1816 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania

← 1812 November 1, 1816 1820 →

← OH VT →

Nominee James Monroe Unpledged electors Party Caucus Independent Alliance Democratic-Republican Democratic-Republican Home state Virginia Running mate Daniel D. Tompkins N/A[a] Electoral vote 25 0 Popular vote 25,749 17,597 Percentage 59.4% 40.6%

County results Monroe   50–60%   60–70%   70–80%   80–90%   >90% Independent electors   50–60%   60–70%

President before election James Madison Democratic-Republican Elected President James Monroe Democratic-Republican

Apresidential election was held inPennsylvania on November 1, 1816, as part of the1816 United States presidential election.^[1] The Caucus ticket of theU.S. secretary of stateJames Monroe and thegovernor of New YorkDaniel D. Tompkins defeated the Independent ticket.^[2] TheFederalist Party failed to nominate a candidate.^[3] In the national election, Monroe easily defeated the seniorU.S. senator fromNew YorkRufus King, who received 34 votes fromunpledged electors despite not being a candidate.^[4]

Monroe secured theDemocratic-Republican nomination at the party's quadrennialcaucus in March 1816 after the withdrawal of his nearest rival, theU.S. secretary of warWilliam H. Crawford. The caucus passed over thegovernor of PennsylvaniaSimon Snyder in favor of Tompkins as the party's vice presidential candidate. In the aftermath of the caucus, some observers criticized Monroe's nomination by a gathering of party insiders as undemocratic and potentially unconstitutional. A convention of Independent Democrats met atCarlisle, Pennsylvania on September 19–20 and nominated alist of 21 electors in opposition to the Caucus ticket. (Four electors on the Caucus ticket werecross-endorsed by the Carlisle convention.) The Independents did not designate a presidential candidate, although many assumed the electors would vote forDeWitt Clinton. The demoralized Federalist Party did not nominate electors. Many Federalists supported the Independent ticket, while a scattering vote was cast for "truly Federal" electors in three counties.^[5]

Monroe's convincing victory in Pennsylvania rendered speculation as to the recipient of the votes of the Independent electors moot. All 25 electors on the Caucus ticket were elected, including the four cross-endorsed by the Carlisle convention.^[2] The cooperation of dissident Democrats and Federalists in support of the Independent ticket formed the basis for a coalition of Federalists and Old School Democrats in the1817 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election.^[6]

Following theWar of 1812, Pennsylvania Democrats^[b] were divided between the modernizing New School, with its support for thenationalist economic policies of theAmerican System, and theradical Old School.^[8] The most prominent leader of the New School was Governor Simon Snyder, whose allies controlled the regular party and maintained close ties to theMadison administration through their relationship with theU.S. secretary of the treasuryAlexander J. Dallas.^[9] Snyder's followers advanced astate-centered vision of theMarket Revolution, one which paired the development ofbanking andinternal improvements with the extension ofpolitical democracy. They maintained an uneasy working relationship with the conservativeQuids, who supported Snyder only reluctantly in preference to the Old School. In comparison to the Snyderites, Old School Democrats more strongly resisted theconcentration of wealth and power in the hands of an economicelite. They insisted that economic development should be managed democratically and were highly critical of the doctrine ofjudicial independence, which they associated with the domination of the lower classes by the ascendantbourgeoisie.^[10] Led by the radical legislatorMichael Leib and the fiery editor of thePhiladelphia AuroraWilliam Duane, they courted an alliance with the liberal wing of the Federalist Party in order to break the power of the New School.^[11]

Nationally, apolitical realignment was in the offing, asindustrialization andwestward expansion introduced new issues in politics. The emergence of a nationalist tendency within the Democratic-Republican Party favoring positive legislation to encourage economic development corresponded to the Federalist turn towardstates' rights andstrict constructionism following the party's national defeat in1800.^[12] The unpopularity of theEmbargo Act and the war with Britain prompted a Federalist resurgence after 1807 and sowed dissension in the Democratic-Republican ranks. In the1812 United States presidential election, the Federalists exploited divisions within the governing party by endorsing the presidential candidacy of DeWitt Clinton, the candidate of the Democratic-Republicans in theNew York General Assembly.^[13] The combined support of most Federalists and disaffected Democratic-Republicans for Clinton came close to unseating the incumbent presidentJames Madison, butfailure to carry Pennsylvania spelled defeat for the fusionists.^[14] National Federalism once again declined following the end of the war, but the party retained a measure of its strength in Pennsylvania, in part due to the split between the New School and the Old School.^[15]

