1835 Philadelphia general strike, Boston circular
During the 1820s and 1830s, a number of strikes were commenced to shorten the work day. In June 1827 some 600 Philadelphia journeymen carpenters – that is, the wage laborers employed by master carpenters – went on strike for the citywide establishment of the ten-hour day. Carpenters in Boston, Massachusetts, similarly struck for a ten-hour workday in 1825 and 1832. However, the strikes were unsuccessful at shortening the work day.


1835 Philadelphia general strike, Boston circular
In 1835 Boston carpenters went on strike again for a ten-hour workday and were soon joined by masons and stone-cutters. The strikers chose Seth Luther and two other workers as leaders, and they issued a circular stating their demands. The circular read in part "We have been too long subjected to the odious, cruel, unjust and tyrannical system which compels the operative mechanic to exhaust his physical and mental powers. We have rights and duties to perform as American citizens and members of society, which forbid us to dispose of more than ten hours for a day's work."


1835 Philadelphia general strike, Boston circular
During the strike, the Boston workers organized a travelling committee and requested the assistance of workers in other cities. The Boston circular was well received by workers throughout the country. Although the Boston strike was eventually defeated, the circular was pivotal in motivating workers in Philadelphia to organize their own strike that year for a ten-hour workday. The president of the Carpenter's Society of Philadelphia, William Thompson, told Seth Luther that "the carpenters considered the Boston circular had broken their shackles, loosened their chains, and made them free from the galling yoke of excessive labor."


1835 Philadelphia general strike, General strike
Influenced by events in Boston, unskilled Irish workers on the Schuylkill River coal wharves the same year went on strike for a ten-hour day. Three hundred workers marched on the coal wharves. They were led by a worker with a sword who threatened death to anyone who crossed the picket line and unloaded coal from the 75 vessels waiting in the water. The coal heavers were soon joined by workers from many other trades, including leather dressers, printers, carpenters, bricklayers, masons, house painters, bakers, and city employees.


1835 Philadelphia general strike, General strike
On June 6, a mass meeting of workers, lawyers, doctors, and a few businessmen, was held in the State House courtyard. The meeting unanimously adopted a set of resolutions giving full support to the workers' demand for wage increases and a shorter workday, as well as increased wages for women workers and a boycott of any coal merchant who worked his men more than ten hours.


1835 Philadelphia general strike, General strike
The strike quickly came to a close after city public works employees joined the action. The Philadelphia city government announced that the "hours of labour of the working men employed under the authority of the city corporation would be from 'six to six' during the summers season, allowing one hour for breakfast, and one for dinner." On June 22, three weeks after the coal heavers initially struck, the ten-hour system and an increase in wages for piece-workers was adopted in the city.


1835 Philadelphia general strike, Aftermath
The news of the strikers' success spread to other cities and was given large coverage. The labor press carried the news as far south as the Carolinas, and a wave of successful strikes followed in its wake. Strikes for the ten-hour day hit towns such as New Brunswick and Paterson, New Jersey, Batavia and Seneca Falls, New York, Hartford, Connecticut, and Salem, Massachusetts. By the end of 1835, the ten-hour day had become the standard for most city laborers who worked by the day with the exception of workers in Boston. Subsequently, the ten-hour day became an integral part of the labor movement in Europe.


1835 Speaker of the British House of Commons election
The 1835 election of the Speaker of the House of Commons occurred on 19 February 1835.


1835 Speaker of the British House of Commons election
Sir Charles Manners-Sutton, Speaker since 1817, was seeking an eighth term in office. He was proposed by Lord Francis Egerton and seconded by Sir Charles Burrell.


1835 Speaker of the British House of Commons election
James Abercromby was proposed by William Denison and seconded by William Ord.


1835 Speaker of the British House of Commons election
Both candidates addressed the House. Manners-Sutton denied the three charges of partisanship against him – that he had obstructed the previous Whig government, assisted in the formation of the new Conservative government, and had advised that the previous Parliament be dissolved.


1835 Speaker of the British House of Commons election
The motion "That the Right Hon. Sir Charles Manners Sutton do take the Chair of this House as Speaker" was defeated by 306 votes to 316, a majority of 10. The amended motion "That the Right Hon. James Abercromby do take the Chair of this House as Speaker" was then passed without division.


1835 Speaker of the British House of Commons election
This was the only Speaker election since 1780 in which the incumbent Speaker was defeated. The elections of 1833 and 1835 were the only elections since 1780 in which an incumbent Speaker seeking re-election was opposed.


1835 United Kingdom general election
The 1835 United Kingdom general election was called when Parliament was dissolved on 29 December 1834. Polling took place between 6 January and 6 February 1835, and the results saw Robert Peel's Conservatives make large gains from their low of the 1832 election, but the Whigs maintained a large majority.


1835 United Kingdom general election
Under the terms of the Lichfield House Compact the Whigs had entered into an electoral pact with the Irish Repeal Association of Daniel O'Connell, which had contested the previous election as a separate party. The Radicals were also included in this alliance.


1835 United Kingdom general election, Dates of election
The eleventh United Kingdom Parliament was dissolved on 29 December 1834. The new Parliament was summoned to meet on 19 February 1835, for a maximum seven-year term from that date. The maximum term could be and normally was curtailed, by the monarch dissolving the Parliament, before its term expired.


1835 United Kingdom general election, Dates of election
At this period there was not one election day. After receiving a writ (a royal command) for the election to be held, the local returning officer fixed the election timetable for the particular constituency or constituencies he was concerned with. Polling in seats with contested elections could continue for many days.


1835 United Kingdom general election, Dates of election
The general election took place between January and February 1835. The first nomination was on 5 January, with the first contest on 6 January and the last contest on 6 February 1835. It was usual for polling in the University constituencies and in Orkney and Shetland to take place about a week after other seats. Disregarding contests in the Universities and Orkney and Shetland, the last poll was on 27 January 1835.


