1842 Grand National, The race
The remaining runners, with the exception of Sam Weller and Lottery are believed to have completed the course but were so far behind that they were probably swallowed up by the many mounted spectators and carriages who would follow the runners from the top end of the racecourse down the home straight.


1842 Grand National, The race
The race was timed at 13 minutes and 30 seconds, a full minute outside the record.


1842 Grand National, Finishing order
Colours as published in The Liverpool Mail, Thursday March 3rd 1842Distanced refers to horses that was not in site of the judge when the first horse reached the chair.


1842 Grand National, 1-2-3-4
Winner: Gaylad was ridden by Tom Olliver, who was one of the most experienced riders in the race, having his fourth ride after finishing second in 1839 while riding Seventy Four. The horse was owned by Piccadilly horse trader John Elmore, already a winner with Lottery in 1839. It was also suggested that Elmore had owned a part share in 1840 Grand National winner, Jerry. He was trained by George Dockeray whose Epsom stables had also prepared Lottery and Jerry when they had won.


1842 Grand National, 1-2-3-4
Second: Seventy Four, who was finishing second for the second time and carried the colours of Lord Mostyn. He was ridden by Horatio Powell.


1842 Grand National, 1-2-3-4
Third: Peter Simple, who was third for the second consecutive year and was carrying the colours of his rider, Robert Hunter.


1842 Grand National, 1-2-3-4
Fourth: The Returned, who was also in the colours of his rider William J Hope-Johnstone


1842 Hynek
1842 Hynek, provisional designation 1972 AA, is a stony Florian asteroid from the inner regions of the asteroid belt, approximately 8 kilometers in diameter.


1842 Hynek
The asteroid was discovered on 14 January 1972 by Czech astronomer Luboš Kohoutek at Hamburg Observatory, who named it after his father, Hynek Kohoutek.


1842 Hynek, Orbit and classification
Hynek is member of the Flora family. It orbits the Sun in the inner main-belt at a distance of 1.9–2.7 AU once every 3 years and 5 months (1,246 days). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.18 and an inclination of 5° with respect to the ecliptic.


1842 Hynek, Orbit and classification
First identified as 1928 DE at Heidelberg, the asteroid's observation arc begins with its first used observation taken at Lowell Observatory in 1929, when it was identified as 1929 SO, nearly 43 years prior to its official discovery observation at Hamburg.


1842 Hynek, Physical characteristics
In the Tholen classification, Hynek is characterized as a common S-type asteroid.


1842 Hynek, Physical characteristics, Rotation period
In July 2007, the so-far best rated rotational lightcurve of Hynek was obtained from photometric observations by French amateur astronomer Pierre Antonini. Lightcurve analysis gave a well-defined rotation period of 3.9410 hours with a brightness variation of 0.17 magnitude (U=3).


1842 Hynek, Physical characteristics, Diameter and albedo
According to the surveys carried out by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer with its subsequent NEOWISE mission, Hynek measures between 7.996 and 9.31 kilometers in diameter, and its surface has an albedo between 0.28 of 0.300.


1842 Hynek, Physical characteristics, Diameter and albedo
The Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link assumes a standard albedo for stony asteroids of 0.20 and calculates a diameter of 9.80 kilometers with an absolute magnitude of 12.41.


1842 Hynek, Naming
This minor planet was named after Hynek Kohoutek, the father of the discoverer, celebrating his 70th birthday. The official naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on 20 December 1974 (M.P.C. 3757).


1842 Illinois gubernatorial election
The 1842 Illinois gubernatorial election was the seventh quadrennial election for this office. Democrat Thomas Ford defeated former Whig governor Joseph Duncan.


1842 Iowa Council election
In the 1842 Iowa Territory Council elections, electors selected councilors to serve in the fifth Iowa Territory Council. All 13 members of the Territory Council were elected. Councilors served one-year terms.


1842 Iowa Council election
The Iowa Territory existed from July 4, 1838, until December 28, 1846, when Iowa was admitted to the Union as a state. At the time, the Iowa Territory had a Legislative Assembly consisting of an upper chamber (i.e., the Territory Council) and a lower chamber (i.e., the Territory House).


1842 Iowa Council election
Following the previous election in 1841, Democrats held a majority with eight seats to Whigs' five seats.


1842 Iowa Council election
To claim a majority of seats, the Whigs needed to net two seats from Democrats.


1842 Iowa Council election
Democrats maintained a majority of seats in the Iowa Territory Council following the 1842 general election with the balance of power shifting to Democrats holding seven seats and Whigs having six seats (a net gain of 1 seat for Whigs). Whig Councilor John D. Elbert was chosen as the President of the fifth Territory Council to succeed Democratic Councilor Jonathan W. Parker in that leadership position.


1842 Liverpool Town Council election
Elections to Liverpool Town Council were held on Tuesday 1 November 1842. One third of the council seats were up for election, the term of office of each councillor being three years.


1842 Liverpool Town Council election, Ward results, West Derby
James Plumpton, unlike John Smith, was an advocate for scriptural education inthe Corporation Schools.


1842 Liverpool by-election
The 1842 Liverpool by-election was held on 8 February 1842 and resulted in the election of the unopposed Conservative candidate Howard Douglas. It was caused by the resignation of the previous Conservative MP, Cresswell Cresswell, when he was made a judge of the Court of Common Pleas by the Prime Minister Robert Peel.


1842 Louisiana gubernatorial election
The 1842 Louisiana gubernatorial election was the ninth gubernatorial election to take place after Louisiana achieved statehood. Under Article III Sec 2 of the 1812 Constitution of the State of Louisiana the Governor was elected in two steps. On the first Monday in July, eligible voters went to the polls and voted. The returns were sent to the President of the Louisiana State Senate. On the second day of the session of the Louisiana State Legislature, the Louisiana House of Representatives and Senate met in joint session and voted between the top two candidates. The candidate who received a majority in General Assembly became governor. This was the last election held under the Constitution of 1812, the next election was held under the Constitution of 1845.


1842 Massachusetts gubernatorial election
The 1842 Massachusetts gubernatorial election was held on November 14, 1842.


1842 Massachusetts gubernatorial election
Incumbent Whig Governor John Davis was defeated by Democratic nominee and former Governor Marcus Morton.


1842 Massachusetts gubernatorial election
Since no candidate received a majority in the popular vote, Morton was elected by the Massachusetts Senate per the state constitution.


1842 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, General election, Legislative election
As no candidate received a majority of the vote, the Massachusetts House of Representatives was required nominate two of the four top vote-getters to the Massachusetts Senate, which then chose one of the two as Governor. The House nominated Davis and Morton. The election in the Senate was held on January 17, 1843.


1842 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Bibliography
This Massachusetts elections–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .


1842 Massachusetts legislature
The 63rd Massachusetts General Court, consisting of the Massachusetts Senate and the Massachusetts House of Representatives, met in 1842 during the governorship of John Davis. Josiah Quincy Jr. served as president of the Senate and Thomas H. Kinnicutt served as speaker of the House.


1842 Naval Air Squadron
1842 Naval Air Squadron (1842 NAS) was a Naval Air Squadron of the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm.


1842 New York gubernatorial election
The 1842 New York gubernatorial election was held on November 8, 1842 to elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of New York.


1842 New York gubernatorial election, Background
This was the first gubernatorial election in New York which was held on a single day. Until 1841, the State elections had been held during three days beginning on the first Monday in November. In 1842, the State Legislature fixed the election day permanently on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.


1842 New York gubernatorial election, Candidates
The Democratic Party nominated former Erie Canal Commissioner William C. Bouck. They nominated former state senator Daniel S. Dickinson for Lieutenant Governor.


1842 New York gubernatorial election, Candidates
The Whig Party nominated Lieutenant Governor Luther Bradish. They nominated state senator Gabriel Furman for Lieutenant Governor.


1842 New York gubernatorial election, Candidates
The Liberty Party nominated Alvan Stewart. They nominated Charles O. Shepard for Lieutenant Governor.


1842 New York gubernatorial election, Sources
This New York elections-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .


1842 Newcastle-under-Lyme by-election
The Newcastle-under-Lyme by-election of 14 June 1842 was caused by the voiding of the election in 1841 of the Liberal John Quincey Harris, on the grounds of bribery by his agents. Mr. Harris, who had not been proved personally cognisant of the bribery, offered himself for reelection against the Conservative candidate John Campbell Colquhoun. The Conservatives publicly proclaimed before the poll their case the Mr Harris was barred from re-standing.


1842 Newcastle-under-Lyme by-election, Results
A further Election Committee convened on 21 July 1842 to consider a petition that Mr Harris was disqualified from re-standing in a by-election caused by the voiding of his own election, that this was notorious before the by-election, that votes cast for Harris were thrown away, and that Mr Colquhoun should be declared elected. The Committee agreed, and Mr Colquhoun was seated.


1842 Newfoundland general election
The 1842 Newfoundland general election was held in 1842 to elect members of the 3rd General Assembly of Newfoundland in Newfoundland Colony. The elected assembly with 15 members and the appointed Legislative Council with 10 members were combined into a unicameral legislature.


1842 Philadelphia mayoral election
The Philadelphia mayoral election of 1842 saw the reelection of John Morin Scott.


1842 Philadelphia mayoral election, Electoral system
Beginning in 1839, the city operated under a mixed electoral system. Citizens voted for mayor in a general election. If a candidate receive a majority of the vote, they would be elected mayor. However, if no candidate received a majority, the City Council would select a mayor from the top-two finishers.


1842 Portuguese legislative election
Parliamentary elections were held in Portugal on 5 and 19 June 1842.


1842 Portuguese legislative election, Electoral system
Prior to the elections, the Constitutional Charter of 1826 was reintroduced on 10 February, having previously been in force from 1826 to 1828 and again from 1834 until 1836. The direct electoral system used in 1838 and 1840 was replaced by an indirect system in which voters elected provincial assemblies, who in turn elected members of the Chamber of Deputies; the appointed Chamber of Most Worthy Peers replaced the elected Senate as the upper house.