A caucus of Democratic members of thePennsylvania General Assembly met atHarrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 11, 1816 to nominate electors for the forthcoming presidential election.^[16] The Snyderites hoped to use this event to promote Snyder's candidacy for vice president and worked diligently to secure the endorsement of the caucus. Their efforts contrasted with the public apathy of the candidate, who did little to suggest interest in the vice presidency. Despite the personal intervention of the influential editor of theDemocratic PressJohn Binns and theU.S. postmaster forPhiladelphiaRichard Bache Jr. to lobby legislators to vote for Snyder, enthusiasm for Snyder's candidacy remained conspicuously lacking. The caucus nominated a list of 25 electors but declined to endorse a candidate for vice president.^[17]

Snyder suffered a decisive defeat days later when the national caucus of Democratic-Republican members ofCongress met atWashington, D.C., garnering 30 votes to 85 for Tompkins on the vice presidential ballot; Monroe defeated Crawford on the presidential ballot by a far narrower margin, 65 to 54. The disappointed Snyderites still held out hope that Tompkins would decline the nomination; when he did not, theDemocratic Press announced its support for the national ticket.^[17]

1816 Caucus ticket
James Monroe	Daniel D. Tompkins
for President	for Vice President
7th U.S. secretary of state (1811–17)	4th governor of New York (1807–17)
Electors
▌ James Alexander ▌Isaac Anderson ▌ James Banks ▌ William Brooke ▌ Daniel Bussier ▌ Robert Clarke ▌John Conard ▌ Paul Cox ▌ Michael Fackenthall ▌ Abiel Fellows ▌John Geyer ▌ William Gilliland ▌ John Harrison[c] ▌Gabriel Hiester ▌Jacob Hostetter ▌ Joseph Huston[c] ▌David Marchand ▌ James Meloy[c] ▌ David Mitchell ▌ John Mohlar ▌Thomas Patterson[c] ▌John Rea ▌ Matthew Roberts ▌ Samuel Scott ▌James Wilson

The Old School entertained more serious objections to the national ticket. Duane and Leib were on unfriendly terms with the outgoing administration and were not inclined to accept Madison's anointed successor. The Old School had been steadily marginalized over the preceding decade and saw the caucus system as a mechanism for suppressing democratic dissent.^[18] Whereas the New School embraced banking and internal improvements, and many Quids shared the nationalist leanings of the administration, the Old School continued to critique economic and political inequality resulting from unrestrained economic development.^[19] After the national caucus nomination of Monroe and Tompkins became known, disaffected Old School Democrats announced plans to hold their own convention at Carlisle on September 19, 1816.^[20]

The call for the Carlisle convention went out on August 12, 1816 from a Democratic meeting held atLancaster, Pennsylvania. Many of the organizers had been prominent in support of DeWitt Clinton during the last election, and some suggested the Old School should adopt Clinton as the Independent candidate for president. Eleven delegates representing the counties ofBerks,Cumberland,Dauphin,Lancaster, andPhiladelphia ultimately met and nominated a list of 25 electors, including four named on the Caucus ticket, without designating a presidential candidate. Having adopted addresses stating the basis of their opposition to the caucus and the Snyderites, the convention adjourned on September 20.^[21]

The address of the convention denounced the caucus system as "dangerous," corrupt, undemocratic, and unconstitutional, "disrespectful" and "contemptuous" of the people, "a practice pregnant with mischief, and which, if continued, must be destructive of Liberty." Considering the tendency of the caucus system to "perpetuate an aristocracy of office in certain Men and States," thus "preventing the free and fair selection by the People themselves," the delegates pledged to "never confide in or vote for any person ... who shall hereafter countenance by his presence or vote any Caucus whatever."^[22]

