1816 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania

none June 2025 September 2023 1816 United States presidential election 1816 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania United States 1795 presidential no 1812 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania 1812 1820 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania 1820 November 1, 1816 OH VT 200x200px File:James Monroe by John Vanderlyn (cropped).jpg James Monroe Caucus 008000 Democratic-Republican Party Virginia Daniel D. Tompkins 25 25,749 59.4% 2em 150x150px Unpledged electors Independent dcdcdc Democratic-Republican Party N/ANo candidate 0 17,597 40.6% 1816 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania results map by county.svg County results Monroe #73bc84 50–60% #3fa457 60–70% #008c21 70–80% #006e1a 80–90% #005113 >90% Independent electors #a9a9a9 50–60% #8d8d8d 60–70% President James Madison Democratic-Republican Party James Monroe Democratic-Republican Party A presidential election was held in Pennsylvania on November 1, 1816, as part of the 1816 United States presidential election.Electors of President & Vice President of the United States https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024735/1816-11-09/ed-1/seq-3 Richmond Enquirer November 9, 1816 The Caucus ticket of the U.S. secretary of state James Monroe and the governor of New York Daniel D. Tompkins defeated the Independent ticket.Lampi 2012 The Federalist Party failed to nominate a candidate.Turner 2002 307 In the national election, Monroe easily defeated the senior U.S. senator from New York Rufus King, who received 34 votes from unpledged electors despite not being a candidate.National Archives and Records Administration 2024 Monroe secured the Democratic-Republican nomination at the party's quadrennial caucus in March 1816 after the withdrawal of his nearest rival, the U.S. secretary of war William H. Crawford. The caucus passed over the governor of Pennsylvania Simon 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 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania on September 19–20 and nominated a list of 21 electors in opposition to the Caucus ticket. (Four electors on the Caucus ticket were cross-endorsed by the Carlisle convention.) The Independents did not designate a presidential candidate, although many assumed the electors would vote for DeWitt 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.Higginbotham 1952 314–18 Lampi 2012 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.Lampi 2012 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 the 1817 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election.Higginbotham 1952 322 Background Following the War of 1812, Pennsylvania DemocratsThe state affiliate of the national Democratic-Republican Party was by 1807 increasingly known as the Democratic Party.Shankman 2004 178 were divided between the modernizing New School, with its support for the nationalist economic policies of the American System, and the radical Old School.Ratcliffe 2015 120 The most prominent leader of the New School was Governor Simon Snyder, whose allies controlled the regular party and maintained close ties to the Madison administration through their relationship with the U.S. secretary of the treasury Alexander J. Dallas.Higginbotham 1952 308–9 Snyder's followers advanced a state-centered vision of the Market Revolution, one which paired the development of banking and internal improvements with the extension of political democracy. They maintained an uneasy working relationship with the conservative Quids, who supported Snyder only reluctantly in preference to the Old School. In comparison to the Snyderites, Old School Democrats more strongly resisted the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an economic elite. They insisted that economic development should be managed democratically and were highly critical of the doctrine of judicial independence, which they associated with the domination of the lower classes by the ascendant bourgeoisie.Shankman 2004 198–99, 192 Led by the radical legislator Michael Leib and the fiery editor of the Philadelphia Aurora William Duane, they courted an alliance with the liberal wing of the Federalist Party in order to break the power of the New School.Ratcliffe 2015 120–21 Nationally, a