1816 United States presidential election

Election of James Monroe related races 1816 United States elections November 2013 February 2023 1816 United States presidential election United States 1795 presidential no 1812 United States presidential election 1812 1820 United States presidential election 1820 217 members of the Electoral College 109 electoral 16.9%http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789-Present United States Election Project CQ Press 23.5 pp November 1 – December 3, 1816 James Monroe by John Vanderlyn (cropped).jpg 200x200px James Monroe Democratic-Republican Party Daniel D. Tompkins Virginia 183indiana Including 3 electoral votes from Indiana. The United States Congress recognized Indiana statehood on December 11, 1816, after the election but before the electoral votes were counted. During the joint session of the United States Congress, the electoral count was read with Indiana's votes included.Skeen 2003 230–31 16indiana 76,762 68.7% Gilbert Stuart - Portrait of Rufus King (1819-1820) - Google Art Project (3x4 cropped).jpg Rufus King Federalist Party N/ANo candidate was formally nominated. John Eager Howard received 22 votes for vice president, James Ross received 5, John Marshall received 4, and Robert Goodloe Harper received 3.Dubin 2002 25 New York 34 3 17,300federalist Votes cast for Federalist unpledged electors 15.5%federalist 350px Presidential election results map. Green denotes states won by Monroe/Tompkins and Salmon denotes states won by King. One elector from Delaware and three from Maryland did not vote. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes cast by each state. President James Madison Democratic-Republican Party James Monroe Democratic-Republican Party Presidential elections were held in the United States from November 1 to December 4, 1816. The Democratic-Republican ticket of secretary of state James Monroe and the governor of New York Daniel D. Tompkins defeated the de facto Federalist candidate, the senior U.S. senator from New York Rufus King.Dubin 2002 22 Although not formally nominated, King became the last Federalist presidential candidate upon receiving 34 votes from Federalist unpledged electors.Turner 2002 307 In the next election, the Federalists carried three states but did not field their own candidate, instead supporting the incumbent Monroe, before disappearing by the end of the 1820s.Howe 2007 146; 95 The outgoing president James Madison did not seek re-election to a third consecutive term. Monroe emerged as the Democratic-Republican frontrunner and secured the party's nomination at its congressional nominating caucus in March, narrowly defeating the secretary of war William H. Crawford. The caucus nominated Tompkins for vice president over the governor of Pennsylvania Simon Snyder. The Federalists were disorganized following the end of the War of 1812 and did not hold a caucus or formally select a candidate. King himself remained aloof from the campaign and did nothing to promote his candidacy.Skeen 2003 219–20; 224–25 No consensus on a vice presidential candidate emerged among the Federalist electors, who scattered their votes between four candidates.Dubin 2002 25n1 Monroe benefited from the popularity of the outgoing Madison administration and resurgent nationalism following the end of the war. Madison's 1816 message to Congress endorsed an ambitious economic program that robbed the Federalists of much of their platform, most notably chartering the Second Bank of the United States.Howe 2007 80-81 In spite of significant discontent with the caucus system and the incumbent Virginia dynasty, the Democratic-Republicans were able to avoid a major factional schism in contrast to the previous election. The Federalists meanwhile were demoralized, dogged by accusations of treason, and ill-prepared to mount a national campaign.Skeen 2003 211; 228–29 Most took Monroe's election for granted and did not attempt to prevent it.Turner 2002 307 In three states where electors were chosen by the legislature, Federalists controlled the selection process and appointed unpledged electors who voted for King.Skeen 2003 230 Monroe carried the 16 remaining states, including every state where electors were chosen by popular vote, amidst widespread voter apathy and anemic turnout.Turner 2002 308 Nominations Democratic-Republican Party Caucus thumb|200px|James Madison, the incumbent president in 1816, whose second term expired on March 4, 1817 Monroe followed an uncertain path to the nomination in 1816. He had feuded with Madison for most of the preceding three decades, running against him for a seat in the United States House of Representatives in 1789 and for the presidency in 1808.Howe 2007 91 Monroe mended relations with Madison during the War of 1812, serving as secretary of state and secretary of war in the latter's administration, and by 1816 was positioning himself as the president's natural successor. Monroe was not personally popular, and his candidacy encountered resistance from northern Democratic-Republicans and others opposed to the extension of the Virginia dynasty. During the winter of 1815–16, New York governor Daniel D. Tompkins and Monroe's successor as secretary of war William H. Crawford emerged as rivals for the presidency.Skeen 2003 212–14 Popular in his home state, Tompkins could count on the loyal