1842 Portuguese legislative election, Electoral system
The 145 members of the Chamber of Deputies were elected from multi-member constituencies, with 119 representing the mainland, 12 representing islands and 14 representing overseas colonies.


1842 Portuguese legislative election, Campaign
On 30 March the Miguelistas and Setembristas formed a united front under the name 'Broad Coalition'. The Cartistas released a manifesto on 3 June, which was critical of Prime Minister Costa Cabral.


1842 Portuguese legislative election, Results
When the Cortes Gerais met for the first time on 10 July the government was supported by 72 Cabralista deputies, with only 10 deputies representing the opposition Cartistas, Miguelistas and Setembristas.


1842 Pottery Riots
Predominantly centred on Hanley and Burslem, in what is now the federation of Stoke-on-Trent, the 1842 Pottery Riots took place in the midst of the 1842 General Strike, and both are credited with helping to forge trade unionism and direct action as a powerful tool in British industrial relations.


1842 Pottery Riots, Cause
The riots took place against the back drop of the 1842 general strike, started by colliers in and around the Potteries, and part of the popular working class Chartist movement. The spark that lit both the general strike and Pottery Riots was the decision, in early June 1842, by W. H. Sparrow, a Longton coal mine owner, to disregard the law and fail to give the statutory fortnight's notice before imposing a hefty pay reduction of almost a shilling a day on his workers. The men went on strike and soon surrounding colliery workers began showing support. The strike cause was championed by Chartists, who called for a general strike across the Potteries. However, by the end of July strikes were endemic across north Staffordshire and were spreading, notably in south east Lancashire.


1842 Pottery Riots, Events
As the strike spread it gained the attention of the Chartist movement. On 13 August prominent Chartist orator Thomas Cooper arrived in Hanley and was given lodgings by coffee shop owner Jeremiah Yates. On Monday 15 August 1842, Thomas Cooper, gave a speech at Crown Bank in Hanley, decreeing: "that all labour cease until the People's Charter becomes the law of the land." John Ward states what happened next in his 1843 book:


1842 Pottery Riots, Events
The rectory-house at the latter place was the especial object of their fury; it was gutted and set fire to, though the fire was extinguished before it destroyed the premises. The house of Mr Mason at Heron Cross, that of Mr Allen of Great Fenton, and that of Mr Rose, the police magistrate at Penkhull, were in like manner visited and treated by parties of marauders, who, returning to Hanley in the evening, were again lectured, and commended by Cooper for what they had done, though he reproved them for their drunkenness, as being likely to expose them to detection. Terror and consternation spread around, and many families left home for security. The scenes of the night were expected to surpass the atrocities of the day, and so they did.


1842 Pottery Riots, Events
John Ward, "The Borough of Stoke-Upon-Trent, in the Commencement of the Reign of Queen Victoria".


1842 Pottery Riots, Events
Later on the 16th, Thomas Powys, a Burslem magistrate and deputy lord lieutenant of the county, ordered troops to fire on a procession of strikers in Burslem Square. read out the Riot Act. 4–5,000 protestors marched with a band from Leek to join the local people in Burslem. The marchers arrived and began to stone the dragoons. Powys then ordered troops, based at the Leopard Inn, to fire on the strikers in Burslem Square.


1842 Pottery Riots, Events
Josiah Heapy was killed and many more men and women were wounded. Heapy was 19 years old and born in Quarnford, Staffordshire. He was an orphan. His mother had died when he was 3 years old and his father when he was 11 years old. He moved to Leek and worked as a shoe maker. Heapy was shot in the head in front of the "Big House" on Moorland Road and died instantly.


1842 Pottery Riots, Events
Josiah Heapy's funeral was arranged at St. Edward's, Leek on 18 August and apparently led to no disorder. Although there has been local speculation, the location of his grave has not been found. A verdict of justifiable homicide was given.


1842 Pottery Riots, Aftermath
A total of 274 people were brought to trial in the special assizes that followed, of whom 146 were sent to prison and 54 were transported (to Australia). John Ward names those deported. By the end of 1842 the county police force had been established and the first chief constable appointed.


1842 Pottery Riots, Aftermath
This did not dent the popularity of trade unionism though. The Miners' Association of Great Britain and Ireland was formally established on 7 November 1842. The United Branches of Operative Potters (UBOP) was born on 6 September 1843.


1842 Pottery Riots, Aftermath
On 28 April 2018 a plaque was unveiled in Swan Square, Burslem in honour of Josiah Heapy.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation
The 1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation was the largest escape of a group of slaves to occur in the Cherokee Nation, in what was then Indian Territory. The slave revolt started on November 15, 1842, when a group of 20 African-American slaves owned by the Cherokee escaped and tried to reach Mexico, where slavery had been abolished in 1829. Along their way south, they were joined by 15 slaves escaping from the Creek Nation in Indian Territory. (Date inconsistent with later assertion)


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation
The fugitives met with two slave catchers taking a family of eight slave captives back to the Choctaw Nation. The fugitives killed the hunters and allowed the family to join their party. Although an Indian party had captured and killed some of the slaves near the beginning of their flight, the Cherokee sought reinforcements. They raised an armed group of more than 100 of their and Choctaw warriors to pursue and capture the fugitives. Five slaves were later executed for killing the two slave catchers.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation
What has been described as "the most spectacular act of rebellion against slavery" among the Cherokee, the 1842 event inspired subsequent slave rebellions in the Indian Territory. But, in the aftermath of this escape, the Cherokee Nation passed stricter slave codes, expelled freedmen from the territory, and established a 'rescue' (slave-catching) company to try to prevent additional losses.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Background
Prior to European contact, the Cherokee had a practice of enslaving prisoners of war from other Indian tribes. In the late 18th century, some Cherokee set up European-American style plantations on their Cherokee Nation land, which occupied territory near parts of Georgia and Tennessee. They purchased African-American slaves to work this land. In 1819, the Cherokee Nation passed slave codes that regulated slave trade; forbade intermarriage; enumerated punishment for runaway slaves; and prohibited slaves from owning private property.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Background
An 1820 law regulated trading with slaves, requiring that anyone who traded with a slave without the master's permission was bound to the legal owner for the property, or its value, if the traded property proved to be stolen. Another code declared that a fine of fifteen dollars was to be levied for masters who allowed slaves to buy or sell liquor.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Background
The Cherokee adopted the practice of using enslaved African Americans on their plantations from European Americans. Most Cherokee held fewer slaves and labored with them at subsistence agriculture. Slaves worked primarily as agricultural laborers, cultivating both cotton for their master's profit and food for consumption. Some slaves were skilled laborers, such as seamstresses and blacksmiths. Like other slaveholders, affluent Cherokee used slaves as a portable labor force. They developed robust farms, salt mines, and trading posts created with slave labor.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Background
The Cherokee brought many of their slaves with them to the West in the Indian Removal of the 1820s and 1830s, when the federal government forcibly removed them from the Southeastern states. Joseph Vann was described as taking 200 slaves with him. Black slaves in each of the tribes performed much of the physical labor involved in the removal. For example, they loaded wagons, cleared the roads, and led the teams of livestock along the way.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Background
By 1835, the time of removal, the Cherokee owned an estimated total of 1500 slaves of African ancestry (the most black slaves of any of the Five Civilized Tribes). Within five years of removal, 300 mixed-race Cherokee families, most descendants of European traders and Cherokee women for generations, made up an elite class in the Indian Territory. Most owned 25–50 slaves each. Some of their plantations had 600 to 1,000 acres; cultivating wheat, cotton, corn, hemp, and tobacco. Most of the men also had large cattle and horse herds.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Background
By 1860, the Cherokee held an estimated 4,600 slaves, and depended on them as farm laborers and domestic servants. At the time of the Civil War, a total of more than 8,000 slaves were held in all of the Indian Territory, where they comprised 14 percent of the population.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Events of the revolt
The mass escape of 20 enslaved African Americans from the Cherokee territory began on November 15, 1842, and has been called "the most spectacular act of rebellion against slavery" among the Cherokee. Most of the 20 slaves were from the plantations of "Rich Joe" Vann and his father James; they gathered and raided local stores for weapons, ammunition, horses, and mules. Escaping from Webbers Falls without casualties, the slaves headed south for Mexico, where slavery had been prohibited since 1836. Along the way they picked up another 15 slaves escaping from Creek territory. Some Cherokee and Creek pursued the fugitives, but the slaves partially held them off. In one altercation, 14 slaves were either killed or captured, but the remaining 21 continued south. The Cherokee and Creek pursuers returned to their nations for reinforcements.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Events of the revolt
Along the way, the fugitives encountered two slave catchers, James Edwards, a white man, and Billy Wilson, a Lenape (Delaware Indian), who were returning to Choctaw territory with an escaped slave family of three adults and five children. The family had been headed west into Plains Indian territory. The fugitive party killed the bounty hunters to free the slave family. Together they continued South, slowed somewhat by traveling with five children.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Events of the revolt
On November 17, the Cherokee National Council in Tahlequah passed a resolution authorizing Cherokee Militia Captain John Drew to raise a company of 100 citizens to "pursue, arrest, and deliver the African Slaves to Fort Gibson." (The resolution also relieved the government of the Cherokee Nation of any liability if the slaves resisted arrest and had to be killed.) The commander at Fort Gibson loaned Drew 25 pounds of gunpowder for the militia.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Events of the revolt
The large force caught up with the slaves seven miles north of the Red River on November 28. The tired fugitives, weak from hunger, offered no resistance. They were forced to return to their owners in the Choctaw, Creek and Cherokee reservations. The Cherokee later executed five slaves for the murders of Edwards and Wilson. Vann put most of his surviving slaves to work on his steamboats, shoveling coal.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Events of the revolt
The slave revolt inspired future slave rebellions in the Indian Territory. By 1851, a total of nearly 300 blacks had tried to escape from Indian Territory. Most headed for Mexico or the area of the future Kansas Territory, where residents prohibited slavery.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Economic impact
Indian slaveholders bought and sold slaves, often doing business with white slaveholders in the neighboring states of Texas and Arkansas. The owners in both areas always considered enslaved Africans to be property.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Economic impact
After the revolt, the Cherokee often hired non-slave holding Indians to catch runaway slaves. In the past, some of these people had struggled to eat, while slave-owning families flourished in a market economy driven by slave labor. Some among these once poor Cherokee became wealthy by providing services to the 'rescue' company in catching fugitive slaves. When slave catching expeditions were mounted, such trackers were paid. They were also authorized to buy ammunition and supplies for the hunt, at the expense of the Nation (provided that the expedition was not "unnecessarily protracted and did not incur needless expenses").