political realignment was in the offing, as industrialization and westward 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 toward states' rights and strict constructionism following the party's national defeat in 1800.Higginbotham 1952 303–4 The unpopularity of the Embargo Act and the war with Britain prompted a Federalist resurgence after 1807 and sowed dissension in the Democratic-Republican ranks. In the 1812 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 the New York General Assembly.Lampi 2013 259, 263 The combined support of most Federalists and disaffected Democratic-Republicans for Clinton came close to unseating the incumbent president James Madison, but failure to carry Pennsylvania spelled defeat for the fusionists.Siry 1985 460 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.Lampi 2013 276–77 Higginbotham 1952 308 Nominations New School (Caucus) Democrats thumb|right|200px|Pennsylvania governor Simon Snyder, New School Democrat and vice presidential hopeful in 1816. Caucus A caucus of Democratic members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly met at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 11, 1816 to nominate electors for the forthcoming presidential election.To the Democratic Electors of Pennsylvania https://newscomwc.newspapers.com/image/556557692 Intelligencer and Weekly Advertiser October 26, 1816 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 the Democratic Press John Binns and the U.S. postmaster for Philadelphia Richard 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.Higginbotham 1952 316 Snyder suffered a decisive defeat days later when the national caucus of Democratic-Republican members of Congress met at Washington, 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, the Democratic Press announced its support for the national ticket.Higginbotham 1952 316 Nominees 50px|center|link=Democratic-Republican Party1816 Caucus ticket white James Monroe white Daniel D. Tompkinsfor Presidentfor Vice President center|160x160px center|160x160px 7th U.S. secretary of state(1811–17) 4th governor of New York(1807–17)Electors 140px Democratic-Republican PartyJames Alexander Democratic-Republican PartyIsaac Anderson Democratic-Republican PartyJames Banks Democratic-Republican PartyWilliam Brooke Democratic-Republican PartyDaniel Bussier Democratic-Republican PartyRobert Clarke Democratic-Republican PartyJohn Conard Democratic-Republican PartyPaul Cox Democratic-Republican PartyMichael Fackenthall Democratic-Republican PartyAbiel Fellows Democratic-Republican PartyJohn Geyer Democratic-Republican PartyWilliam Gilliland Democratic-Republican PartyJohn Harrisoncross Ran on both the Caucus ticket and the Independent ticket Democratic-Republican PartyGabriel Hiester Democratic-Republican PartyJacob Hostetter Democratic-Republican PartyJoseph Hustoncross Democratic-Republican PartyDavid Marchand Democratic-Republican PartyJames Meloycross Democratic-Republican PartyDavid Mitchell Democratic-Republican PartyJohn Mohlar Democratic-Republican PartyThomas Pattersoncross Democratic-Republican PartyJohn Rea Democratic-Republican PartyMatthew Roberts Democratic-Republican PartySamuel Scott Democratic-Republican PartyJames Wilson Old School (Independent) Democrats thumb|right|200px|Former U.S. senator Michael Leib, Old School Democrat and Independent electoral candidate from Philadelphia. thumb|right|200px|New York governor DeWitt Clinton, considered the favored candidate of many Old School Democrats. Convention 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.Higginbotham 1952 308–10 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.Shankman 2004 188–89, 206, 202 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.Higginbotham 1952 317 The call for the Carlisle convention went out on August 12, 1816 from a Democratic meeting held at Lancaster, 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 of Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Lancaster, and Philadelphia 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.Higginbotham 1952 317–18, 321–22 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."Meeting of Delegates at Carlisle https://newscomwc.newspapers.com/image/556557618 Intelligencer and Weekly Advertiser October 12, 1816 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 the