support of the Anti-Clintonian faction of the New York Democratic-Republican Party, but his candidacy struggled to attract a national following. While the New York General Assembly formally nominated him for president on February 14, his lack of name recognition, youth, and volatility were seen as serious disadvantages. By March, Tompkins had seemingly given up all hope of his nomination and instead focused his efforts on the vice presidency.Skeen 2003 214 Although Crawford publicly denied interest in the presidency, his candidacy quickly gathered significant support from editors and politicians ahead of the party's congressional nominating caucus, and by February had amassed enough strength to present a serious challenge to Monroe. Despite this, Crawford remained hesitant to openly seek the nomination. Having personally assured the secretary of state that he would not be a candidate in 1816, he was reluctant to damage his standing in the party with a fight for the nomination. The continued enthusiasm for his candidacy following his public refusal in February left the war secretary unsure of how to proceed.Skeen 2003 216–17 Substantial public opinion opposed the caucus system as corrupt, undemocratic, and potentially unconstitutional.Skeen 2003 217 While Monroe preferred to retain the caucus system, Crawford's popularity among Democratic-Republicans in Congress made calling a caucus immediately disadvantageous to Monroe's chances of gaining the nomination.Turner 2002 303 When finally an anonymous notice announced the date of the caucus as March 12, the meeting was attended by only 58 members, principally supporters of Crawford. The gathering was judged too small to command public credibility, and on the motion of Jeremiah Morrow of Ohio, the caucus adjourned until March 16. During the recess, Crawford instructed the U.S. senators from Georgia Charles Tait and William W. Bibb to withdraw his candidacy, having decided to postpone his ambitions until 1824. When the caucus met again on the 16th, all but 22 Democratic-Republican members were in attendance. Henry Clay and John W. Taylor again moved that it was "inexpedient" to nominate a presidential candidate, but were voted down; the caucus then nominated Monroe by a vote of 65 to 54.Skeen 2003 219 Monroe owed his majority over Crawford to the 11 Virginians in attendance, who supplied the margin of victory.Skeen 2003 219 Crawford received the votes of the New York, New Jersey, Georgia, and Kentucky delegations, notwithstanding their candidate's withdrawal. Of the 22 Democratic-Republican members who did not attend the caucus, the majority were Crawfordites who absented themselves at Crawford's request to allow Monroe's nomination.Turner 2002 305 The narrow margin between the candidates and the presumed sympathies of the 22 absent members encouraged the belief that "Crawford would certainly have been nominated had he made even the slighted effort on his behalf."Skeen 2003 220 In the event of his defeat, Crawford had instructed Tait and Bibb to issue a statement that he had been drafted without his consent; this the senators neglected to do. Crawford would subsequently attribute Monroe's lack of support for his candidacy in 1824 to this embarrassment.Skeen 2003 219–20 + Presidential nomination Candidate 1st James Monroe 65 William H. Crawford 54 Nominees 65px|center|link=Democratic-Republican Party|Democratic-Republican Party1816 Democratic-Republican Party Ticket white James Monroe white Daniel D. Tompkinsfor Presidentfor Vice President center|200x200px center|200x200px 7thU.S. Secretary of State(1811–17) 4thGovernor of New York(1807–17) Other candidates Candidates in this section are sorted by vote count in the caucus William H. Crawford Daniel D. Tompkins center|120x120px center|120x120px U.S. secretary of War (1815–16) 4th governor of New York (1807–17) LN Lost Nomination: March 16, 1816 54 votes W Withdrew: March 13, 1816 0 votes Skeen 2003 219 Skeen 2003 214 Vice presidential nomination Maneuvering for the vice presidency began in the weeks preceding the caucus, when the identity of the presidential candidate was still an open question. Sensing his presidential chances lagging, Tompkins advertised his willingness to accept the vice presidency under either Monroe or Crawford.Skeen 2003 314 Several others were considered available candidates, including the governor of Pennsylvania Simon Snyder and the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Henry Clay of Kentucky.Morgan 1972 467 Snyder's hopes were dashed when he failed to secure the formal endorsement of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation.Higginbotham 1952 316 It was widely assumed that Crawford and Tompkins each sought to recruit the other for the second place on the ticket. The New York delegation floated a Tompkins–Crawford ticket that could unite all foes of the Virginia dynasty; when this failed, they approached Clay, to no avail.Morgan 1972 466, 468 Tompkins emerged as the overwhelming favorite when the caucus met on March 16 and was nominated by a large majority, while Snyder finished a distant second. Passed over for the presidency, the New Yorker substantially exceeded Monroe's margin over Crawford, winning the votes of nearly three quarters of the members in attendance.Turner 2002 305–6 + Vice Presidential nomination Candidate 1st