qfthe United States, VI, 467.

Digitized by



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 elec-
tion of representatives, and, with some restrictions, of all
the electors, except the two at large. ^ Such provision was

Online LibraryEdward Howard HouseThe Iowa Journal of History and Politics → online text (page 1 of 48)