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Outcome
The slave revolt had threatened the security of the labor force and owners' profits. The Nation passed a stricter slave code and required expulsion of free blacks from the territory, as they were considered to foster discontent among slaves. After the American Civil War, planters and the upper class of the Cherokee Nation shifted from plantation agriculture to developing manufacture of small-scale products, which were sold internally, instead of being exported.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Outcome
As a mass escape that resulted in casualties and deaths of both slaves and others, the 1842 slave revolt was widely reported by newspapers. Even 50 years later, when the Fort Smith Elevator of Arkansas published an anniversary article about the escape, the account had a kind of mythic power. It recounted a morning when Cherokee slaveholders could not find their slaves and said that "hundreds" had disappeared overnight, rather than the 20 of fact.


1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation, Outcome
The slaveholder Joseph Vann was killed two years later in 1844, in the Lucy Walker steamboat disaster.


1842 State of the Union Address
The 1842 State of the Union Address, was written by John Tyler, the tenth president of the United States. It was presented on Tuesday, December 6, 1842, by the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. He said, "We have continued reason to express our profound gratitude to the Great Creator of All Things for numberless benefits conferred upon us as a people. Blessed with genial seasons, the husbandman has his garners filled with abundance, and the necessaries of life, not to speak of its luxuries, abound in every direction."


1842 United States elections
The 1842 United States elections occurred in the middle of President John Tyler's term, during the Second Party System. Tyler had become president on April 4, 1841 upon the death of his predecessor, William Henry Harrison. Elected as vice president on the Whig ticket with Harrison in 1840, Tyler was expelled from the party in September 1841. Members of the 28th United States Congress were chosen in this election. Florida joined the union during the 28th Congress. Whigs kept control of the Senate, but lost control of the House.


1842 United States elections
Following the 1840 census, the size of the House was reduced by 19 seats. Democrats won massive gains, turning a commanding Whig majority into a dominant Democratic majority.


1842 United States elections
In the Senate, Democrats picked up one seat, but Whigs retained the majority.


1842 Wallachian princely election
Elections for the princely throne of Wallachia were held on December 20–21, 1842 (New Style: January 1–2, 1843), marking the start of Gheorghe Bibescu's rule. They were the first of two such elections ever held in Wallachia, and historic in that they restored and modernized the elective monarchy, after a 112-year hiatus. While earlier elections took place under the Vlach law, the 1842–43 race was held under a modernized suffrage: there were multiple candidates, an electoral college, approval voting, and exhaustive ballot.


1842 Wallachian princely election
The selection of voters extended beyond the inner circle of the Wallachian boyars, with consultation of the provincial landowners and the guilds. Such practices reflected the modernizing trend instituted by the Regulamentul Organic regime in both Danubian Principalities, under the shared custody of the Russian and Ottoman empires. In Moldavia, however, the regime did not permit princely elections, making Bibescu's the only Regulamentul reign to have been consecrated by a vote.


1842 Wallachian princely election
The 1842 election also aired disputes between various camps: the National Party versus the Russophiles, and conservatives versus liberals. These protracted battles had marked the rule of Alexandru II Ghica, deposed by collusion between Bibescu and his aging conservative rival, Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea. The electoral campaign, touched by corruption and slander, also opposed Bibescu to his brother Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei, who became a leading contender. Bibescu won when Știrbei effectively transferred him his electoral votes, leaving the senior boyar Iordache Filipescu in third-place.


1842 Wallachian princely election
Bibescu's reign was marked by concessions to the National Party, but later the prince asserted his independence, and, like Ghica before him, governed with a hostile Ordinary Assembly. He also broke with precedent by ruling without consultation and tampering with the legislative elections of 1846, but maintained a friendly rapport with the liberal camp. Eventually abdicating and leaving the country during the Wallachian Revolution of 1848, his brother Știrbei replaced him on the throne following the resumption of Ottoman control. Both brothers remained active in political life after the Crimean War, when, by renouncing their ambitions, they contributed to the union of the Principalities. This was achieved by the princely election of January 1859, when Moldavian Alexandru Ioan Cuza was granted the Wallachian throne.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, Ghica's ascendancy
During the early 19th century, both Moldavia and Wallachia were Ottoman vassals ruled upon by Phanariote princes (or hospodars). This era, inaugurated in 1714 by the ouster of Constantin Brâncoveanu, signified "150 years of Greek cultural predominance". This also led to the erosion of the elective monarchy—under the adapted Vlach law of the Middle Ages, electors included the boyardom and all bishops of the Wallachian Orthodox Church, thus opening the way for the erosion of princely powers. The Phanariote regime did away with elections from 1730, when Constantine Mavrocordatos was the last elected prince of Wallachia.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, Ghica's ascendancy
Reigning for just one month, he was later restored without elections by Sultan Mahmud I. Although such appointments became the standard, the Phanariote regime developed into a boyar oligarchy, which was largely dominated by the local families—up to 80% of the Boyar Assembly were of indigenous descent. Their opposition to the immigrant Greeks produced the early forms of Romanian nationalism, which seeped into a liberal movement, feeding the Wallachian uprising of 1821 and the social philosophy of Dinicu Golescu.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, Ghica's ascendancy
The Phanariote era came to an abrupt end in 1829, when the Russian Empire occupied both principalities during a war with the Ottomans. The subsequent Treaty of Adrianople called for a new constitutional regime, under shared Ottoman–Russian custody: Regulamentul Organic was drafted by a special Commission of boyars, overseen by the Russian envoys Peter Zheltukhin and Pavel Kiselyov. In obtaining their mix of liberalizing and conservative articles, they repressed both the liberal current and the traditionalist boyars, leading them to compromise on the core issues. Regulamentul was adopted in Wallachia by May 1831, after two years of deliberations.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, Ghica's ascendancy
With this, the old Boyar Assembly was refashioned into a 42-member "Ordinary National Assembly", based on the estates of the realm: 20 members were elected by plurality from among the 56 boyars; 18 more, similarly elected, were representatives of the counties, with one additional deputy for Craiova; the other seats were held by the Orthodox bishops. All eligible seats were contested in 1831—"the first time [in Romanian history] when elections were used for producing a deliberative assembly".