1835 United Kingdom general election, Dates of election
Peel ran a minority Conservative government until 8 April 1835, after being unable to form a majority. Melbourne subsequently became Prime Minister forming a Whig government.


1835 United Kingdom general election in Ireland
The 1835 British general election in Ireland saw a Lichfield House Compact of Whigs, Radicals, and the Repeal Association winning a majority of Irish seats. The coalition in total won 68 seats, with the Whigs and the Repeal Association winning 34 seats each.


1835 United Kingdom general election in Ireland, Results
Not included in the totals are the two Dublin University seats, which the Conservatives retained.


1835 United States Senate elections in Michigan
The new state of Michigan elected its new senators in 1835, both Jacksonians: Lucius Lyon (Class 1) and John Norvell (Class 2). They were not seated until January 26, 1837 due to a territorial dispute with Ohio. In the term beginning March 4, 1837, they would sit as Democrats.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike
The Washington Navy Yard labor strike of 1835 is considered the first strike of federal civilian employees. The strike began on Wednesday July 31, 1835, and ended August 15, 1835. The strike was in support of the movement advocating a ten-hour work day and for a redress of grievances such as newly imposed lunch-hour regulations. The strike failed in its objectives for two reasons, the secretary of the Navy refused to change the shipyard working hours and the loss of public support due to involvement of large numbers of mechanics and laborers in the race riot popularly known as the Snow Riot or Snow Storm.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
1835 was an important year for American labor with workers particularly in Boston, Philadelphia, New York City and Washington D.C. petitioning for higher wages, better working conditions and a ten-hour workday. In Washington D.C. from early in the nineteenth century workers agitated for a reduction in the arduous twelve-hour workday. At the Navy Yard employment conditions, and enslaved labor created problems and strife. For the first thirty years of the nineteenth century, the Navy Yard was the District's principal employer of enslaved African Americans.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
"Competition for jobs on the navy yard was constant ... white workers feared that competition from enslaved and even free blacks dragged down the wage scale." On the yard enslaved African Americans worked as seamen, cooks, servants or laborers; they performed most of the unpleasant and onerous jobs. The white workers at the Navy Yard feared and resented the enslaved and hated free blacks as competitors who would drag down the wage scale. At the Navy Yard most white workers "opposed slavery in their workplace but simultaneously were opposed to black freedom and abolition."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
During Commodore Thomas Tingey's tenure from 1801 to 1829, his correspondence with the Board of Navy Commissioners reflects, that after wage demands; racially based complaints were the most frequent issue needing resolution. The number of blacks, free and enslaved, rose rapidly and by 1808, muster lists reflect that blacks made up one third of the workforce. The District of Columbia slave population actually reach its peak of 4,520 in 1820. Thereafter rapid demographic changes, exerted profound social ones, as the number of free blacks increased.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
The 1830 census for the District reflected the black population was 9,109 and for the first time this figure included more free blacks 4,604 (50.5%) then enslaved 4,505 (49.5%). The number of free blacks continued to increase with each decade, by 1860 the black population totaled 14,316 of which 11,131 were free (77.8%) and so did the anxiety of white workers who feared ever increasing economic competition. On the Navy Yard, slaveholders included both naval officers and senior civilians who collected the wages of their slaves, rented to the Navy Yard.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
Labor trouble and racial tension broke out periodically as the restive and volatile workforce sought higher wages and better conditions. Most all naval shipyard workers were per diem or day labor. As such, they were subject to the whims of the annual Congressional appropriation and periodic seasonal reductions in the workforce. Workers during the early nineteenth century lived in a state of constant anxiety regarding employment and wages.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
Wages were subject to considerable change, in some cases daily pay fluctuated dramatically, e.g. Washington Navy Yard carpenters' wages were reduced from a high of $2.50 per day in 1808 to $1.64 per day in 1820. Workers actively responded to pay cuts, as early as March 1807; the blacksmiths writing to Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith claimed the "right to Demand an Equal Participation with others in the Benefit of our Labour" and demanded their wages restored.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
The secretary in reply labeled them "a dissatisfied set of men" and threatened to "dismiss all complaining men as soon as publick convenience will permit" and replace them with a "set of orderly, hard working fellows". Three Washington Navy Yard "job actions" had occurred previously. On September 29, 1806, Commodore Thomas Tingey reported to Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith of his problems with "the Ship Carpenters, Smiths and Riggers" who were upset that their wages had been reduced. The ship "Joiners too, believed that they also were to remain at their former rate of pay.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
They therefore remonstrated; but were informed it could not then be altered - A few days afterwards (in the first week of August) they unanimously withdrew from work and deputized 3 or 4 of their numbers, who came to the yard presented a written paper to Captain Cassin, who offered it to me, I refused to receive or peruse it. ... It is undeniable that I consider them a steady and valuable set of workmen ... but I deem it inadmissible to advocate, raising their pay to 1.75 per diem."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
The second on 13 March 1827, when a dispute over wages provoked laborers to leave the yard briefly to express their displeasure. The third began on 23 March 1830, when the laborers were recorded "standing out" for a week to show that their per diem wage rate should have been granted sooner. These job actions represent a period when federal workers, though not unionized, could strike - an option later denied to government employees with the passage of the 1947 Taft–Hartley Act.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
Except for the brief entries made by the commanding officer to the secretary of the Navy or the officer of the watch in the station log, little is known about the exact circumstances of these early incidents. In the United States during the first decades of the nineteenth century "strikes constituted illegal conspiracies under common law, exposing labor to criminal prosecution". Although rarely enforced, strikes, sometimes led local authorities to call out the militia. Federal employee organizations were in their infancy, and mostly limited to charitable endeavors.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
On the Washington Navy Yard, the first such organization, was the Navy Yard Beneficial Society founded in 1804. While not representing workers' economic interests, the society did provide members with a nominal sum of fifty cents per pay period, the assurance of a decent funeral, and financial assistance to their spouse and minor children. Records regarding the Navy Yard Beneficial Society are scarce, but early employee obituaries provide evidence that it was very active as a charitable group from 1804 to the 1860s.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
The workday in all federal navy yards prior to 1835 was sunrise to sunset, with time off for breakfast and lunch. In May 1835, the Boston carpenters issued their famous "Ten Hour Circular", advocating a ten-hour day which found wide distribution throughout the major cities on the eastern seaboard and the District of Columbia and quickly became a rallying cry for reducing the length of the working day.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
On March 26, 1835, the mechanics in the New York Navy Yard (Brooklyn), petitioned the Board of Navy Commissioners to reduce the workday to ten hours, they stated, "the present custom of laboring on the public works of the Naval Service, from sunrise to sunset, is in summer an inconvenience and hardship to the workman." They requested that the day of labor on the works of the naval service, may not exceed ten hours. Their petition was returned to them with the advice, "that in the Board of Navy Commissioners opinion, ...