Daniel D. Tompkins 85 Simon Snyder 30 Federalist Party Failure to nominate a ticket The Federalist Party entered the election in disarray. Following peace with Britain in 1815, "the strength that the Federalists had shown in the middle states during the war years melted away."Howe 2007 89–90 Disconnected state parties lacked a unifying national organization capable of fielding candidates or mounting a national campaign. Where Federalists were more than a negligible presence, charges of disloyalty hounded the party in the wake of the Hartford Convention.Skeen 2003 228–29; 211 This enfeebled party apparatus proved incapable of even selecting a candidate to oppose Monroe: although different names were mentioned in hearsay reports and private correspondence, no caucus was ever held, no consensus among state parties or the Federalist press emerged, and as late as December it remained unclear for whom (if anyone) the Federalist electors from Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Massachusetts would vote.Turner 2002 307 If the Federalists were to choose a candidate, King appeared by far the likeliest possibility. A respected senator and former delegate to the Constitutional Convention who had twice been the party's vice presidential candidate in 1804 and 1808, by 1816 King was the only individual capable of uniting the party's remaining supporters.Turner 2002 307 In February, the New York Evening Post predicted that King and the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Langdon Cheves would be the nominees of the Federalist caucus for president and vice president. However, in the interim, the New York Federalist Party nominated King for governor in the April 1816 election after the party's original candidate, William W. Van Ness, withdrew. King lost the election to Tompkins, and although the Democratic-Republican majority was not overwhelming, the defeat ended any hope of King's nomination for president.Skeen 2003 222; 224 While some Federalists suggested the former U.S. senator from Maryland John Eager Howard or even Crawford as possible candidates, no serious movement to nominate either man ever materialized.Turner 2002 307 The Federalists thus entered the fall campaign without a ticket, and with most party leaders resigned to an inevitable Democratic-Republican victory.Skeen 2003 224 Candidates Candidates in this section are sorted by number of electoral votes for president and then alphabetically by last name Rufus King William H. Crawford John E. Howard center|120x120px center|120x120px center|120x120px U.S. senator from New York (1813–25) U.S. secretary of War (1815–17) U.S. senator from Maryland (1796–1803) NN Not Nominated W Withdrew: March 16, 1816 DNR Did Not Run Turner 2002 307 Turner 2002 307Skeen 2003 219 Turner 2002 307 Campaign issues thumb|300px|Election Day in Philadelphia by John Lewis Krimmel (1815) Uncontested election The failure of the Federalist Party to nominate a ticket effectively conceded the election to Monroe. In New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and in every state south of the Potomac River, the Federalists did not seriously contest the election.Turner 2002 307 Federalist unpledged electors ran in several states, and in Pennsylvania, Monroe's opponents fielded an Independent ticket supported by disaffected Democratic-Republicans and Federalists.Higginbotham Sanford W. The Keystone in the Democratic Arch: Pennsylvania Politics, 1800–1816 1952 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Harrisburg 314 https://archive.org/details/keystoneindemocr0000sanf/mode/2up Lacking a candidate, the opposition all but ignored the presidential race and instead reserved their energies for state and local elections in which the remnants of regional Federalist strength might still be salvaged.Skeen 2003 226 In New York and New Hampshire, where a real effort was made to defeat the Democratic-Republican ticket, the Federalist campaign was distracted and uncoordinated.Turner 2002 307 So great was the sense of inevitability surrounding Monroe's election that most public speculation focused on the composition of his incoming cabinet.Skeen 2003 229 Rufus King shared the view of nearly all observers who considered Monroe's election a foregone conclusion. He took no part in the campaign and said or did nothing to indicate that he considered himself a candidate. Following his gubernatorial defeat, King encouraged his colleagues to accept Monroe's election and suggested the Federalist Party should disband. Nothing in King's private correspondence suggests his candidacy for president; in a letter to Christopher Gore dated November 5, he referred to Monroe as running unopposed.Skeen 2003 224–25 Turner 2002 307–8 The partisan press did not consider King a candidate. The Democratic-Republican Vermont Gazette laughed that Connecticut's Federalist electors "probably do not know for whom they shall vote themselves!"Electors of President and V. President https://newscomwc.newspapers.com/image/524396794/ Vermont Gazette November 19, 1816 As late as December 3, the Federalist Boston Daily Advertiser admitted it did not know for whom the state's Federalist electors would vote. King would not learn of his selection by 34 Federalist electors until after the electoral colleges had already met.Turner 2002 307–8 Caucus system The caucus system