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, Ghica's ascendancy
Regulamentul and the preceding Akkerman Convention also specified the reintroduction of an elective monarchy to both principalities, but an exception was immediately made under a special protocol between Russia and the Ottomans. In Wallachia, Alexandru II Ghica was appointed prince in March 1834 and anointed in October, his rise curbing that of another favorite, Ban Iordache Filipescu. From its beginnings, the reign was controlled by the Russian Consul, Baron Peter I. Rikman, who imposed his favorites, Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei and Constantin Suțu, as ministers. This episode produced frictions among the boyars and the Russians, exacerbated over the following years.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, Ghica's ascendancy
During the legislature of 1836, boyar envoys discovered that sections of Regulamentul had been forged or purposefully left unclear, giving legislative oversight to the Russian envoys. Prince Ghica was mandated by Karl Nesselrode to impose the controversial fragments on the Assembly, but his motion failed to pass, and so he dissolved the Assembly; the new Assembly also refused to accept his version of Regulamentul.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, Ghica's ascendancy
Ghica, in turn, refused to dissolve the Assembly a second time, and Rikman was ordered by his government to seek resolution with the Ottoman partners. As a result of this intercession, Sultan Abdulmejid I issued a firman dissolving the Assembly altogether, and replacing it with a non-elective "ad hoc Divan", comprising only the top 27 boyars of Wallachia. The project never took off because of Rikman's personal failings. His passionate love affair with boyaress Mimica Glagoveanca resulted in her divorce and marriage to Rikman, both of which were facilitated by Prince Ghica, who expected leniency in return. Nesselrode was informed of this and recalled Rikman. Memoirist Grigore Lăcusteanu notes that Ghica's "naive" sexual diplomacy was also attempted, with less success, on Rikman's replacement Vladimir P. Titoff, before the later was replaced by Karl Evstafevich Kotzebue.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, National Party emergence
These incidents rekindled nationalism in Wallachia, albeit confined to a relatively small portion of the elite, the "National Party". Its roots reached back to 1798, when Scarlat Câmpineanu and other boyars founded a group of that name, inspired by the French First Republic. Reconstructing the party, Ioan Câmpineanu circulated a constitutional project that would have established a crowned republic, before being publicly shunned and forced into exile.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, National Party emergence
Lăcusteanu, at the time an officer in the Wallachian Militia, claims that: "The aristocracy and the people were Russophiles, words such as 'patriotism' and 'public opinion' were only used by the prince and a couple of boyars." Nevertheless, as noted by scholar N. N. Hêrjeu: "With all their submission to the Muscovites, the boyars quickly understood that Russia only offered them apparent protection, in order to slowly strip them of their privileges. In fact, they hated both the Russians and the Turks." The chronicler Zilot Românul recorded that the boyars were particularly worried by Russian tax farming, which they considered predatory. Among the more powerful boyars, some also opposed the prince, but for purely personal reasons—they included Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea, who had seduced Ghica's divorcee mother, and was therefore detested by the monarch.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, National Party emergence
Nationalist opposition was also concentrated into cultural projects for the "national awakening", which, as historian A. D. Xenopol writes, were particularly resented by the Russian envoys. In repressing them, Rikman and Kotzebue "did not realize that these were ultimately but mere products, effects, and [they could not hope to] destroy their cause". This period also witnessed the alleged conspiracy headed by the low-ranking boyar Mitică Filipescu in Bucharest.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, National Party emergence
Some months later, a revolt was also raging in Brăila County, where treasurer Andrey Deshov, who reportedly wanted to crown himself or Constantin Suțu as Tsar of Bulgaria, rallied troops to fight against the pro-Ottoman Ghica. The capital was pacified quickly, but the military expedition against Deshov required assistance from Hüseyin Avni Pasha and the Ottoman Army. Both Filipescu and Deshov were sentenced to prison, but the details of their conspiracies remain sketchy. Lăcusteanu, for instance, sees Filipescu as an agent of Russian intrigues, "more Russian than Muscovite Russians", whereas the liberal Ion Ghica insists that he was a patriot and a believer in individual rights.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, National Party emergence
From 1841, Russia's presence in Wallachia was strengthened by the appointment of a commissioner, Alexander Osipovich Duhamel. He and the prince detested each other, and Duhamel himself was also disliked by Ghica's subjects, who resented in particular his attempts to curb free speech. Ghica himself angered the boyars by celebrating his birthday with 300 promotions of his associates, and allegedly pocketing 11 million French francs from the national treasury. Before the legislative election of 1841, a more conservative opposition group, distinct from the National Party, was slowly emerging among the boyars.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, National Party emergence
It was consolidated around the jurist Gheorghe Bibescu, who had exposed Ghica's favoritism toward foreigners, and had Vornic Alexandru Vilara for its éminence grise. Another affiliate was Barbu Catargiu of Teleorman, who used his maiden speech to denounce Ghica's abuses. Under such influences, the Assembly issued a special report, authored by Bibescu and Filipescu-Vulpea, which depicted Ghica as an anti-patriot, emphasizing his Albanian background. Ion Ghica suggests that his relative was being in fact framed by the Russians, acting in conjunction with Bibescu.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Context, National Party emergence
In October 1842, having received the Assembly's formal complaint, Sultan Abdulmejid signed off on Ghica's removal. The prince was informed of this by his physician, Apostol Arsache, and decided to resign before being handed the firman. He exiled himself to the Austrian Empire, and his trip toward the border saw public displays of loyalism. At Ploiești, the citizens offered to reinstate and defend him against foreign invaders. Ghica refused, noting that his "children the Romanians" could not hope to defend the land against two imperial powers. A controversy ensued between those who saw him as a "victim of Muscovite ambitions" and those who believed he was a paragon of corruption.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
With Ghica gone, an alliance of the factions, represented by Câmpineanu, Vilara, Filipescu-Vulpea, and Ion Ghica, suggested the appointment of Mihail Sturdza, the reigning Prince of Moldavia, as ruler over Wallachia. This initiative for personal union was quickly vetoed by Russia. Instead, the Sultan designated a regency of three Caimacami: Prince Ghica's rival, Ban Filipescu, alongside Logothete Mihalache Cornescu and Vornic Teodor Văcărescu-Furtună.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
In vague terms, the firman also included provisions for the election of a new prince by males of "all classes", seen by boyars and nationalists alike as a restoration of the ancient Vlach law. Election was to be done by an Extraordinary National Assembly, and the Caimacami and the Council of Ministers were tasked with designing rules for the electoral race, beginning with the voting age, set at 30. There were in all 190 or 191 members, a number later set at 188. In accordance with the table of ranks, 50 of these were 1st


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
Class boyars, who were electors ex officio, as were three bishops. 73 more delegates were sortitioned from a pool of 2nd and 3rd Class boyardom, 36 more were elected by the qualified boyars from the counties, with 26 more deputies representing the urban guilds. Bibescu's son and biographer, Georges Bibesco, argues that the representation of guilds and counties meant that the race of 1842 was the first in history to signify election "by the country", being in this more liberal than 18th-century precedents.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
Candidates were only eligible if they were 1st Class boyars, aged 40 and over, and fulfilled the grandfather clause: they had to be born in Wallachia, to Wallachian parents, and have a yearly income of at least 2,000 ducats. Voters from the county class also had to be native-born. They were selected among landowning families of that county, with preferential voting done by the four estates of each county. They also could not register in multiple precincts—a restriction which was met with public protest by some of the boyars.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
Other such restrictions were imposed on the guild voters, who were required to own assets worth at least 5,000 kuruşlar. Bucharest voted 9 such electors through indirect election, and Craiova 3; Ploiești, Roșiorii de Vede, and Râmnicu Vâlcea had 2 each; Buzău, Câmpulung, Caracal, Cerneți, Focșanii Munteniei, Pitești, Slatina, Târgoviște, and Târgu Jiu sent 1 deputy per town.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
There were originally as many as 40 candidates, but almost half withdrew for various reasons before the actual ballot. 9 hopefuls were found illegible, including Vilara, Nicolae Golescu, Ioan Manu, Ioan Odobescu, Polkovnik Costache Filipescu (Iordache's son), and the Frenchman Filip Lenj (Linchou). This filtering favored two prominent figures: Bibescu and Știrbei, both of whom were perceived as friendly toward Russia, or, in other records, as champions of the National Party cause. Despite having different surnames and being political opponents, the two were brothers, born to the Vornic of Craiova.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
Bibescu, who spent those months traveling abroad, was initially stripped of his eligibility, in particular over doubts that he was of the legal age. This was solved by his hastened return and an affidavit from the boyars of Târgu Jiu, who attested that he was born in April 1802, and therefore just over 40. However, Ion Ghica later claimed that Bibescu was not only underage, but also failed the other grandfather clauses, and allowed to run only because he was a Russian favorite.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
Among the known anti-Russian, National Party candidates, two were credited with any chances of winning: Iordache Filipescu and Câmpineanu. Also in the race as the "boyar party" candidate, Filipescu-Vulpea was widely perceived as a Russophile, but reportedly claimed that he was in reality a patriot; his only reason for obeying Russia was his fear that Prince Ghica "would have otherwise beheaded me". Lăcusteanu, an elector of the 2nd class, argues that Vulpea, who suffered from hernia, was uncommitted to his own candidacy, but only ran in hopes of making victory more difficult for the brothers Bibescu and Știrbei.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
He viewed both "Oltenians" as upstarts who would destroy the country. Alexandru Ghica's brother, Costache Ghica, also presented himself as a candidate, probably spurred on by his wife Marițica Văcărescu, who had a dream of becoming Princess. Other relevant candidates included Alecu "Căciulă-Mare" Ghica (half-brother of the deposed prince), Vornic Iancu Filipescu-Buzatu, and the brothers Ștefan and Constantin Bălăceanu. Filipescu-Buzatu was also billed as a National Party candidate, alongside Ștefan Bălăceanu and Emanoil Băleanu.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
Lăcusteanu recalls that the campaign was heavily tinged by corruption: "The candidates' salons and luncheons were readily opened. They competed with each other in inviting the deputies over for meals and soirees, then in promises, then in vows that, should one give them the vote, then that deputy would see himself showered with appointments, ranks, protection and various other things. Some would even pay money. One vote could cost them as much as 1,000 ducats. There were also those deputies who cheated: they would pledge themselves to ten or twelve candidates of the most influential category".


1842 Wallachian princely election, Ground rules and campaigning
The candidates also resorted to libel, publishing anonymous brochures in France and Belgium, which they then shipped to Wallachia. These claimed to speak for the national interest, and exposed adversaries as committed Russophiles. A letter carried in La Presse, favoring Bibescu and Știrbei, depicted Iordache Filipescu and Câmpineanu as dubious choices—arguing that the former was "of very meager intelligence", and the latter mentally unstable.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Results
The election took place December 20, 1842 (New Style: January 1, 1843), and was announced to the public with the ringing of church bells "from one end of the Principality to the other". The Extraordinary National Assembly, including members who were candidates, convened at the Metropolitan Hall at 10 AM; voting took place over 24 hours, to 10 AM on December 21 (January 2). The voting procedure used was blackballing with exhaustive ballot: all 21 candidates were randomly split into four "series" or "sections", with three groups of 5 and one group of 6.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Results
Electors were made to swear "on the body of Jesus Christ" that they "would only listen to their conscience and to the country's interests." They were also shielded from outside interference by three companies of the Militia, commanded for the day by Neofit II Geanoglu, the Wallachian Metropolitan Bishop. Neofit also led a prayer service in which he released the electors from all pledges to their candidates, inviting them to vote "in clear conscience".