Uncertainty surrounded the presidential vote of the Independent electors, who were formally unpledged. Historian Sanford W. Higginbotham infers that the Independents likely would have voted for Clinton and cites correspondence published in theAurora, the involvement of prominent Clintonians in planning the Carlisle convention, and Leib's visit toPittsburgh in December 1815 to drum up support for a Clinton candidacy as evidence of this supposition.^[23] Contemporary newspapers gave contradictory reports, variously asserting that the Independent ticket was pledged to Monroe,^[24] or a stalking horse for Clinton.^[25] TheAurora denied that the Independent electors were committed to any candidate.^[23]Phil Lampi assumes the Independents would have voted for Crawford or King,^[26] although neither man was a candidate when the Carlisle convention met.^[27] In fact, of the 25 electors nominated by the Carlisle convention,Thomas Patterson, Joseph Huston, John Harrison, and James Meloy ran jointly on the Caucus ticket, were elected, and voted for Monroe and Tompkins,^[2] whileCharles Thomson had announced his intention to vote for Clinton as early as August 1816.^[20]

1816 Independent ticket
Electors[d]
▌ Henry Alhouse ▌ Thomas Baird ▌ Robert Bethell ▌ Christian Brobst ▌ John W. Cunningham ▌ Alexander Dysart ▌Patrick Farrelly ▌Andrew Gregg ▌ William Hamilton ▌ John Harrison[c] ▌ Hugh Hart ▌ Abraham Horn ▌ Joseph Huston[c] ▌Matthew Lawler ▌Michael Leib ▌ Robert MacMullin ▌ James Meloy[c] ▌Daniel Montgomery Jr. ▌ Peter Nagle ▌Thomas Patterson[c] ▌ James Poe ▌Joseph Reed ▌ John Stroman ▌Charles Thomson ▌ Abraham Waggoner

The following electoral candidates not nominated by the Carlisle convention were voted for as Independents and are included in Lampi'sA New Nation Votes database.

The Federalist Party was considered desirous of an alliance with the Old School. The Snyderites alleged that Pennsylvania Federalists had sponsored Leib's visit to Pittsburg in 1815 to grow support for DeWitt Clinton's candidacy. The October 1816 state elections saw limited cooperation between Old School Democrats and Federalists, resulting in modest gains. Following the Carlisle convention, Philadelphia Federalists and theGazette of the United States endorsed the Independent ticket.^[31] Observers took for granted that most Federalists would vote for the Independent candidates.^[32]

Despite the Philadelphia Federalists' support for the Independents, "truly Federal" electors received a small number of votes in a few counties. Benjamin R. Morgan led the Federalist list inAdams County, which polled 13 votes; inChester County, a Federalist ticket headed byJames Ross received 7 votes; whileIsaac Darlington received 7 votes as a Federalist elector inDelaware County.^[33]

The following electoral candidates are included in Lampi'sA New Nation Votes database.

Candidates in this section are sorted by popular vote from the general election and then alphabetically by last name
Benjamin R. Morgan	Isaac Darlington	James Ross
Pennsylvania senator from the 1st district (1796–97, 1815–1819)	Pennsylvania representative fromChester County (1807–09, 1816)	U.S. senator fromPennsylvania (1794–1803)
LE 13 votes	LE 7 votes	LE 7 votes
[28]	[29]	[30]

The caucus system was a top issue in the campaign. A gathering of members of Congress selected the Democratic-Republican national ticket in every consecutive election since 1796.^[34] Electoral candidates and candidates for state office were commonly chosen by similar gatherings of state legislators.^[35] As a matter of convenience, caucuses were held at the seat of government; the March 1816 Democratic-Republican congressional caucus was held at Washington,^[34] while the corresponding state caucus of Democratic lawmakers took place at Harrisburg.^[16]

By design, the caucus system gave elected lawmakers substantial influence over the choice of party nominees for state and national office. Old School Democrats who by 1816 had been effectively marginalized within the Pennsylvania Democratic Party argued that this practice undermined democratic elections, gave undue influence to career officeholders, and potentially violated the constitutionalseparation of powers. Although the large body of Federalists and a substantial minority of Democratic-Republicans opposed Monroe's nomination, the caucus system allowed him to run unopposed after the Federalist Party failed to nominate a candidate. Monroe was nominated by less than half the members of Congress, and the Harrisburg Democratic caucus was attended by just 46 of the 126 members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. For these gatherings to presume to dictate the votes of the electoral colleges was, under the circumstances, "impudent" and "outrageous." The Independents argued that future nominations should be made atconventions by delegates elected specially for that purpose in order to preserve the democratic rights of the electorate and provide a check on the powers of the legislature.^[22]