was a major issue in the campaign. A gathering of members of Congress had selected the Democratic-Republican national ticket in every consecutive election since 1796.Turner 2002 302 Electoral candidates and candidates for state office were commonly chosen by similar gatherings of state legislators.Higginbotham 1952 22 By design, the caucus system gave elected lawmakers substantial influence over the choice of party nominees for state and national office. This feature attracted criticism from Federalists and anti-caucus Democratic-Republicans who argued that the practice of caucus nominations undermined democratic elections, gave undue influence to career officeholders, and potentially violated the constitutional separation of powers.Meeting of Delegates at Carlisle https://newscomwc.newspapers.com/image/556557618 Intelligencer and Weekly Advertiser October 12, 1816 With no organized opposition to Monroe, they noted that the election effectively had been decided by members of Congress and alleged that the constitutional election process had been subverted. The perception that the caucus had forced its choice upon the nation irrespective of the opinions of most voters was particularly salient. "A president is to be made thinks I," went one editorial, "but what shall we call the process? Not an election! for the people have nothing to do with it and the electors have nothing to do with it. One half of the republicans and all the federalists are against the man; but the caucus have said 'it shall be so,' and it must be so."President, What Shall I Call It? https://newscomwc.newspapers.com/image/558822025 Lancaster Journal October 18, 1816 The Federalist press made a significant effort to capitalize on opposition to the caucus.Skeen 2003 217 The Portland Gazette suggested that voters should boycott the election in protest against "this manifest violation of one the most important provisions of the national Charter."It is suggested [...] https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016082/1816-11-26/ed-1/seq-3/ Portland Gazette November 26, 1816 Anti-caucus feeling, which smoldered all through the campaign, would continue to mount over the course of the next decade, and became a major issue in the election of 1824.Skeen 2003 211 Virginia dynasty Opposition to the Virginia dynasty was a significant theme in the contest for the Democratic-Republican nomination that carried over into the general election.Morgan 1972 475 Three of the four previous presidents had been Virginians; the only president from New England, John Adams, served a single term from 1797 to 1801. Northern Democratic-Republicans hoped the party's caucus would nominate a candidate from their section and fixed their hopes on Tompkins, who ultimately received the vice presidency; the implied inference that a New Yorker was fit only to play second fiddle to a Virginian was a source of resentment in the North.Remini 1950 309 In the aftermath of the caucus, the Federalist press attempted to keep the issue alive.Morgan 1972 475 In June, the Charlestown Courier reprinted an anonymous pamphlet, the Exposition of the Motives for Opposing the Nomination of Mr. Monroe for the Office of President of the United States, purportedly the work of the "fifty-four Democrats" who had voted to nominate Crawford in the caucus. Probably written by John Armstrong Jr., the piece alleged that party leaders had ruthlessly blocked the advancement of Monroe's rivals in order to continue the line of Virginian presidents, irrespective of Monroe's evident unfitness for office. Several Federalist editors suggested adopting Crawford as the party's candidate for president, but party leaders ultimately failed to agree upon this strategy.Skeen 2003 225–26 Results Statistics Monroe won the election decisively, carrying 33 of the 39 constituencies representing 183 electoral votes. He received a majority of the electoral votes from 16 states, including every state where electors were chosen by popular vote. Three states where electors were chosen by the legislature—Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts—and three popular election districts in Maryland chose unpledged Federalist electors, representing 38 electoral votes. Four Federalist electors (the three Maryland Federalists and one elector from Delaware) did not vote; the remaining 34 voted for Rufus King.Dubin 2002 22 There was no agreement among the Federalists as to a vice presidential candidate. Twenty-two electors voted for Howard, all from Massachusetts; Connecticut's electors split their votes between the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania James Ross (5) and the chief justice of the United States John Marshall (4), while three Delaware electors voted for the U.S. senator from Maryland Robert Goodloe Harper. Tompkins received the votes of all 183 Democratic-Republican electors.1816 Electoral College Results https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/1816 National Archives February 22, 2025 Indiana's electoral votes Indiana entered the Union as the nineteenth state on December 11, 1816. When Congress met to count the electoral votes on February 22, 1817, John W. Taylor, the member from New York's 11th congressional district, objected to counting Indiana's electoral votes on the grounds that it had not been a state at the time of the