1842 Wallachian princely election, Results
179 or 181 of 188 voters were present, with 8 to 10 electors never showing up. They included Mihalache Ghica, brother of Alexandru and Costache, who was probably absent on purpose. Another voter, the guild deputy Constantin Naneș, was found to be a Roman Catholic, and therefore could not be sworn in by the Metropolitan. According to other records, he was present after being made to swear a special oath at the Franciscan Church of Bucharest.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Results
In the end, the 21 candidates taken into consideration still included Căciulă-Mare, who had previously been disqualified, but not Câmpineanu, whom the Russians had intervened to remove from the eligibility list. The procedure was also complicated by multiple pledging and the toleration of approval voting, which made electors cast their votes for more than one candidate. Iordache Filipescu emerged victorious from his series with 82–84 votes in all, while Știrbei, taking 91 votes in his second group, appeared as the likely winner, but with Iancu Filipescu and Căciulă-Mare as major contenders; Ștefan and Constantin Bălăceanu were both out by this stage, the same as Filipescu-Vulpea.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Results
A controversy surrounded the group allocation, with National-Party radicals complaining that Știrbei and Bibescu had been purposefully separated, to increase the chance of either one being elected. The brothers dismissed such rumors as incoherent. Writing a decade later, Franz von Wimpffen recorded an account according to which Bibescu managed to charm his colleagues with his eloquence. Lăcusteanu reports that, in the breaks between rounds, Vornic Vilara campaigned for Bibescu, who was running in the fourth and final series. He tied to inform Știrbei of this, but the latter, fearing vote splitting "between the brothers", allowed Vilara to continue.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Results
A similar account was publicized in 1916 by Știrbei's son, George Barbu, who noted that the brothers had a tacit agreement of not letting the "retrograde party" elect a Prince. In his fourth section, Bibescu therefore claimed an absolute majority of 131 votes—73% of the turnout, 69% of possible votes. Overall, the race was as follows:


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Bibescu's reign
Within two weeks, the new prince earned recognition from Russia, with Emperor Nicholas I informing Wallachians that Bibescu's selection, a "guarantee of wise, regular and loyal administration", "honors the Assembly". His enthronement included the first oath of office in Romanian history, and an affirmation of autonomy: when visiting the Sultan to be confirmed, Bibescu refused to wear the fez, and would not prostrate before his overlord. Instead, he went on pilgrimage to Dealu Monastery, paying his homage to the reliquary hosting the head of Michael the Brave. After taking the throne, he encouraged economic growth and the "fast civilizing" of his country, his limited protectionism being discarded when he proposed, and obtained, a customs union with Moldavia. Bibescu also initiated the first steps toward the abolition of Roma slavery, and limited the corvée.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Bibescu's reign
Despite such nationalist-and-liberalizing overtures, within two years of his election the prince was in open conflict with the estates of the realm. A public scandal began during the coronation ceremony, when Bibescu fell in love with Marițica Văcărescu, who was still married to his unsuccessful rival Costache Ghica. After expressing his intention of divorcing Zoe Brâncoveanu and marrying Marițica, Bibescu had a publicized row with Metropolitan Neofit. His nepotism was by then notorious, leading to intense criticism from the boyars, only enhanced by Bibescu's attempt to curb tax evasion.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Bibescu's reign
More significantly, Bibescu also clashed with the National Party and the Assembly, over his project of leasing Wallachia's mines to a Russian entrepreneur, Alexander Trandafiloff. Although it was prompted by a generous bid, this move inspired fears that Wallachia would be overrun with cheap Russian labor, and that it was a precedent for expropriations. It also alienated some of Bibescu's conservative backers, including Catargiu, while giving impetus to the liberal movement.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Bibescu's reign
Up to the very end of his rule, Bibescu favored an understanding with the liberals, showing himself ready to usurp privilege: in 1848, he proposed that boyars engaging in commerce be required to apply for letters patent. According to Lăcusteanu, Marițica made Bibescu into a "superlatively vain" character, one likely to flirt with the liberals who promised him the imperial throne of "Dacia". The country, he claims, was actually governed, "very well", by Vilara.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Bibescu's reign
Bibescu eventually dissolved the Assembly, and reigned as an absolute monarch for two more years; when he accepted new elections in 1846, he skewed the results by blocking multiple votes and also by filtering out hostile candidates. In 1847, Alexander Osipovich Duhamel returned as commissioner—according to Lăcusteanu, his mission was to instigate liberal revolts and thus justify a complete Russian takeover.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Revolution and beyond
The clashes between liberals and conservatives eventually produced the Wallachian Revolution of 1848. It is depicted by the conservative Lăcusteanu as one "of the petty schoolteachers, the lawyers, the rapacious upstarts [and] the boyar sons", the urban masses having been incensed by both Duhamel and the deposed ruler Ghica. Initially welcoming the radicals, Bibescu abdicated under street pressure, then fled to safety in Austria. The uprising had a set of republican ideals, with a democratized elective monarchy—goals expressed in the Proclamation of Islaz.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Revolution and beyond
However, it did not effect complete institutional changes, only establishing a Revolutionary Government that included, in its earliest stages, Bibescu's rival Câmpineanu as Caimacam. This collective leadership was eventually brought down by an Ottoman–Russian invasion, co-led by Mehmed Fuad Pasha, Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha, and Alexander von Lüders, with the only battle being fought over Dealul Spirii.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Revolution and beyond
The Convention of Balta Liman restored and partly modified Regulamentul, suspending elections for the post of prince. Știrbei was handpicked by Abdulmejid to serve a seven-year term. The Assembly, now called "National Divan" and preserving primarily consultative functions, was made up of unelected bureaucrats, judges, and bishops. This regime was also perturbed by the Crimean War and an Austrian occupation, at the end of which Wallachia and Moldavia came under a collective supervision of the European powers. Ghica returned to govern as Caimacam, this time with full Ottoman support, and after various intercessions in his favor.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Revolution and beyond
The ad hoc Divan was convened under the Treaty of Paris, reviving popular consultation with an extensive suffrage, which now offered representation to the peasantry; the main issue on its agenda was unification with Moldavia as the "United Principalities", the basis of modern Romania. The election of September 1857 produced a Divan in which both Bibescu and Știrbei, again as leaders of competing factions, were elected deputies.


1842 Wallachian princely election, Aftermath, Revolution and beyond
While conservative and liberal unionists were both challenged by the Convention of Paris, which reduced suffrage and stipulated that the two countries would be united in name only; a Wallachian prince was scheduled to be elected in January 1859. Both Știrbei and Bibescu were again prominent among the candidates. However, a series of coordinated actions by the National Party ensured the election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza, a Moldavian, effectively creating a personal union between the two Ottoman vassals. The election of 1843, alongside the 1859 assembly and its Moldavian counterpart, endures as the only instance of elective monarchy in modern Romanian history (with a partial exception being the April 1866 referendum).


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections
Elections to the United States House of Representatives for the 28th Congress were held during President John Tyler's term at various dates in different states between August 1842 and February 1844.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections
After Whig President William Henry Harrison died within a month of taking office, his successor as president, John Tyler was only nominally a Whig who had not been properly validated for alignment to Whig policy. Effectively an independent, Tyler was disliked by politicians and was unpopular with voters of both parties, leaving the Whigs unexpectedly leaderless and in visible disarray.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections
Despite the improving economy, rural voters favored Democrats, again rejecting Whig economic nationalism. The Whig Party lost 69 seats and their sizeable majority from the 1840 election, almost half their House delegation (one of the Whigs who won re-election was William Wright of New Jersey, elected as an "Independent Whig" ).


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections
The Democrats won a majority, flipping 48 Whig seats (this includes Henry Nes of Pennsylvania, elected as an Independent Democrat). In Rhode Island, the Law and Order Party, formed in response to the Dorr Rebellion, won two seats.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Apportionment Act of 1842
Apportionment was based on the Census of 1840 and was unusual in that the number of House seats was decreased, from 242 to 223: this came after the Apportionment Act of 1842 mandated that all members be elected from single-member contiguous districts, thus abolishing plural districts and at-large districts. Four states that did not comply with this new law delayed redistricting under a grandfather clause.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Alabama
Alabama gained 2 seats, going from 5 to 7 members. Elections were held August 7, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term. In the 1841 elections, Alabama briefly used at-large general-ticket elections, but in these elections it returned to districts.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Arkansas
Arkansas stayed at 1 seat, electing its one member at-large October 3, 1842.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Connecticut
Connecticut lost 2 seats, reduced from 6 to 4 members. Elections were held April 5, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term, but before the House first convened in December 1843.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Delaware
Delaware stayed at 1 seat, electing its one member at-large November 8, 1842.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Georgia
Georgia lost 1 seat, going from 9 to 8 members. Elections were held at-large on a general ticket October 3, 1842.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Illinois
Illinois gained 4 seats, going from 3 to 7 members. Elections were held August 7, 1842.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Indiana
Indiana gained 3 seats, going from 7 to 10 members. Elections were held August 7, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Kentucky
Kentucky lost 3 seats, going from 13 to 10 members. Elections were held August 7, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Louisiana
Louisiana gained 1 seats, going from 3 to 4 members. Elections were held July 3–5, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Maine
Maine lost 1 seat, going from 8 to 7 members. Elections were held September 11, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Maryland
Maryland lost 2 seats, going from 8 to 6 members. Elections were held February 14, 1844, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Maryland
Maryland's elections to the next Congress were held February 14, 1844, after the 1842–1843 election cycle was passed and almost after the next Congress completed.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Massachusetts
Massachusetts lost 2 seats, going from 12 to 10 members. Elections were held November 14, 1842, but some districts' elections stretched to multiple ballots into 1843 and very early 1844.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Michigan
Michigan gained 2 seats, going from 1 to 3 members. Elections were held from districts November 8, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term, having previously elected a single member at-large.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Mississippi
Mississippi gained 2 seats, going from 2 to 4 members. Elections were held at-large on a general ticket November 6–7, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term. Due to a banking crisis in Mississippi, the state Democratic party was split into two factions; the Redemptions, which favored the repudiation of bank bonds, and Anti- Redemptions, which opposed it.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Missouri
Missouri gained 3 seats, going from 2 to 5 members. Elections were held at-large on a general ticket August 1, 1842.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, New Hampshire
New Hampshire lost 1 seat, going from 5 to 4 members. Elections were held at-large on a general ticket March 3, 1843.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, New Jersey
New Jersey lost 1 seats, going from 6 to 5 members. Elections were held from districts October 8, 1842, having previously elected them at-large.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, New York
New York lost 6 seats, going from 40 to 34 members, but remaining the largest delegation. Its thirty-four members were elected November 8, 1842.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, North Carolina
North Carolina lost 4 seats, going from 13 to 9 members. Elections were held August 3, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Ohio
Ohio gained 2 seats, going from 19 to 21 members. Its twenty-one members were elected October 10, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania lost 4 seats, going from 28 to 24 members. Its twenty-four members were elected October 10, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Rhode Island
Rhode Island stayed at 2 seats, but elected its members from districts, having previously elected them at-large. Elections were held August 29, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, South Carolina
South Carolina lost 2 seats, going from 9 to 7 members. Elections were held February 20–21, 1843.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Tennessee
Tennessee lost 2 seats, going from 13 to 11 members. Elections were held August 3, 1842.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Vermont
Vermont lost 1 seat, going from 5 to 4 members. Elections were held September 5, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States House of Representatives elections, Virginia
Virginia lost 6 seats, going from 21 to 15 members. Elections were held April 27, 1843, after the March 4, 1843 beginning of the term.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections
The United States Senate elections of 1842 and 1843 were elections which had the Whigs lose seats but maintain control of the United States Senate. Although they lost three seats in the regular elections, they gained two of them back by the start of the first session in special elections.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections
As these elections were prior to ratification of the seventeenth amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislatures.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections, Race summaries, Special elections during the 27th Congress
In these elections, the winners were elected during 1842 or in 1843 before March 4; ordered by election date.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections, Race summaries, Races leading to the 28th Congress
In these regular elections, the winners were elected for the term beginning March 4, 1843; ordered by state.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections, Race summaries, Elections during the 28th Congress
In these special elections, the winners were elected in 1843 after March 4; ordered by election date.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections, Complete list of races, New York
The election was held February 7, 1843, by the New York State Legislature. Silas Wright, Jr., had been elected in 1833 to this seat after the resignation of William L. Marcy, and had been re-elected in 1837. Wright's term would expire on March 3, 1843. At the State election in November 1842, Democrat William C. Bouck was elected Governor, 92 Democrats and 36 Whigs were elected to the Assembly, and 8 Democrats and 1 Whig were elected to the State Senate. The 66th New York State Legislature met from January 3 to April 18, 1843, at Albany, New York. The incumbent U.S. Senator Silas Wright, Jr. was re-nominated unanimously by a Democratic caucus on the eve of the election. Congressman Millard Fillmore was the candidate of the Whig Party. Silas Wright, Jr., was the choice of both the Assembly and the Senate, and was declared elected.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections, Complete list of races, New York
Wright continued in the U.S. Senate, and remained in office until November 1844 when he resigned after his election as Governor of New York. Henry A. Foster was appointed to fill the vacancy temporarily, but the State Legislature elected John A. Dix for the remainder of Wright's term.