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
it would be inconsistent with the public interests, to regulate the working hours in the Navy Yards as proposed in the memorial". In the summer of 1835 Philadelphia Navy Yard shipwrights, joiners and other workers became leaders in this effort when they chose to combine direct action, a threatened strike, with political pressure to the executive branch. After first making a request to the secretary of the Navy via shipyard Commandant Commodore James Barron, on August 29, 1835, they appealed directly to President Andrew Jackson.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Historical background
Commodore Barron endorsed his workers' request with the following acknowledgment "I would respectfully observe – Seems to be inevitable, sooner or later, for as the working man are seconded by all the Master workmen, city councils etc. there is no probability they will secede from their demands." Their petition was granted and on August 31, 1835, the president ordered the secretary of the Navy to grant the ten-hour work day effective September 3, 1835. However, the change was only applicable to the Philadelphia Navy Yard. News of these events at Philadelphia Navy Yard was widely circulated in Washington D.C.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Commodore Isaac Hull
Lastly Commodore Isaac Hull, Washington Navy Yard Commandant from 1829 to 1835, was unpopular with Navy Yard civilian workforce and frequently had difficulties with employees. The Washington Navy Yard workers would have heard of Hull's litany of problems in 1822 while in command of Charlestown Navy Yard, known as Boston Navy Yard. Hull's tenure as commandant at Boston was marred and hindered by a lack of familiarity with the administration of a large shore installation, the management of the civilian workforce and by the moves to dislodge him by some of his own senior and junior naval officers.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Commodore Isaac Hull
Matters got worse when a number of his officers and senior civilians made public accusations questioning Hull's overall command. In view of the serious nature of their charges a Naval Court of Inquiry met in Charlestown during August 1822 to consider the accusations brought against Hull. On 15 October 1822 the court found Hull had acted properly and within his scope of authority and in his official duties had been "correct and meritorious." Nevertheless, the court cautioned Hull regarding placing his personal property in public stores and the employment of navy yard mechanics and laborers for private purposes.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Commodore Isaac Hull
But the bitterness of the affair never really left Hull for as he wrote "This yard is much improved and in fine order for whoever may take it. I am tired of this kind of life and particularly of this place, and have nothing but constant quarrels with the Charleston people."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Commodore Isaac Hull
Ar Washington Navy Yard, Hull's acrimony toward mechanics in general and  his changes to the established shipyard routine, brought similar problems with the labor force. The workers felt he treated them with "silent contempt" which may have been the result of his deafness. Hull, for his part, came to believe that most Navy Yard mechanics were overpaid and underworked. In a revealing 1831 letter, Hull wrote to the president of the Board of Navy Commissioners:


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Commodore Isaac Hull
If the men employed by day would perform fair days work, it would be much to the public interest to have the work done in that way, [rather than by contract] but experience has shewn me that all the care and attention possible to give them and all the driving and encouragement is thrown away on the mechanics of this place, for if they are at work by the day on a building that there is the least chance of keeping through the whole season they will be sure to do so though it might be completed by mid-summer.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
The spark that ignited Washington Navy Yard strike occurred on July 29, 1835, when Commodore Isaac Hull issued a new and unprecedented regulation forbidding yard workers and mechanics from entering shop spaces during their lunch break and from bringing lunches on the yard property. The order read:


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
The Commandant of the Navy Yard at Washington D.C. finds it necessary to adopt the following regulations Vizt The Mechanics (with the exception of the Anchorsmiths & Engineers ) and Laborers employed in the Navy Yard are prohibited entering the Workshops, Ship Houses and other places where the public property, Tools &c are deposited, during the hours allotted to Meals. The Mechanics and Laborers are forbidden to bring their Meals into the Yard either in Baskets, Bags or otherwise, and none will be permitted to eat their Meals within the Yard unless specially permitted by the Commandant.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Hull's regulation was issued in response to complaints from the master mechanics about the loss of tools and other small items. A watch was set up and not long afterward, on July 27, 1835, Anthony Sumners, a blacksmith striker in the anchor shop, was found hiding a copper spike in his lunch basket. Afterward, a search of Sumners' house revealed more missing government property. Sumners later explained he stole the items in order to sell and support his large family. Sumners was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted of theft of government property.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Sumners was later pardoned based on his service in the War of 1812 and the recommendation of the jury, by President Andrew Jackson. When the workers found they no longer could carry even their own lunch into the yard, many viewed the order as nothing more than a presumption that they were all thieves. On Friday July 31, 1835, when Francis Barry, the clerk of the roll, began reading the morning muster roll, a few men filed in to answer while their workmates stood nearby just outside the main Latrobe Gate yelling and urging them, "Don't answer! Don't answer!"