meeting of the electoral colleges. Daniel Cady, representing New York's 14th congressional district, and William Hendricks, the newly-elected member from Indiana, countered that Indiana's representatives to Congress had been seated with the acceptance of the state's constitution, and that it was therefore entitled to participate in the election. Opinion in the House was overwhelmingly in favor of counting Indiana's votes. On the motion of Samuel D. Ingham, the question of the legality of Indiana's votes was postponed indefinitely, and the final electoral count was read with Indiana's votes included.Skeen 2003 230–31 Electoral results box-a (a)box-b (b) box-c (c) James Monroe Democratic-Republican Virginia 76,752 68.68% 183 Daniel D. Tompkins New York Rufus King Federalist New York box-d (d) box-d (d) 34 4 John E. Howard Maryland 22 James Ross Pennsylvania 5 John Marshall Virginia 4 Robert Goodloe Harper Maryland 3 Unpledged electors Democratic-Republican (n/a) 17,597 15.74% — (n/a) (n/a) Unpledged electors Federalist (n/a) 17,300 15.48% —box-e (e) (n/a) (n/a) 99 0.09% 111,748 217 109 Source (Popular Vote): A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog?commit=Limit&f%5Belection_type_sim%5D%5B%5D=General&f%5Boffice_id_ssim%5D%5B%5D=ON056&page=2&q=1820&range%5Bdate_sim%5D%5Bbegin%5D=1820&range%5Bdate_sim%5D%5Bend%5D=1820&search_field=all_fields&utf8=%E2%9C%93 A New Nation Votes November 24, 2016 May 13, 2018 https://web.archive.org/web/20180513005101/https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog?commit=Limit&f%5Belection_type_sim%5D%5B%5D=General&f%5Boffice_id_ssim%5D%5B%5D=ON056&page=2&q=1820&range%5Bdate_sim%5D%5Bbegin%5D=1820&range%5Bdate_sim%5D%5Bend%5D=1820&search_field=all_fields&utf8=%E2%9C%93 dead a.box-a In nine states, electors were chosen by the legislature rather than by popular vote. The ten states where electors were chosen via popular vote had widely varying restrictions on suffrage. b.box-b Popular vote figures from Kentucky and Tennessee are incomplete. c.box-c One elector from Delaware and three electors from Maryland did not vote. d.box-d King was not formally nominated by the Federalist Party and did not campaign; his electoral votes came from unpledged electors from three states where electors were chosen by the legislature. e.box-e Federalist unpledged electors carried three Maryland districts. All three electors subsequently abstained. Popular vote #ddd 600px 390px Monroe Democratic-Republican Party 68.7 Unpledged electors (DR) Independent politician 15.7 Unpledged electors (F) Federalist Party 15.4 Others Independent politician 0.1 Electoral vote (presidential) #ddd 600px 390px Monroe Democratic-Republican Party 84.3 King Federalist Party 15.7 Electoral vote (vice presidential) #ddd 600px 390px Tompkins Democratic-Republican Party 84.3 Howard Federalist Party 10.1 Ross Federalist Party 2.3 Marshall Federalist Party 1.8 Harper Federalist Party 1.4 Results by state 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.Lampi n.d. Ratcliffe 2014 57 In most cases, this table compares the results for the most popular elector pledged to each ticket. For the single-member electoral districts in Maryland, all votes for electors pledged to one party or nominee are counted in cases where multiple electors were pledged to the same presidential candidate. In Pennsylvania, four electors ran on both the Democratic-Republican and the Independent ticket and were elected without opposition; this table counts the result for the most popular elector to run exclusively on the Democratic-Republican ticket (William Gilliland) for Monroe, and the result for the most popular elector to run exclusively on the Independent ticket (Andrew Gregg) for the Others. Returns from Tennessee and one Kentucky district appear to have been lost. + State or district Electoralvotes James MonroeDemocratic-Republican Unpledged electorsExcept as noted, the Federalist electors voted for Rufus King.Federalist Others Margin Total Citation No. % Electoralvotes No. % Electoralvotes No. % Electoralvotes No. % Connecticut 9 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature 9 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 22Lampi Philip J. Connecticut 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/s1784k92m A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025Delaware 4 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature 4One elector did not vote; the three remaining electors voted for Rufus King. * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 22Lampi Philip J. Delaware 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/8k71nh893 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Georgia 8 * Electors chosen by the legislature 8 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 22 Indiana 3 * Electors chosen by the legislature 3 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 22Lampi Philip J. Indiana 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/9880vr597 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Kentucky–1lost Returns from this district appear to have been lost. 4 ** No data 4 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Kentucky 1816 Electoral College, District 1 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/rf55z8124 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Kentucky–2 4 1,508 