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections, Complete list of races, Pennsylvania
The election was held January 10, 1843. Future President of the United States James Buchanan was re-elected by the Pennsylvania General Assembly to the United States Senate. The Pennsylvania General Assembly, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, convened on January 10, 1843, to elect a new Senator to fill the term beginning on March 4, 1843. Incumbent Democrat James Buchanan, who was elected in 1834 and re-elected in 1836, was a successful candidate for re-election to another term. The results of the vote of both houses combined are as follows:


1842 and 1843 United States Senate elections, Complete list of races, Tennessee
In 1841, Spencer Jarnagin was nominated for U.S. Senator by the Whig caucus in the Tennessee General Assembly. However, some of the Democrats in the legislature decided that no Senator would be preferable to a Whig. Known as the "Immortal Thirteen" by Tennessee Democrats, they refused to allow a quorum on the issue. By the time Jarnagin was eventually elected to the seat and sworn in, over two and half years, almost half of the term, had elapsed. Jarnagin finally assumed office on October 17, 1843.


1842 general strike
The 1842 general strike, also known as the Plug Plot Riots, started among the miners in Staffordshire, England, and soon spread through Britain affecting factories, mills in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and coal mines from Dundee to South Wales and Cornwall.


1842 general strike, Origins
The strike was influenced by the Chartist movement – a mass working class movement from 1838–1848. After the second Chartist Petition was presented to Parliament in May 1842, Stalybridge contributed 10,000 signatures. After the rejection of the petition the first general strike began in the coal mines of Staffordshire. The second phase of the strike originated in Stalybridge.


1842 general strike, Civil unrest
A movement of resistance to the imposition of wage cuts in the mills, also known as the "Plug Riots", it spread to involve nearly half a million workers throughout Britain and represented the biggest single exercise of working class strength in nineteenth-century Britain.


1842 general strike, Civil unrest
On 13 August 1842, there was a strike at Bayley's cotton mill in Stalybridge, and roving groups of workers carried the stoppage first to the whole area of Stalybridge and Ashton, then to Manchester, and subsequently to towns adjacent to Manchester including Preston, using as much force as was necessary to bring mills to a standstill. The Preston Strike of 1842 resulted in a riot where four men were shot on 13 August at Lune Street. The West Riding of Yorkshire saw disturbances at Bradford, Huddersfield and Hunslet. At least six people died in a riot at Halifax.


1842 general strike, Analysis
One perspective is that the movement remained, to outward appearances, largely non-political. Although the People's Charter was praised at public meetings, the resolutions that were passed at these were in almost all cases merely for a restoration of the wages of 1820, a ten-hour working day, or reduced rents.


1842 general strike, Analysis
In contrast, Mick Jenkins in his "General Strike of 1842" offers a Marxist interpretation which sees the strike as becoming insurrectionary and intrinsically linked to the Chartist movement. "What clearly emerges... is the changing character of the strike--an understanding that the main aim of the strike was for the People's Charter" (p. 144). He cites resolutions in support of the Reform Bill and the Charter. Jenkins also sees the political nature of the strike expressed in the repression of the strikers: "When the meeting had assembled, a party of the Rifle Brigade charged into the crowd, and one man had his hand run through with a bayonet." (p. 143).


1842 general strike, Analysis
The repression that followed was "unmatched in the nineteenth century... In the North-West alone over 1,500 strikers were brought to trial" (p. 119). John Foster, in his introduction, argues that Jenkins' account of the strike "compels historians to reassess a number of crucial aspects in the country's political development" (p. 13). In considering universal suffrage, he argues that "historians have tended to emphasize the inevitability of Britain's progress towards majority rule. A study of 1842 supplies a useful corrective.


1842 general strike, Analysis
It spurs us to look in a quite different direction to ask why universal suffrage was withheld for so long and what combination of forces made it possible to do this" (p. 14) and "how the demand for universal suffrage was successfully resisted, and in what way the working class was persuaded not to make political use again of its industrial strength ... poses the most interesting and fundamental problem" (p. 16).


1842 in Australia
The following lists events that happened during 1842 in Australia.


1842 in Chile
The following lists events that happened during 1842 in Chile.


1842 in New Zealand
The following lists events that happened during 1842 in New Zealand.


1842 in New Zealand, Population
The estimated population of New Zealand at the end of 1842 is 76,900 Māori and 10,992 non-Māori (a 120% increase in 1 year).


1842 in New Zealand, Sport, Cricket
The first recorded game in Wellington is played in December.


1842 in South Africa
The following lists events that happened during 1842 in South Africa.


1842 in Wales
This article is about the particular significance of the year 1842 to Wales and its people.


1842 in literature
This article contains information about the literary events and publications of 1842.


1842 in paleontology
Paleontology or palaeontology is the study of prehistoric life forms on Earth through the examination of plant and animal fossils. This includes the study of body fossils, tracks (ichnites), burrows, cast-off parts, fossilised feces (coprolites), palynomorphs and chemical residues. Because humans have encountered fossils for millennia, paleontology has a long history both before and after becoming formalized as a science. This article records significant discoveries and events related to paleontology that occurred or were published in the year 1842.


1842 in poetry
Nationality words link to articles with information on the nation's poetry or literature (for instance, Irish or France).


1842 in poetry, Births
Death years link to the corresponding "[year] in poetry" article:


1842 in poetry, Deaths
Birth years link to the corresponding "[year] in poetry" article:


1842 in rail transport
This article lists events related to rail transport that occurred in 1842.


1842 in science
The year 1842 in science and technology involved some significant events, listed below.


1842 in sports
1842 in sports describes the year's events in world sport.


1842 retreat from Kabul
The 1842 retreat from Kabul, also called the Massacre of Elphinstone's army, during the First Anglo-Afghan War, was the retreat of the British and East India Company forces from Kabul. An uprising in Kabul forced the then commander, Major General Sir William Elphinstone, to fall back to the British garrison at Jalalabad. As the army and its numerous dependents and camp followers began its march, it came under attack from Afghan tribesmen. Many of the column died of exposure, frostbite or starvation or were killed during the fighting.


1842 retreat from Kabul
At the beginning of the conflict, British and East India Company forces had defeated the forces of Afghan Emir Dost Mohammad Barakzai and in 1839 occupied Kabul, restoring the former ruler, Shah Shujah Durrani, as emir. However a deteriorating situation made their position more and more precarious, until an uprising in Kabul forced Maj. Gen. Elphinstone to withdraw. To this end he negotiated an agreement with Wazir Akbar Khan, one of the sons of Dost Mohammad Barakzai, by which his army was to fall back to the British garrison at Jalalabad, more than 140 kilometres (90 mi) away.


1842 retreat from Kabul
The Afghans launched numerous attacks against the column as it made slow progress through the winter snows of the Hindu Kush. In total the British army lost 4,500 troops, along with about 12,000 civilians: the latter comprising both the families of Indian and British soldiers, plus workmen, servants and other Indian camp-followers. The final stand was made just outside a village called Gandamak on 13 January.


1842 retreat from Kabul
Out of more than 16,000 people from the column commanded by Elphinstone, only one European (Assistant Surgeon William Brydon) and a few Indian sepoys reached Jalalabad. Over one hundred British prisoners and civilian hostages were later released. Around 2,000 of the Indians, many of whom were maimed by frostbite, survived and returned to Kabul to exist by begging or to be sold into slavery. Some at least returned to India after another British invasion of Kabul several months later, but others remained behind in Afghanistan.