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Naval constructor William Doughty, a frequent critic of the commandant, denounced Hull's regulations telling the men Hull must "think them all rogues or thieves." Three-quarters of workers employed in August 1835, 175 of 231, left the yard and joined their colleagues on strike. According to Hull's figures, of the 175 workers who went on strike, 107 were still out on August 14, 1835. The strongest group of holdouts remained the ship carpenters and their young apprentices, urged on by the inimitable William Doughty and his steadfast antipathy toward Hull.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Later on Friday afternoon, the strikers quickly formed a committee and elected their leaders: Samuel Briggs (plumber), George Lyndall (ship joiner), and John Miskill (carpenter). Local papers reported that "great excitement prevails among the Mechanics in the Yard." The three elected leaders, followed by 150 of their fellow strikers, immediately carried their petition directly to the office of Secretary of the Navy Mahlon Dickerson, located just a mile and half away on Capitol Hill, "to pray for redress of grievances."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Hull's predecessor Thomas Tingey had "understood the difficult conditions in which ordinary workmen, who were on daily wages, had to earn a living." Hull who had spent much of his life at sea, was simply unable to comprehend or convey this to his workforce. His previous command at Charleston had been racked by controversy with mechanics and this soured him. The mechanics and laborers quickly came to resent his gruff manner of address which they thought more suited for the quarterdeck.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
In their petition to the secretary they vented their animosity toward Commodore Hull's whole demeanor "The very first step of his administration was marked by his despotic power, by parading us all before him to try the tempers of the men by swearing in most blasphemous manner that if they did not march before him, he would march them out the dam-d yard."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Dickerson, alarmed, quickly wrote Hull to question what had prompted workers to strike. On August 1, 1835, Hull replied with a copy of his original order and an explanation of what in his judgment incited the workers action: "The regulation has met with disapprobation of the workmen generally and without stating their objections and without assigning their reasons for doing so have left the yard and ended their work. I cannot conceive of any good reason and I believe that the mechanics of this said yard have been acted upon by other causes."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Hull's "acted upon by other causes" is underscored in the original and is his reference to the Board of Navy Commissioners' resistance to the ten-hour day. Hull was aware that his Navy Yard workers were striking over more than the newly imposed lunch restrictions. Hull, like other shipyard commandants, he was mindful of the ten-hour day movement, as well as the Board of Navy Commissioner's resistance to reducing the workweek. Hull also knew of the calls for a general strike that summer by the Philadelphia shipyard workers and probably thought they were the proximate cause of the strike. He must have feared these calls had found an attentive audience.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
The strike and the subsequent Snow Riot in the District exacerbated long-standing white fears of black workers on the Navy Yard.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
In an undated diary entry for August 1835, African American diarist Michael Shiner confirmed intimidation by white workers and their demand that the black caulkers stop work: "Commodore Hull ishsared and evry one of them struck and said they wouldn't work anny moore and at the same time they were collered man from Baltimore by the name of Israel Jones a caulker by Trade he was the forman Caulker of those Colerded Caulkers and they were fifteen or twenty of them here at that time Caulkin on the Columbia and the Carpenters made all of them knock oft two."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Isaac Hull's report to the secretary of the Navy confirm Michael Shiner's account that the black caulkers did not strike. As Michael Shiner wrote, the white workers blamed Hull for bringing in black caulkers from Baltimore and believed that black workers were to be used to break their strike. Hull's report to Dickerson shows the black caulkers did not strike. This and other incidents raised always simmering racial tension in the city and on the Navy Yard. White mechanics and laborers went on a three-day rampage in which they threatened blacks and broke up their businesses and property.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
On August 14, 1835, Hull wrote a letter to Dickerson, and expressed some apprehension for the safety of the black caulkers that he recently hired. Rather than make a decision, Hull looked to the secretary for a solution to his dilemma.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
"Information has been conveyed to me that the Excitement which has prevailed in the City for some days past is about to be extended to the Neighborhood of the Establishment; the immediate Cause I understand is there are employed in the Yard a number of Blacks, who were in consequence of the Scarcity of Caulkers in this City brought in from Baltimore to caulk the Ship now building.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Under the Circumstances I have to request that you will be pleased to give me instructions, Shall I let the Blacks inside the yard and afford them such protection as the force and means at my Command will allow or shall I discharge them and afford them an opportunity to return to Baltimore?"


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
As one historian has noted, Dickerson chose to throw the black caulkers to the mob as he promptly replied, "In answer to your letter of this date, I have to observe that for the present should think it not best to admit the colored people in the Navy Yard at night." After days of disorder and riot, President Andrew Jackson ordered a company of US Marines to restore order.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
The strike which began over regulations and work hours had "quickly morphed into a race riot" as now angry unemployed white mechanics and laborers took out their resentment on the black population. Many of the Navy Yard "mechanics were primed for racial conflict." The strikers were particularly incensed that Hull had brought a group of free black caulkers from Baltimore to caulk the frigate USS Columbia. This action inflamed an already volatile situation and was an important reason why the mechanics threatened to attack the Navy Yard and Commodore Hull.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
At about the same time a rumor rapidly circulated that a free black man named Beverly Snow, the owner of Epicurean Eating House, known for serving sophisticated and luxurious food, had insulted the wives of the Navy Yard mechanics. This resulted in a group of mechanics attacking Snow's restaurant. Michael Shiner relates the Navy Yard strikers were not only angry at Snow but prepared to go after Isaac Hull.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
"Mechanics of classes gathered into snows Restaurant and broke him up Root and Branch and they were after snow but he flew for his life and that night after they had broke snow up they threatened to come to the navy yard after Commodore Hull. But they didn't come that night and the next day Commodore Hull Received orders from the navy department from the Hon secretary of the navy Mr levy Woodbury [Levi Woodbury] to fortify the yard". After breaking up his restaurant, the mechanics drank all Snow's stock of whiskey and champagne. Fortunately for Snow the white rioters were unable to locate him,  he had escaped by hiding in a sewer. In the capital, mobs of whites still continued to attack all establishments run by free blacks: schools, churches and businesses.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Josephine Seaton, a keen observer and the daughter of the publisher of the National Intelligencer, William Seaton, states the Navy Yard strikers played a significant role in the Snow riot: "Snow will certainly be torn to pieces by the mechanics if he be caught, and they are in full pursuit of him. Unfortunately, several hundred mechanics of the navy yard are out of employment, who, aided and abetted by their sympathizers, create the mob, — the first I have ever seen, not recollecting those of Sheffield, and it is truly alarming."