Aurora, the involvement of prominent Clintonians in planning the Carlisle convention, and Leib's visit to Pittsburgh in December 1815 to drum up support for a Clinton candidacy as evidence of this supposition.Higginbotham 1952 318 Contemporary newspapers gave contradictory reports, variously asserting that the Independent ticket was pledged to Monroe,Binns says [...] https://newscomwc.newspapers.com/image/558822183 Intelligencer and Weekly Advertiser October 25, 1816 Binns says ten of the electors nominated by the Carlisle convention are pledged to vote for Monroe. Why are their names withheld? There is too much lie in your manufactures, Mr. Soap-Boiler. Pennsylvania https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024735/1816-11-09/ed-1/seq-3 Richmond Enquirer November 9, 1816 The 'Independent Ticket,' composed of persons, however, who without being pledged, would (if elected) vote for the same persons as the regular Republican Ticket. or a stalking horse for Clinton.The Carlisle Convention [...] https://newscomwc.newspapers.com/image/117425999 Susquehanna Democrat October 4, 1816 The Carlisle Convention that was to manage the vote of Pennsylvania in favor of De Witt Clinton has ended more ridiculous than the Hartford Convention. The Aurora denied that the Independent electors were committed to any candidate.Higginbotham 1952 318 Phil Lampi assumes the Independents would have voted for Crawford or King,Lampi 2012 n30 although neither man was a candidate when the Carlisle convention met.Turner 2002 307 Skeen 2003 219 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,Lampi 2012 while Charles Thomson had announced his intention to vote for Clinton as early as August 1816.Higginbotham 1952 317 Nominees 50px|center|link=Democratic-Republican Party1816 Independent ticket ElectorsUnpledged 160px Independent politicianHenry Alhouse Independent politicianThomas Baird Independent politicianRobert Bethell Independent politicianChristian Brobst Independent politicianJohn W. Cunningham Independent politicianAlexander Dysart Independent politicianPatrick Farrelly Independent politicianAndrew Gregg Independent politicianWilliam Hamilton Independent politicianJohn Harrisoncross Independent politicianHugh Hart Independent politicianAbraham Horn Independent politicianJoseph Hustoncross Independent politicianMatthew Lawler Independent politicianMichael Leib Independent politicianRobert MacMullin Independent politicianJames Meloycross Independent politicianDaniel Montgomery Jr. Independent politicianPeter Nagle Independent politicianThomas Pattersoncross Independent politicianJames Poe Independent politicianJoseph Reed Independent politicianJohn Stroman Independent politicianCharles Thomson Independent politicianAbraham Waggoner Candidates The following electoral candidates not nominated by the Carlisle convention were voted for as Independents and are included in Lampi's A New Nation Votes database. Candidates in this section are sorted by popular vote from the general election John Piper Frederick Keefer Bernhart Gilbert Pennsylvania senator from the 12th district (1801–05) LE Lost election 259 votes LE Lost election 46 votes LE Lost election 44 votes Lampi 2012 n40 Lampi 2012 n49 Lampi 2012 n53 Federalist Party Support for the Independent ticket 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 the Gazette of the United States endorsed the Independent ticket.Higginbotham 1952 315, 322 Observers took for granted that most Federalists would vote for the Independent candidates.Election of President https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84024735/1816-11-06/ed-1/ Richmond Enquirer November 6, 1816 Truly Federal electors 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 in Adams County, which polled 13 votes; in Chester County, a Federalist ticket headed by James Ross received 7 votes; while Isaac Darlington received 7 votes as a Federalist elector in Delaware County.Lampi 2012 n40, n49, n53 Candidates The following electoral candidates are included in Lampi's A 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 center|120x120px center|120x120px Pennsylvania senator from the 1st district (1796–97, 1815–1819) Pennsylvania representative from Chester County (1807–09, 1816) U.S. senator from Pennsylvania (1794–1803) LE Lost election 13 votes LE Lost election 7 votes LE Lost election 7 votes Lampi 2012 n40 Lampi 2012 n49 Lampi 2012 n53 Campaign issues thumb|right|350px|The Village Politicians (1819) by John Lewis Krimmel Caucus system 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.Turner 2002 302 Electoral candidates and candidates for state office were commonly chosen by similar gatherings of state legislators.Higginbotham 1952 22 As a matter of convenience, caucuses were held at the seat of government; the March 1816 Democratic-Republican congressional caucus was held at Washington,Turner 2002 302 while the corresponding state caucus of Democratic lawmakers took place at Harrisburg. 