Passage of the infamous Compensation Act in March 1816, coming days after the nomination of Monroe, aided the perception that the caucus proceedings had been controlled by acabal of career officeholders bent on extending their own power at the expense of the people. The act of the14th United States Congress to nearly double the pay of its members from the existing rate of $6per diem to a flat $1,500 annual salary provoked mass public outrage. Almost two-thirds of the incumbent members of Congress lost their seats in the ensuing1816–17 United States House of Representatives elections, forcing Congress to repeal the law in the Decemberlame-duck session. For Old School Democrats, the example of members of Congress voting to raise their own salaries while attempting to control the outcome of the presidential election via the caucus system demonstrated the danger inherent in vesting the power to nominate candidates for office in a meeting of the national legislature.^[36]

Defenders of the caucus system argued that elected lawmakers were accountable to their constituents, endowing the caucus nominations with significant democratic legitimacy.^[37] They observed that the Carlisle convention was attended by 11 delegates representing five Pennsylvania counties, whereas the congressional caucus was attended by 118 members of Congress representing districts with a combined population of more than 4 million. They asserted the caucus nomination was only a "recommendation" and did not control the votes of Pennsylvanians, as opponents of the caucus claimed. New School Democrats accused the Old School of undermining party unity at a moment whenBlue Light Federalists were alleged to be plottingsecession.^[16]

Pennsylvania chose 25 electors on a statewidegeneral ticket. Nineteenth century election laws required voters to vote directly for members of the Electoral College rather than for president. This sometimes resulted in small differences in the number of votes cast for electors pledged to the same presidential candidate if some voters did not vote for all the electors nominated by a party, or if one or several electors ran on multiple tickets.^[38] In the case of Pennsylvania, four electors ran on both the Caucus and Independent tickets and were elected without opposition; this table compares the votes for the most popular elector on the Caucus ticket (William Gillilland) to the most popular elector on the Independent ticket (Andrew Gregg) to give an approximate sense of the statewide result.

This table compares the results for the most popular electors running exclusively on the Caucus, Independent, and Federalist tickets, respectively, in each county. The totals presented thus differ slightly from the statewide results summary, which compares the results for the most popular elector pledged to each ticket statewide.

• United States presidential elections in Pennsylvania

• National Archives and Records Administration (2024)."1816 Electoral College Results".National Archives. RetrievedFebruary 22, 2025.
• Higginbotham, Sanford W. (1952).The Keystone in the Democratic Arch: Pennsylvania Politics, 1800–1816. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
• Lampi, Philip J. (n.d.)."Electoral College".A New Nation Votes. American Antiquarian Society. RetrievedMarch 19, 2025.
• Lampi, Philip J. (Summer 2013)."The Federalist Party Resurgence, 1808–1816: Evidence from the New Nation Votes Database".Journal of the Early Republic.33 (2):255–81.JSTOR 24768844.
• Lampi, Philip J. (2012)."Pennsylvania 1816 Electoral College".A New Nation Votes. American Antiquarian Society. RetrievedApril 14, 2025.
• Ratcliffe, Donald J. (2015).The One-Party Presidential Contest: Adams, Jackson, and 1824's Five-Horse Race. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
• Ratcliffe, Donald J. (Spring 2014)."Popular Preferences in the Presidential Election of 1824".Journal of the Early Republic.34 (1):45–77.JSTOR 24486931.
• Shankman, Andrew (2004).Crucible of American Democracy: The Struggle to Fuse Egalitarianism and Capitalism in Jeffersonian Pennsylvania. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
• Siry, Steven Edwin (Winter 1985)."The Sectional Politics of 'Practical Republicanism': De Witt Clinton's Presidential Bid, 1810-1812".Journal of the Early Republic.5 (4):441–62.JSTOR 3123061.
• Skeen, Carl Edward (2003).1816: America Rising. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
• Turner, Lynn W. (2002)."Elections of 1816 and 1820". In Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr.; Israel, Fred L. (eds.).History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–2001. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. pp. 298–345.

• 1816 United States presidential election by state
• United States presidential elections in Pennsylvania
• 1816 Pennsylvania elections

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use American English from June 2025
• All Wikipedia articles written in American English
• Use mdy dates from September 2023
• Elections using electoral votes
• Pages using sidebar with the child parameter