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Seaton was one of the few whites to record the strike, a strike which revealed the corrosive effects of racism on the Navy Yard workforce as white workers sought to blame their own precarious economic situation on free and enslaved African Americans. The riot was widely publicized in national and local newspapers and alarmed the white community. "The drunken rioters acted with impunity so long as they limited their attacks to Black people. When they began to menace the homes of wealthy whites...


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
the city government called out the militia"    As their economic situation deteriorated and stung by public criticism of their actions the Navy Yard mechanics and laborers sought to end the strike.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
The two sides came together in an agreement that both Hull and the workers accepted through the offices of an outside mediator, Dr. Alexander A. McWilliams, who had a medical practice adjacent to the Navy Yard and was known to both the workforce and Hull, as a result, the Department of the Navy encouraged mediation and the Navy Yard labor strike ended on Saturday August 15, 1835, when the mechanics returned to work.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Strike
Later President Andrew Jackson, actually met with the rioters and vowed to protect their happiness" by cracking down on free Blacks who violated restrictions on their lives." The City subsequently refused all compensation to the Black victims of the riot and passed a restrictive ordnance barring them from being out at night.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Legacy
On August 15, 1835, the Navy Yard strikers were allowed to return to work. The strike had ended through mediation with both Commodore Hull and the strikers acknowledging the two-week labor strike as simply a "misunderstanding" which "originated in a misconception." While publicly accepting mediation neither party was happy with the result. The Commodore only reluctantly accepted the secretary of the Navy's recommendation to allow the strikers to return. The strikers too were not happy for they had failed to achieve any of their goals.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Legacy
To calm worker agitation for the ten-hour day, the Board of Navy Commissioners on August 26, 1835, issued a directive to naval shipyards establishing "the mean of the working hours for the year" for Washington D.C. as: 9.53 hours. This BNC order set work hours to coincide with the hours of available daylight during the year, dramatically skewing the work day; for example from December 1 to 15, 1836, the day was 9.18 hours, however, the workday from July 1 to 15, 1836, was 14.42 hours! For the workers this was not the ten-hour day they sought and this nominal change in calculating the basis of work hours failed to mollify workers and remained deeply unpopular.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Legacy
Commodore Isaac Hull left the Navy Yard in September 1835, never to return but the regulation regarding the workers' lunch restrictions remained in place and the hours of work continued the same until 1840. For Navy Yard workers, the strike of 1835 revealed the weakness and tenuous nature of their bargaining situation. As day labor in a protracted dispute, absent effective organization and financial resources they inevitably suffered. Most of all the strike revealed the corrosive effects of racism on the workforce as white workers sought to blame their own precarious economic situation on free and enslaved African Americans.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Legacy
Further, the strike left as part of its legacy a deep and abiding racial mistrust, which would linger. For the next century, the history of the Washington Navy Yard strike of 1835 and Snow race riot remained an embarrassment to be glossed over and disassociated from the District of Columbia and Washington Navy Yard's official histories. Historical understanding of the strike has improved with the transcription and publication of important documents such as the correspondence of Isaac Hull and the Diary of Michael Shiner.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Legacy
Prior to the 2007 publication of the complete Michael Shiner diary, one historian for example actually described the strike as an example of early inter-racial worker solidarity. "In a number of instances, however, Negro and white workers [at the WNY] worked and went on strike together. Thus white carpenters and caulkers and Negro caulkers employed in the navy yard in Washington joined in a strike in July 1835." Alternately another historian has argued that the 1835 participants in the riot "were mostly mechanics" and "mostly Irish". More recent scholarship on Michael Shiner and Isaac Hull has focused on the participation of the 1835 Navy Yard strikers in the riot as noted in the letters of Josephine Seaton and correspondence of Isaac Hull.


1835 Washington Navy Yard labor strike, Legacy
Following the collapse of the strike, the ten-hour work day, would elude federal shipyard workers for another five years. President Martin Van Buren, on March 31, 1840, finally mandated a ten-hour workday for all mechanics and laborers employed on public works, Michael Shiner fully understood the significance and spoke for thousands, when he declared this event "ought to be recorded in every working man's heart." At the Washington Navy Yard the implementation order simply stated "By Direction of the President of the United States all public establishments will hereafter be regulated as to working hours by the 'ten hour System'."


1835 Wolverhampton riot
The 1835 Wolverhampton riot was an outbreak of violence upon the occasion of a hotly contested county by-election to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom during Wednesday and Thursday, 26–27 May 1835. The magistrates, asserting that a dangerous mob had formed, which was assaulting electors and damaging property, called in the dragoons. The soldiers, under the command of one Captain Manning, fired on the mob who had retreated to the cemetery and wounded four of them, including three boys. One of the wounded, who had received a shot in the knee, had his leg amputated.