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 constitutional separation 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 at conventions 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. 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 a cabal of career officeholders bent on extending their own power at the expense of the people. The act, which nearly doubled the pay of its members from the existing rate of $6 per 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 ensuing 1816–17 United States House of Representatives elections, forcing Congress to repeal the law in the December lame-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.Higginbotham 1952 316–17 Skeen 2003 79–80, 83, 88–89 Defenders of the caucus system argued that elected lawmakers were accountable to their constituents, endowing the caucus nominations with significant democratic legitimacy.Skeen 2003 218 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 when Blue Light Federalists were alleged to be plotting secession. General election thumb|right|350px|Election Day in Philadelphia (1815) by John Lewis Krimmel Summary Pennsylvania chose 25 electors on a statewide general 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.Lampi n.d. Ratcliffe 2014 57 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. 1816 United States presidential election in PennsylvaniaLampi 2012 Caucus #008000 James MonroeDaniel D. Tompkins 25,749 59.37 Independent #dcdcdc Unpledged electors 17,597 40.57 Federalist Party Unpledged electors 27 0.06 43,373 100.00 Results + 1816 United States presidential election in PennsylvaniaLampi 2012 Party Candidate Votes Fusion Thomas Pattersoncross 42,945 Fusion Joseph Hustoncross 42,922 Fusion John Harrisoncross 42,668 Fusion James Meloycross 41,843 Caucus William Gilliland 25,749 Caucus Daniel Bussier 25,735 Caucus John Mohlar 25,671 Caucus John Rea 25,620 Caucus Paul Cox 25,609 Caucus Abiel Fellows 25,571 Caucus Gabriel Hiester 25,563 Caucus Matthew Roberts 25,560 Caucus William Brooke 25,557 Caucus James Banks 25,548 Caucus Michael Fackenthal 25,540 Caucus Jacob Hostetter 25,504 Caucus John Geyer 25,484 Caucus James Wilson 25,484 Caucus James Alexander 25,473 Caucus David Marchand 25,447 Caucus John Conard 25,431 Caucus David Mitchell 25,424 Caucus Isaac Anderson 25,421 Caucus Samuel Scott 25,382 Caucus Robert Clarke 25,359 Independent Andrew Gregg 17,597 Independent Henry Alhouse 17,597 Independent Joseph Reed 17,580 Independent Hugh Hart 17,562 Independent Matthew Lawler 17,558 Independent Peter Nagle 17,557 Independent Abraham Horn 17,552 Independent Abraham Waggoner 17,548 Independent Christian Brobst 17,503 Independent Robert MacMullin 17,482 Independent Charles Thomson 17,457 Independent John Stroman 17,455 Independent William Hamilton 17,449 Independent Patrick Farrelly 17,429 Independent Michael Leib 17,407 Independent Alexander Dysart 17,406 Independent Daniel Montgomery Jr. 17,307 Independent Robert Bethell 17,285 Independent Thomas Baird 17,178 Independent John W. Cunningham 17,140 Independent James Poe 17,083 Independent John Piper 259 Independent Frederick Keefer 46 Independent Berhart Gilbert 44 Federalist Benjamin R. Morgan 13 Federalist Isaac Darlington 7 Federalist James Ross 7 Total ≥43,373 Results by county 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 results summary, which compares the results for the most popular elector pledged to each ticket statewide. County James MonroeCaucus Unpledged electorsIndependent Unpledged electorsFederalist Margin Total Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes Percent Adams 205 30.78 448 67.27 13 1.95 -243 -36.49 666 Allegheny 218 32.49 453 67.51 — -235 -35.02 671 Armstrong 71 45.22 86 54.78 — -15 -9.56 157 Beaver 180 70.04 77 29.96 — 103 40.08 257 Bedford 423 66.20 216 33.80 — -207 32.40 639 Berks 1,563 65.56 821 34.44 — 742 31.12 2,384 Bradford 395 82.81 82 17.19 — 313 65.62 477 Bucks 1,789 47.85 1,950 52.15 — -161 -4.30 3,739 Butler 154 84.15 29 15.85 — 125 68.30 183 Cambria 75 76.53 23 23.47 — 52 53.06 98 Centre 479 66.44 242 33.56 — 237 32.88 721 Clearfield Chester 1,999 54.92 1,634 44.89 7 0.19 365 10.03 3,640 Columbia 544 89.47 64 10.53 — 480 78.94 608 Crawford 98 44.14 124 55.86 — -26 -11.72 222 Cumberland 1,262 70.62 525 29.38 — 737 41.24 1,787 Dauphin 510 66.84 253 33.16 — 257 33.68 763 Delaware 348 42.13 471 57.02 7 0.85 -123 -14.89 826 Erie 85 39.53 130 60.46 — -45 -20.93 215 Fayette 271 63.17 158 36.83 — 113 26.34 429 Franklin 934 88.03 127 11.97 — 807 76.06 1,061 Greene 140 89.74 16 10.26 — 124 79.48 156 Huntingdon 474 87.13 70 12.87 — 404 74.26 544 Indiana 76 39.79 115 60.21 — -39 -20.42 191 Jefferson Lancaster 1,223 45.96 1,438 54.04 — -215 -8.08 2,661 Lebanon 516 72.27 198 27.73 — 318 44.54 714 Lehigh 596 70.70 247 29.30 — 349 41.40 843 Luzerne 378 54.70 313 45.30 — 65 9.40 691 Lycoming 267 94.01 17 5.98 — 250 88.03 284 McKean Potter Mercer 131 68.23 61 31.77 — 70 36.46 192 Mifflin 525 82.57 111 17.45 — 414 65.12 636 Montgomery 1,885 60.73 1,219 39.27 — 666 21.46 3,104 Northampton 860 61.60 536 38.40 — 324 23.20 1,396 Northumberland 506 76.32 157 23.68 — 349 52.64 663 Philadelphia 2,834 40.85 4,104 59.15 — -1,270 -18.30 6,938 Pike 124 77.99 35 22.01 — 89 55.98 159 Schuylkill 340 83.33 68 16.67 — 272 66.66 408 Somerset 251 82.03 55 17.97 — 196 64.06 306 Susquehanna 242 71.60 96 28.40 — 146 43.20 338 Tioga 86 78.90 23 21.10 — 63 57.80 109 Union 522 86.57 81 13.43 — 441 73.14 603 Venango 100 89.28 12 10.71 — 88 78.57 112 Warren Washington 489 78.74 132 21.26 — 357 57.48 621 Wayne 82 87.23 12 12.76 — 70 74.47 94 Westmoreland 414 57.42 307 42.58 — 107 14.84 721 York 978 75.40 319 24.59 — 659 50.81 1,297 TOTAL 25,642 59.19 17,655 40.75 27 0.06 7,987 18.44 43,324 Electoral college + 1816 United States Electoral College vote in PennsylvaniaNational Archives and Records Administration 2024 For President For Vice President Candidate Party Home state Electoralvote Candidate Party Home state Electoralvote James Monroe Democratic-Republican Virginia 25 Daniel D. Tompkins Democratic-Republican New York 25 Total 25 Total 25 See also United States presidential elections in Pennsylvania Notes References Bibliography National Archives and Records Administration 1816 Electoral College Results 2024 https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/1816 National Archives February 22, 2025 Higginbotham Sanford W. The Keystone in the Democratic Arch: Pennsylvania Politics, 1800–1816 1952 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Harrisburg https://archive.org/details/keystoneindemocr0000sanf/mode/2up Lampi Philip J. Electoral College n.d. https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/?f%5Boffice_id_ssim%5D%5B%5D=ON056 A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society March 19, 2025 Lampi Philip J. The Federalist Party Resurgence, 1808–1816: Evidence from the New Nation Votes Database Journal of the Early Republic Summer 2013 33 2 255–81 24768844 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24768844 Lampi Philip J. Pennsylvania 1816 Electoral College 2012 https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/5q47rp95g A New Nation Votes American Antiquarian Society April 14, 2025 Ratcliffe Donald J. The One-Party Presidential Contest: Adams, Jackson, and 1824's Five-Horse Race 2015 University Press of Kansas Lawrence https://books.google.com/books?id=MrquEAAAQBAJ 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 Shankman Andrew Crucible of American Democracy: The Struggle to Fuse Egalitarianism and Capitalism in Jeffersonian Pennsylvania 2004 University Press of Kansas Lawrence https://books.google.com/books?id=AK4oAQAAMAAJ Siry Steven Edwin The Sectional Politics of 'Practical Republicanism': De Witt Clinton's Presidential Bid, 1810-1812 Journal of the Early Republic Winter 1985 5 4 441–62 3123061 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3123061 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 Pennsylvania 1816 Category:1816 Pennsylvania elections