100.0 4 — — — — 1,508 100.0 1,508 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Kentucky 1816 Electoral College, District 2 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/41687j152 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Kentucky–3 4 356 100.0 4 — — — — 356 100.0 356 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Kentucky 1816 Electoral College, District 3 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/jw827b74h A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Louisiana 3 * Electors chosen by the legislature 3 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Louisiana 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/j9602120t A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–1 1 2 0.74 — 270 99.26 1maryland Did not vote — — 268 98.52 272 Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 1 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/t435gd78w A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–2 1 523 73.7 1 184 25.9 — 3 0.4 — 339 47.8 710 Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 2 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/qr46r2205 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–3 2 1,440 99.0 2 13 0.9 — 2 0.1 — 1,427 98.1 1,455 Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 3 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/kk91fn018 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–4 2 1,855 95.6 2 — — 85 4.4 — 1,722 91.4 1,938 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 4 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/dz010q44w A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–5 1 693 100.0 1 — — — — 693 100.0 693 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 5 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/qz20sv000 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–6 1 938 67.9 1 435 31.5 — 9 0.6 — 503 36.4 1,382 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 6 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/7m01bn26d A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–7 1 750 100.0 1 — — — — 750 100.0 750 Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 7 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/rb68xd39h A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–8 1 1,272 48.9 — 1,338 51.1 1maryland — — -56 -2.2 2,610 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 8 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/ng451j14j A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Maryland–9 1 30 3.3 — 886 96.7 1maryland — — -856 -93.4 916 Lampi Philip J. Maryland 1816 Electoral College, District 9 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/hq37vp97s A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Massachusetts 22 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature 22 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Massachusetts 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/4f16c398v A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 New Hampshire 8 15,225 53.3 8 13,338 46.7 — — — 1,887 6.6 28,563 Lampi Philip J. New Hampshire 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/f1881n29h A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 New Jersey 8 5,441 99.0 8 54 1.0 — — — 5,387 98.0 5,495 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. New Jersey 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/df65v867z A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 New York 29 * Electors chosen by the legislature 29 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. New York 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/b2773w59r A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 North Carolina 15 9,549 98.4 15 158 1.6 — — — 9,391 96.7 9,707 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. North Carolina 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/nz805z754 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Ohio 8 3,326 84.9 8 593 15.1 — — — 2,733 69.7 3,919 Dubin 2002 23Lampi Philip J. Ohio 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/8623hz494 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Pennsylvania 25 25,749 59.4 25 27 0.1 — 17,597 40.6 — 8,152 18.8 43,346 Lampi Philip J. Pennsylvania 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/5q47rp95g A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Rhode Island 4 1,236 100.0 4 — — — — 1,236 100.0 1,236 Dubin 2002 24Lampi Philip J. Rhode Island 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/9019s413h A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 South Carolina 11 * Electors chosen by the legislature 11 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 24Lampi Philip J. South Carolina 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/76537189d A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Tennessee–1lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24Lampi Philip J. Tennessee 1816 Electoral Carter, Greene, Hawkins, Sullivan and Washington Counties https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/sf268627r A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Tennessee–2lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24 Tennessee–3lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24 Tennessee–4lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24Lampi Philip