1835 Wolverhampton riot
The riot received great attention in the time and was the subject of a discussion in the House of Commons and of a special inquiry, which cleared the soldiers and magistrates of blame. It is not clear to this day whether their actions were indeed warranted by the situation on the ground. At any rate, the riot illustrates the high level of social tension in the English towns of that period. In fact, it was compared at the time to analogous earlier riots in Bristol and Manchester.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Background
The Wolverhampton by-election was held after the passage Reform Act of 1832. One candidate was the Whig politician Colonel George Anson, an experienced MP and the brother of the Earl of Lichfield who had a large following in the area. The other candidate was Sir Francis Goodricke (1797–1865), a Tory.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Background
While the non-electors of the town were predominantly of Radical persuasion, the electors were more evenly divided between Whig and Tory supporters. The tense campaign quickly grew violent on the first day of polling, with the mob allegedly assaulting those electors who voted or intended to vote for the Tory candidate. In some cases, electors claimed that they were prevented from voting and bodily assaulted. In other cases, they were beaten after casting their votes. This sort of carrying on was not uncommon in English elections of this time, but the actual extent of the disturbances was later hotly disputed in the House of Commons.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Arrival of the troops
After the polling was completed for the first day, a mass of Anson's supporters surrounded Goodricke's campaign headquarters in the Swan Inn and threw some stones at the windows. The town magistrates, who considered the situation to be quickly getting out of hand, in part owing to the lack of sufficient police (there were a small number of untrained special constables on hand, who could or would dare do little in the face of the mob), called in a troop of the 1st Dragoons that had been stationed nearby, per an earlier request by the magistrates.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Arrival of the troops
Once the soldiers had arrived, the Riot Act was read by one of the magistrates and the soldiers almost immediately fired at the mob which had by now moved to the cemetery. Four people were shot. Later, the soldiers charged the crowd, dealing out blows with the flat sides of their swords.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Controversy
A number of widely divergent accounts of the events were given and it seems impossible to fully reconcile them. The critics also alleged that instead of the customary one hour, only five minutes were given to the crowd to disperse after the reading of the Riot Act.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Controversy, Death of a soldier's horse
All sides agree that the proximate cause for the soldier's charge on firing and the crowd was the death of one of the soldiers' horses. However, the accounts substantially differ on what actually happened to the horse. According to one version, the horse was killed by a stone thrown by the mob - showing that the soldiers were provoked. According to another account, the soldiers first charged the crown and the horse fell during the charge. A third version, offered in Parliament by ?? was that the horse was stabbed by a short knife, once again partially vindicating the soldiers' conduct. However, it is possible that the horse was accidentally stabbed by a sword drawn by one of the soldiers.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Controversy, Role of the soldiers
Another source of contention was the subsequent dispersal of the soldiers into small group of twos and threes. According to one position (voiced for example by Sir G. Hardinge), this was a highly irregular measure, as the soldiers were no longer under the control of the officers and could engage in wanton acts of cruelty. Others had alleged that this dispersal was necessary to patrol the town and to re-establish public order.


1835 Wolverhampton riot, Aftermath
Sir F. Goodricke actually won the election and sat for two years in Parliament (not standing for re-election in 1837). During that time he never rose to speak.


1835 in Australia
The following lists events that happened during 1835 in Australia.


1835 in Chile
The following lists events that happened during 1835 in Chile.


1835 in New Zealand
The following lists events that happened during 1835 in New Zealand.


1835 in South Africa
The following lists events that happened during 1835 in South Africa.


1835 in Wales
This article is about the particular significance of the year 1835 to Wales and its people.


1835 in architecture
The year 1835 in architecture involved some significant architectural events and new buildings.


1835 in literature
This article contains information about the literary events and publications of 1835.


1835 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 1835.


1835 in poetry
Nationality words link to articles with information on the nation's poetry or literature (for instance, Irish or France).


1835 in poetry, Births
Death years link to the corresponding "[year] in poetry" article:


1835 in poetry, Deaths
Birth years link to the corresponding "[year] in poetry" article:


1835 in rail transport
This article lists events related to rail transport that occurred in 1835.


1835 in science
The year 1835 in science and technology involved some significant events, listed below.


1835 in sports
1835 in sports describes the year's events in world sport.


1835–1858 revolt in Ottoman Tripolitania
The 1835–1858 revolt in Ottoman Tripolitania began at the end of the Karamanli rule, in which tribal leaders such as 'Abd al-Jalil and Ghuma al-Mahmudi revolted against central Ottoman rule, which ended after Ghuma's death in 1858.


1836
1836 (MDCCCXXXVI) was a leap year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar and a leap year starting on Wednesday of the Julian calendar, the 1836th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 836th  year of the 2nd millennium, the 36th  year of the 19th century, and the  7th   year of the 1830s decade. As of the start of 1836, the Gregorian calendar was 12 days ahead of the Julian calendar, which remained in localized use until 1923.


1836 Chilean presidential election
The Chilean presidential election of 1836 took place through a system of electors, and resulted in the reelection as President of General José Joaquín Prieto.


1836 Chilean presidential election
Prieto faced little opposition in this election and was easily reelected.


1836 Connecticut gubernatorial election
The 1836 Connecticut gubernatorial election was held on April 6, 1836. Incumbent governor and Democratic nominee Henry W. Edwards was re-elected, defeating former governor, senator and Whig nominee Gideon Tomlinson with 53.93% of the vote.


1836 Delaware gubernatorial election
The 1836 Delaware gubernatorial election was held on November 8, 1836. Democratic Governor Caleb P. Bennett, elected in 1832, died in office on May 9, 1836, and was succeeded by State Senate Speaker (and former Governor) Charles Polk Jr., a Whig. Former State House Speaker and State Treasurer Cornelius P. Comegys ran as the Whig nominee to succeed Polk, and faced Democratic nominee Nehemiah Clark in the general election. Continuing the streak of closely fought elections, Comegys narrowly defeated Clark, winning 52% of the vote to Clark's 48%.