1842 retreat from Kabul
In 2013, a writer for The Economist called the retreat "the worst British military disaster until the fall of Singapore exactly a century later."


1842 retreat from Kabul, Background
In 1838 the British East India Company feared an increased Russian influence in Afghanistan after Dost Mohammad Barakzai had seized power from former ruler Shuja Shah Durrani in 1834. Dost Mohammad had rejected earlier overtures from Russia, but after Lord Auckland, the Governor-General of India, tried to force Afghan foreign policy under British guidance, he renewed his relationship with the Russians. Lord Auckland followed the counsel of his adviser William Hay Macnaghten to support Shuja Shah, dismissing the advice of Alexander Burnes that Dost Mohammad should be supported, and resolved to seek a military solution. He began to assemble his forces in late 1838.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Background
The army, under the command of General Sir Willoughby Cotton, with Macnaghten as his chief adviser, consisted of 20,000 soldiers and were accompanied by 38,000 civilian camp followers (craftsmen, stretcher bearers, cooks, servants, barbers, tailors, armourers, cameleers, etc., as well as families of both Indian and British soldiers). In March 1839 they crossed the Bolan Pass and began their march to Kabul. They advanced through rough terrain, crossing deserts and mountain passes at an elevation of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) but made good progress and took Kandahar on 25 April.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Background
They also captured the until-then impregnable fortress of Ghazni on 22 July in a surprise attack, losing 200 men killed and wounded while the Afghans lost nearly 500 men killed and 1,600 taken prisoner, with an unknown number wounded. An Afghan had betrayed his sovereign and the British troops managed to blow one city gate and marched into the city in a euphoric mood. The ample supplies acquired in Ghazni considerably aided the further advance, which otherwise would have been difficult.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Background
Dost Mohammad fled and sought refuge in the wilds of the Hindu Kush. Kabul fell without a fight on 6 August 1839. Shuja Shah returned and was proclaimed emir by the British. He established a court in the fortress of Bala Hissar above Kabul.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Background
More than a year later, Dost Mohammad surrendered to Macnaghten on 4 November 1840 and was exiled to India.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Occupation
In August 1839 the British, under pressure from Shah Shuja, refrained from remaining in occupation of Kabul's citadel, instead establishing their military cantonments 2.5 kilometres (1+1⁄2 miles) outside Kabul. This decision, made on diplomatic grounds, would prove to be a grave military error, as the garrison was sited in a defensively weak position.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Occupation
As political agent and envoy at the court of Shuja Shah, Macnaghten became a leader of British society in Kabul. The city was described at the time as clean and pleasant with many spacious wooden houses surrounded by well-kept gardens. The occupiers enjoyed themselves arranging cricket matches, horse races and hunting parties. In the evenings amateur dramatics were staged by East India Company officers and their wives.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Occupation
Performances included Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. It was considered a special honour to be invited to evening soirées hosted by Lady Florentia Sale, the wife of Brigadier-General Robert Henry Sale. Such social gatherings often saw the serving of salmon and stew with madeira, port and champagne. Under these conditions, many of the East India Company troops were sent back to their garrisons in India.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Occupation
While the British enjoyed this lifestyle, some Afghans chafed under occupation by a foreign power. Rumours of relationships between British soldiers and Afghan women created tensions in Kabul. Britain had replaced Dost Mohammad, a (relatively) popular ruler, with Shuja Shah, a weak puppet, who was seen as much more cruel and vindictive to his enemies than his predecessor. In 1840, the son of Dost Mohammad, Wazir Akbar Khan, began assembling allies amongst the tribesmen in the rural areas where British influence was weakest. He initiated a guerrilla war that kept the East India Company troops permanently on the move.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Occupation
The efforts to control Afghanistan were further weakened by the British government in India. Dismayed at the costs of maintaining the large garrison in Kabul, it discontinued the periodic subsidies (essentially bribes) that had been paid to the various tribes in the region around Kabul and the Khyber Pass to keep the peace. Once these ended, the tribes saw no more reason to remain loyal to the British-supported regime. Macnaghten dismissed warnings from his officers, writing to his superiors in India that "this is the usual state of Afghan society". As the spring and summer of 1841 progressed, British freedom of movement around Kabul became increasingly restricted.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Occupation
Despite this ominous turn of events, Sir Willoughby Cotton was replaced as commander of the remaining British troops by Sir William Elphinstone, who was ill at the time and initially unwilling to accept the appointment. The 59-year-old Elphinstone had entered the British army in 1804. He was made a Companion of the Bath for leading the 33rd Regiment of Foot at the Battle of Waterloo. By 1825 he had been promoted to colonel and then to major-general in 1837. Although Elphinstone was a man of high birth and perfect manners, his colleague and contemporary General William Nott regarded him as "the most incompetent soldier that was to be found amongst all the officers of requisite rank".


1842 retreat from Kabul, Occupation
In the autumn of 1841 Brigadier-General Robert Henry Sale and his brigade was recalled to Jalalabad, which was on the military line of communication between Kabul and Peshawar. He left his wife, Lady Sale, behind in the British cantonments in Kabul.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Afghan uprising
On 2 November 1841, Akbar Khan proclaimed a general revolt and the citizens of Kabul quickly followed suit. They stormed the house of Sir Alexander Burnes, one of the senior British political officers, and killed him and his staff. Both Elphinstone and Macnaghten were caught by surprise. By now the East India Company only had 4,500 men in and around Kabul, of which 690 were Europeans. But as Elphinstone took no action in response to the killing of Burnes, it only encouraged further revolt. On 9 November the emboldened Afghans stormed a poorly defended supply fort inside Kabul.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Afghan uprising
On 23 November, Afghan forces occupied a hill overlooking the British cantonments and began bombarding the camp with two guns. A British force sallied out to drive them away but the Afghans inflicted heavy casualties firing jezails at long range from the high ground. The East India troops fled leaving behind 300 wounded to be killed. Morale was now a serious issue for the British force in Kabul. Elphinstone called for reinforcements from Major General Nott in Kandahar but they turned back when they found the mountain passes blocked by heavy snow.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Afghan uprising
Macnaghten, realising their desperate situation, tried to negotiate an agreement with Akbar Khan for the withdrawal of the troops and the 12,000 British and Indian civilians still at Kabul. On 23 December, Afghan leaders invited Macnaghten for tea to discuss the situation. However, at the moment the British delegation dismounted from their horses they were seized and Macnaghten and an aide were slain by armed men. Later Macnaghten's body was mutilated and dragged through the streets of Kabul.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Afghan uprising
The cavalry escort which was supposed to protect the British diplomats had been delayed and had not joined them. Two other British officers who had been part of Macnaghten's party were subsequently released. Elphinstone had already partly lost command of his troops as his authority continued to diminish.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Afghan uprising
To the dismay of his officers, Elphinstone ignored the killing of a British representative and took no punitive action. Major Eldred Pottinger succeeded Macnaghten as envoy to the Afghan court. On 1 January 1842, Elphinstone agreed to Akbar Khan's terms which contained some unfavourable conditions. For example, all gunpowder reserves had to be handed over, along with the newest muskets and most of the cannon. However, in return Akbar Khan promised a safe passage from Kabul for all foreign troops and civilians, amongst them children, women and the elderly. The withdrawal, which would begin on 6 January, involved crossing the snow-covered mountains of the Hindu Kush descending to Jalalabad, 140 kilometres (90 mi) away.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Elphinstone's army
Elphinstone commanded a column consisting of one British infantry battalion (the 44th Regiment of Foot), three regiments of regular Bengal Native Infantry (the 5th, 37th and 54th BNI), one regiment of Shah Shujah's Levy (a British-subsidised force of Indian troops recruited for Afghan service), Anderson's Irregular Horse, the 5th Bengal Light Cavalry and six guns of the Bengal Horse Artillery (with sappers).