J. Tennessee 1816 Electoral College, Bledsoe, Franklin, Jackson, Overton, Rhea, Warren and White Counties https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/n583xw49q A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Tennessee–5lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24 Tennessee–6lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24Lampi Philip J. Tennessee 1816 Electoral College, Bedford, Davidson and Rutherford Counties https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/707959148 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 Tennessee–7lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24 Tennessee–8lost 1 ** No data 1 ** No data — ** No data — ** No data ** No data Dubin 2002 24 Vermont 8 * Electors chosen by the legislature 8 * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — * Electors chosen by the legislature — Dubin 2002 24 Virginia 25 6,859 99.9 25 4 0.1 — — — 6,855 99.8 — Dubin 2002 24Lampi Philip J. Virginia 1816 Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/2z10wq971 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society February 17, 2025 TOTALS 221 76,752 68.7 183 17,300 15.5 38 17,696 15.8 0 59,489 53.2 111,748 States and districts that flipped from Federalist to Democratic-Republican Maryland's 2nd electoral district Maryland's 4th electoral district New York New Jersey New Hampshire Rhode Island Districts that flipped from Democratic-Republican to Federalist Maryland's 8th electoral district Close states and districts Districts where the margin of victory was less than 5 percentage points: Maryland's 8th electoral district, 2.2% (56 votes) States where the margin of victory was less than 10 percentage points: New Hampshire, 6.3% (1,813 votes) Electoral votes by state State Electoralvotes For President For Vice President JM James Monroe RK Rufus King B Blank DT Daniel D. Tompkins JH John Eager Howard JR James Ross (Pennsylvania politician) JM John Marshall RH Robert Goodloe Harper B Blank Connecticut 9 — 9 — — — 5 4 — — Delaware 4 — 3 1 — — — — 3 1 Georgia 8 8 — — 8 — — — — — Indiana 3 3 — — 3 — — — — — Kentucky 12 12 — — 12 — — — — — Louisiana 3 3 — — 3 — — — — — Maryland 11 8 — 3 8 — — — — 3 Massachusetts 22 — 22 — — 22 — — — — New Hampshire 8 8 — — 8 — — — — — New Jersey 8 8 — — 8 — — — — — New York 29 29 — — 29 — — — — — North Carolina 15 15 — — 15 — — — — — Ohio 8 8 — — 8 — — — — — Pennsylvania 25 25 — — 25 — — — — — Rhode Island 4 4 — — 4 — — — — — South Carolina 11 11 — — 11 — — — — — Tennessee 8 8 — — 8 — — — — — Vermont 8 8 — — 8 — — — — — Virginia 25 25 — — 25 — — — — — TOTAL 221 183 34 4 183 22 5 4 3 4 TO WIN 109 109 Maps Electoral college selection Electors were chosen by the state legislature Connecticut Delaware Georgia Indiana Louisiana Massachusetts New York South Carolina Vermont Electors were chosen by voters in a statewide election New Hampshire New Jersey North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island Virginia Electors were chosen by voters from single- or multi-member districts Kentucky Maryland Tennessee See also First inauguration of James Monroe History of the United States (1789-1849) 1816–17 United States House of Representatives elections 1816–17 United States Senate elections Notes Bibliography 1816 Electoral College Results https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/1816 National Archives February 22, 2025 Dubin Michael J. United States Presidential Elections, 1788–1860: The Official Results by County and State 2002 McFarland & Co. Jefferson, NC Howe Daniel Daniel Walker Howe What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 Oxford University Press 2007 https://archive.org/details/whathathgodwroug0000howe_j9v1 978-0-19-507894-7 Lampi Philip J. Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/?f%5Boffice_id_ssim%5D%5B%5D=ON056 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society n.d. February 23, 2025 Morgan William G. The Congressional Nominating Caucus of 1816: The Struggle against the Virginia Dynasty Virginia Magazine of History and Biography October 1972 80 4 461–75 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4247750 Ratcliffe Donald J. Popular Preferences in the Presidential Election of 1824 Journal of the Early Republic Spring 2014 34 1 45–77 24486931 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24486931 Remini Robert V. New York and the Presidential Election of 1816 New York History July 1950 31 3 308–24 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23149983 Skeen Carl Edward 1816: America Rising 2003 University Press of Kentucky Lexington https://archive.org/details/1816americarisin0000skee/2up Turner Lynn W. Schlesinger Arthur M. Jr. Israel Fred L. History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–2001 1 Chelsea House Publishers Philadelphia 2002 Elections of 1816 and 1820 298–345 https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica01schl/page/298/mode/2up External links Presidential Elections of 1816 and 1820: A Resource Guide from the Library of Congress A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns, 1787-1825 Election of 1816 in Counting the Votes https://web.archive.org/web/20191222141927/http://www.countingthevotes.com/1816/ December 22, 2019 Category:Presidency of James Monroe Category:James Monroe Category:Daniel D. Tompkins Category:Rufus King