1836 Delaware gubernatorial election, Bibliography
This Delaware elections-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase
The 1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase was the first of three unofficial annual precursors of a steeplechase which later became known as the Grand National.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase
The steeplechase was held at Aintree Racecourse near Liverpool, England on 29 February 1836 and attracted a field of ten runners.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase
The winning horse was The Duke, ridden by Captain Martin Becher in the violet with white sleeves and cap colours of Mr Sirdefield, the landlord of the George Inn in Great Crosby and was trained privately. The race was won in a time of 20 minutes 10 seconds, over twice the present course record.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase
The race was a selling race and its status as an official Grand National was revoked some time between 1862 and 1873.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, The race
The race was started at 2pm over a course almost identical to the modern Grand National course, although the fences were all no more than 2-foot (0.61 m) high earth banks with the exceptions of two brooks and a water jump in front of the stands.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, The race
Despite this at least three of the runners had to be put at the first fence for a second time after refusing. None of the ten riders are known to have been thrown from their mounts during the first circuit but 'Gulliver and Cowslip came back onto the racecourse some distance behind the other eight runners and in such a distressed state that their riders did not continue onto the second circuit.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, The race
The favourite, Laurie Todd was knocked out of the race in unsportsmanlike circumstances when his rider took the horse down a lane alongside the course towards the first brook. This was within the rules of the race and a gate at the end of the lane had in fact been nailed open to facilitate the use of the lane. A spectator took exception to the use of the lane on the first circuit and freed the gate, nailing it shut before the rider returned.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, The race
The gate proved too high for Laurie Todd to jump and the horse became the first to fall in the race. As Horatio Powell attempted to remount his horse it was alleged that another rider, Bartholomew Bretherton, deliberately steered his horse towards Powell in order to prevent him remounting. The rider of the favourite was knocked back to the ground and forced to retire from the race through injury. He did not however lodge any protest on his return to the weighing room, suggesting that the act was considered part of the game.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, The race
Baronet, The Sweep and Derry were all tailed off or out of the race entirely by the time the leaders reached the first brook for the second time and did not complete the race.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, The race
Cockahoop and Percy remained in contention until reaching the Canal Turn for the second time after which they were left behind to finish the race in third and fourth place respectively.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, The race
The Duke and Polyanthus were the two horses who disputed the finish of the race and came back onto the racecourse together. Both horses made jumping errors at the final hurdle before The Duke prevailed by one length with Polyanthus finishing second.


1836 Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, Non-finishers, Aftermath
The race largely failed to capture the public imagination and came in for scathing comments from some of the local press. By the time the first Grand National historians began emerging in the early 1860s this race, and the two which would follow in 1837 and 1838, had largely been forgotten by the passing of time and fading memories. As a result, when the first honours board was erected at Aintree in the early 1890s this race was totally omitted and remained forgotten for over a century before being rediscovered early in the 21st Century. It is still regarded officially by Aintree as not being worthy of Grand National status and is instead regarded as the first of three unofficial precursors over the same course.


1836 Komarov
1836 Komarov (prov. designation: 1971 OT) is a carbonaceous Dorian asteroid from the central region of the asteroid belt, approximately 22 kilometers in diameter. It was discovered on 26 July 1971, by Russian astronomer Nikolai Chernykh at Crimean Astrophysical Observatory in Nauchnij on the Crimean peninsula. The asteroid was named after Soviet cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov.


1836 Komarov, Classification and orbit
Komarov is a member of the Dora family (FIN: 512), a well-established central asteroid family of more than 1,200 carbonaceous asteroids. The family's namesake is 668 Dora. It is alternatively known as the "Zhongolovich family", named after its presumably largest member 1734 Zhongolovich. The Dora family may also contain a subfamily.


1836 Komarov, Classification and orbit
It orbits the Sun at a distance of 2.3–3.3 AU once every 4 years and 8 months (1,697 days). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.19 and an inclination of 7° with respect to the ecliptic.


1836 Komarov, Physical characteristics
Komarov is characterized as a dark C-type asteroid by Pan-STARRS photometric survey. It is also classified as a hydrated Ch-subtype in the SMASS classification scheme.


1836 Komarov, Physical characteristics, Diameter and albedo
According to the surveys carried out by the Japanese Akari satellite and NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer with its subsequent NEOWISE mission, Komarov measures between 21.55 and 25.40 kilometers in diameter and its surface has an albedo between 0.042 and 0.103. The Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link assumes a standard albedo for carbonaceous asteroids of 0.057 and calculates a diameter of 21.16 kilometers based on an absolute magnitude of 12.1.


1836 Komarov, Physical characteristics, Lightcurves
In July 2008, two rotational lightcurve of Komarov were independently obtained from photometric observations by astronomers Julian Oey and Peter Caspari. Lightcurve analysis gave a rotation period of 8.8015 and 9.695 hours with a brightness amplitude of 0.39 and 0.56 magnitude, respectively (U=3/2+).


1836 Komarov, Naming
This minor planet was named in honor of Vladimir Komarov (1927–1967), Soviet cosmonaut who headed the manned flight on the Voskhod spacecraft. He was killed when the Soyuz 1 space capsule crashed after re-entry on 24 April 1967, due to a parachute failure. The official naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on 1 June 1975 (M.P.C. 3825).


1836 Liverpool Town Council election
Elections to Liverpool Town Council were held on Tuesday 2 November 1836. One third of the council seats were up for election, the term of office of each councillor being three years.