1842 retreat from Kabul, Elphinstone's army
In total, there were 700 British and 3,800 Indian troops. The camp followers, Indian and British families, their servants and civilian workers, numbered approximately 14,000.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
At first light on 6 January Elphinstone's column began slowly to move out of Kabul leaving Shuja Shah Durrani and his followers to their fate. As Akbar Khan had guaranteed safety to all concerned, the sick, wounded and infirm were also left behind. However once the rearguard finally left the cantonments, Afghans quickly moved in and began firing at the retreating troops from the walls while setting fire to the garrison buildings, killing all those left behind.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
On leaving the city, Elphinstone discovered that the escort promised by Akbar Khan had not materialised, nor had the food and fuel to help with the crossing of the Hindu Kush in winter. Major Eldred Pottinger pleaded with the sick British commander to turn back to Kabul as they still had time to take refuge in the fortress of Bala Hissar. But Elphinstone said there would be no turning back and they would proceed to Jalalabad. The column of 16,000 soldiers and civilians was now at the mercy of the Afghan tribes.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
By the second day, sniping from the surrounding hills was taking its toll on the slow-moving column. Despite being well armed, the troops' progress was being hindered by the terrified civilians and camp followers. Small skirmishes were frequent. The Afghans succeeded in capturing some of the column's artillery while forcing the British to spike two of their three remaining pieces. In just 24 hours the column now had only one small gun and two heavier cannons left.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
Later that afternoon, Akbar Khan met Elphinstone, feigning ignorance to any treachery on his part. He told the British that he had been unable to provide the agreed escort because they had left their cantonments earlier than expected. Akbar Khan then asked Elphinstone to wait while he negotiated the column's safe passage with the Afghan chiefs who commanded Khord-Kabul pass 25 kilometres (15 mi) from Kabul. Despite what had already occurred, the British commander agreed to the terms and waited. He also agreed to hand over three more European hostages to Akbar Khan.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
Instead of hurrying forward, Elphinstone had moved only ten kilometres (6 mi) from Kabul. By now efforts to maintain military cohesion had also begun to fail. When the column entered the narrow six-kilometre (four-mile) pass the next day, they were shot at from all sides by Ghilzais armed with captured British muskets and their traditional jezails. It was now apparent Akbar Khan had not been negotiating their safe passage; it was actually a ruse to give the Afghans more time to get into position for an ambush.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
Throughout the third day, the column laboured through the pass. Once the main body had moved through, the Afghans left their positions to massacre the stragglers and the wounded. By the evening of 9 January, the column had only moved 40 kilometres (25 mi) but already 3,000 people had died. Many had been killed in the fighting, but some had frozen to death or taken their own lives. A written report by Elphinstone recorded that most of the sepoys had by this stage lost fingers or toes in the freezing conditions, and that their snow-encrusted muskets had become unusable.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
By the fourth day, a few hundred native soldiers deserted and tried to return to Kabul, but they were all either killed or enslaved. By now Elphinstone, who had ceased giving orders, sat silently on his horse. On the evening of 9 January, Lady Sale, along with the wives and children of both British and Indian officers, and their retinues, accepted Akbar Khan's assurances of protection. Despite deep mistrust, the group was taken into the custody of Akbar's men. Once they were hostages, all the Indian servants and sepoy wives were murdered.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
By the evening of 11 January, the army had been reduced to 200 men. The small rearguard was led by Brigadier-General John Shelton who, for the first time in the retreat, showed his competence and led a fierce resistance against the Afghans. As the surviving troops lay besieged in a small ruined mud-walled enclosure in Jagadalak, Akbar Khan's envoys returned and persuaded Elphinstone and his second in command, Shelton, to accompany them for negotiations.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
Akbar Khan brought the two officers to his camp and provided them with dinner. The reasons for his hospitality soon became clear however and both officers were refused permission to return to their men. Shelton became furious and demanded the right as an officer and soldier to return to lead his men and die fighting.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
On 12 January, the column, having lost their commander and over 12,000 casualties, decided that their only hope was to wait till night and press on in the dark. The remaining troops, now led by Brigadier-General Thomas John Anquetil, found their path blocked by a formidable thorny barrier of 'prickly holly oak, well twisted together, about six feet high' which had been erected across the narrowest part of the valley. Most of the men who attempted to scale the barrier were shot down before they could reach the other side.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
All discipline amongst the remainder of the men who were trapped by the barrier now ended and the Afghans closed in to finish them off. The few remaining men who had managed to scale the barrier began a desperate gallop towards Jalalabad but many were slaughtered in a melee just after reaching the other side of the barrier.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
The biggest single surviving group of men, consisting of 20 officers and 45 European soldiers, mostly infantry from the 44th Regiment of Foot, tried to press on but found themselves surrounded on a snowy hillock near the village of Gandamak. With only 20 working muskets and two shots per weapon, the troops refused to surrender. A British sergeant is said to have cried "not bloody likely!" when the Afghans tried to persuade the soldiers they would spare their lives.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
Sniping then began, followed by a series of rushes; soon the hillock was overrun by tribesmen. An officer named Captain Souter was mistaken by the Afghans as a high-ranking officer because they thought he was wearing a general's yellow waistcoat. In fact the officer had wrapped the regimental colours of the 44th Foot around his body. He was dragged into captivity along with a sergeant named Fair and seven privates. The remaining troops were killed.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
Another group of fifteen mounted officers managed to reach as far as the village of Fattehabad but ten were killed while sitting down to accept breakfast from the villagers, four were shot from the rooftops as they remounted their horses and attempted to flee the village and one was tracked down and beheaded.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
On 13 January, a British officer from the 16,000 strong column rode into Jalalabad on a wounded horse (a few sepoys, who had hidden in the mountains, followed in the coming weeks). Assistant Surgeon William Brydon, who was riding a pony taken from a mortally wounded officer after being begged by the man not to let it fall into anyone else's hands, continued on despite him and his pony being severely wounded in several skirmishes with roaming bands of Afghans.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
On 13 January and now just kilometres from Jalalabad, Brydon had to fight for his life against a party of Afghan horsemen. After escaping a single pursuer, he was spotted by a staff officer on the walls of Jalalabad who immediately dispatched riders to meet the exhausted surgeon. Brydon was asked upon arrival what happened to the army, to which he answered "I am the army".


1842 retreat from Kabul, Retreat and massacre
Although part of his skull had been sheared off by a sword, he ultimately survived because he had insulated his hat with a magazine which deflected the blow. Brydon later published a memoir of the death march. The pony he rode was said to have lain down in a stable and never got up. For several nights, lights were raised on the gates of Jalalabad and bugles were sounded from the walls in the hope of guiding any further survivors to safety.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Aftermath
The annihilation left Britain and India in shock and the Governor General, Lord Auckland, suffered an apparent stroke upon hearing the news. In the autumn of 1842, an "Army of Retribution" led by Sir George Pollock, with William Nott and Robert Sale commanding divisions, leveled the great bazaar and all the larger buildings of Kabul. Sale personally rescued his wife Lady Sale and some other hostages from the hands of Wazir Akbar Khan. However, the slaughter of an army by Afghan tribesmen was humiliating for the British authorities in India.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Aftermath
Of the British prisoners, 32 officers, over 50 soldiers, 21 children and 12 women survived to be released in September 1842. An unknown number of sepoys and other Indian prisoners were sold into slavery in Kabul or kept as captives in mountain villages. One sepoy, Havildar Sita Ram, escaped from Afghanistan after 21 months of slavery and rejoined his former regiment at Delhi. Around 2,000 sepoys and camp followers were eventually found in Kabul and brought back to India by General Pollock's army.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Aftermath
The leadership of Elphinstone is seen as a notorious example of how the ineptitude and indecisiveness of a senior officer could compromise the morale and effectiveness of a whole army (though already much depleted). Elphinstone completely failed to lead his soldiers, but fatally exerted enough authority to prevent any of his officers from exercising proper command in his place.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Aftermath
Historians still debate whether Akbar Khan ordered the massacre, sanctioned it, or was simply unable to prevent it. Some of the British officers and families taken hostage later claimed that Akbar Khan had called out "Spare them!" in Persian, but "Kill them!" in Pashto to the tribesmen. Either way, the British reaction to such an atrocity must have been clear to him. He died near the end of 1847, possibly poisoned by his father Dost Mohammad, who may have feared his ambitions.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Aftermath
Dost Mohammad remained a British prisoner till the end of 1841 when he was set free by the British authorities who, after they took their revenge on Kabul, had resolved to abandon any attempts to intervene in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. After Shuja Shah was assassinated in April 1842, Dost Mohammad quickly reestablished his authority. He died on 9 June 1863 of natural causes, one of the few Afghan rulers in the past thousand years to do so. Even after the two British invasions of his country, he did not intervene in any manner during the Indian Rebellion of 1857.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Aftermath
The destruction of several regiments of Indian troops during the retreat inevitably affected the morale of the East India Company's Bengal Army from which these units had been drawn. The reputation for invincibility previously enjoyed by the company was broken. "Men remembered Kabul," commented a British officer at the outbreak of the great Bengal mutiny fifteen years later.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Depictions
German novelist and poet Theodor Fontane in 1858 wrote the ballad Das Trauerspiel von Afghanistan (The Tragedy of Afghanistan).


1842 retreat from Kabul, Depictions
British writer George MacDonald Fraser describes this event in the first book of his Flashman Papers series, Flashman.


1842 retreat from Kabul, Depictions
Victoria (2017) episode "A Soldier's Daughter" dramatizes Brydon's survival in the retreat. In the show, Queen Victoria responds to the loss of life in the retreat with a speech at the launch of HMS Trafalgar, and by privately meeting and honouring Brydon.


1843
1843 (MDCCCXLIII) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar and a common year starting on Friday of the Julian calendar, the 1843rd year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 843rd  year of the 2nd millennium, the 43rd  year of the 19th century, and the  4th   year of the 1840s decade. As of the start of 1843, the Gregorian calendar was 12 days ahead of the Julian calendar, which remained in localized use until 1923.


1843 (magazine)
1843 (formerly Intelligent Life) is a digital magazine published by The Economist which features longform narrative journalism as well as shorter reads and columns. Named after the year The Economist was founded, 1843 offers a complementary perspective to its sister publication, focusing more on people and stories, rather than analysis. Like The Economist, 1843 is based in London and has a global readership which includes America. Like the newspaper, the magazine is owned by The Economist Group, a British media holding company.


1843 (magazine), History
The magazine was launched under the title Intelligent Life in September 2007 as a quarterly publication, having previously been a summer annual and was billed as covering "the arts, style, food, wine, cars, travel and anything else under the sun, as long as it’s interesting".


1843 (magazine), History
In March 2016, The Economist Group relaunched and rebranded Intelligent Life as 1843 (named for The Economist's founding year).


1843 (magazine), History
1843 magazine features contributions from The Economist's journalists, as well as writers and photographers from around the world. It is edited by Rosie Blau. It is seen as akin to The Wall Street Journal's WSJ. and the Financial Times' FT Magazine.


1843 (magazine), History
It has won awards for its journalism from the British Society of Magazine Editors, the Association of Illustrators, British Journalism Awards, the  Media Awards, the , Fortnum & Mason Food and Drink Awards and the .


1843 (magazine), History
In May 2020 it was announced that 1843 would move to a digital-only format.


1843 Belgian general election
Partial legislative elections were held in Belgium on 12 June 1843. In the Senate elections Catholics won 32 seats and Liberals 13. Voter turnout was 86.0%, although only 21,865 people were eligible to vote.


1843 Belgian general election
Under the alternating system, Chamber elections were only held in four out of the nine provinces: East Flanders, Hainaut, Liège and Limburg. Thus, 47 of the 95 Chamber seats were up for election.