1836 Maine gubernatorial election
The 1836 Maine gubernatorial election took place on September 12, 1836. Incumbent Democratic Governor Robert P. Dunlap won re-election to a fourth term.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election
The 1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election was held on November 14.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election
Incumbent Whig Governor Edward Everett was re-elected to a second term in office, defeating Democrat Marcus Morton.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Nominations, Anti-Masonic
The Anti-Masonic Party met in convention under the leadership of Benjamin F. Hallett on January 29 and nominated Marcus Morton and endorsed Martin Van Buren for President.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Nominations, Anti-Masonic
However, Franklin County Anti- Masons rejected the Van Buren endorsement. A dissident faction of Anti- Masons met on March 9 and endorsed Daniel Webster for President. Each faction accused the other of insufficient devotion to the cause of anti-Masonry.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Nominations, Democratic
The Democratic Party had divided between supporters of party boss David Henshaw and perennial nominee Marcus Morton. The division began over the choice for a new Collector of the Port of Boston after Henshaw stepped down. Henshaw, a member of the more conservative faction aligned with John C. Calhoun, preferred his close ally J.K. Simpson. had lost control of the party to moderate supporters of presumptive presidential nominee Martin Van Buren. Morton, a close ally of Van Buren, advised the appointment of an outsider.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Nominations, Democratic
Nevertheless, Henshaw, recognizing his minority status within the party he had helped found and the need for unity in a presidential election year, got behind Morton for a tenth consecutive nomination.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, General election, Campaign
The Democratic campaign embraced a populist message premised on opposition to the Second Bank of the United States, monopoly power, and Harvard College. David Henshaw called for the popular election of judges and elimination of corporate monopolies.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, General election, Campaign
Whigs focused their energy on the presidential campaign, where they supported Daniel Webster and Francis Granger, and the House of Representatives campaign. Governor Everett's brother Alexander did abandon the party to become a Democratic candidate for Congress in Norfolk County. Alexander and George Bancroft, running in the Hampden County district, bore the brunt of Whig criticism.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, General election, Results
With increased turnout due to the presidential race, most of the gains went to Morton. Democrats gained a seat in Congress, with William Parmenter unseating Samuel Hoar in Middlesex County. The lone Democratic incumbent, Nathaniel B. Borden of Bristol County, was re-elected.


1836 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, General election, Results
Morton remarked privately to president-elect Van Buren that the Massachusetts Democratic Party was in excellent position to win, should the Whigs make a single mistake.


1836 Massachusetts legislature
The 57th Massachusetts General Court, consisting of the Massachusetts Senate and the Massachusetts House of Representatives, met in 1836 during the governorship of Edward Everett. Horace Mann served as president of the Senate and Julius Rockwell served as speaker of the House.


1836 Missouri gubernatorial election
The 1836 Missouri gubernatorial election was held on August 1, 1832. Sitting Lt. Governor Lilburn Boggs, was elected over sitting Congressman (and former Lt. Governor) William Henry Ashley.


1836 Naval Air Squadron
1836 Naval Air Squadron (1836 NAS) was a Naval Air Squadron of the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm.


1836 New York gubernatorial election
The 1836 New York gubernatorial election was held from November 7 to 9, 1836, to elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of New York.


1836 New York gubernatorial election, Candidates
The Democratic Party nominated incumbent Governor William L. Marcy. They nominated incumbent John Tracy for Lieutenant Governor.


1836 New York gubernatorial election, Candidates
The Whig Party nominated agricultural reformist Jesse Buel. They nominated former U.S. Representative Gamaliel H. Barstow for Lieutenant Governor.


1836 New York gubernatorial election, Candidates
The Locofoco Faction of the Democratic Party nominated Isaac S. Smith. They nominated Moses Jacques for Lieutenant Governor.


1836 New York gubernatorial election, Sources
This New York elections-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .


1836 Newfoundland general election
The 1836 Newfoundland general election was held in 1836 in the Colony of Newfoundland. The results of the election were set aside by Henry John Boulton after he discovered some of the writs from the election had not been marked with the official seal. Some felt that this was a pretext used because Liberal reformers had dominated the assembly and a number who had been reelected in 1836 did not run for reelection the following year.


1836 Pennsylvania's 13th congressional district special election
On November 4, 1836, a special election was held in Pennsylvania's 13th congressional district to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Jesse Miller (J).


1836 Pennsylvania's 13th congressional district special election, Election results
Black took his seat December 5, 1836, at the start of the 2nd session of the 24th Congress


1836 Pennsylvania's 24th congressional district special election
On October 11, 1836, a special election was held in Pennsylvania's 24th congressional district to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of John Banks (AM) on April 2. This election was held at the same time as the general elections for the 25th Congress


1836 Pennsylvania's 24th congressional district special election, Election results
Pearson took his seat December 5, 1836, at the start of the 2nd session of the 24th Congress


1836 Republic of Texas presidential election
The 1836 Republic of Texas presidential election was the first such election in the newly established Republic of Texas. Popular war hero Samuel Houston was elected in a decisive victory over Henry Smith and Stephen F. Austin. Houston was inaugurated on October 22, 1836, replacing interim president David G. Burnet.


1836 Republic of Texas presidential election, Campaign
Prior to Houston's entrance into the race, Stephen F. Austin considered himself to be the front-runner in the election to become the first president of Texas. His opponent in the race was Henry Smith, who had been governor of the Provisional Government and a delegate to the convention that declared the independence of the Republic of Texas. Others, however, had doubts about his qualifications. Austin was not widely known to most Texans, and his connections to land speculator Samuel May Williams had soiled his public reputation. When, eleven days before the election, Houston declared his candidacy, Austin's hopes of winning the presidency were sunk.


1836 Republic of Texas presidential election, Results
Houston won the election in a landslide, carrying 77% of the vote to Smith's 13% and Austin's 10%. Mirabeau Lamar was elected vice president by a majority of 2,699 votes.


1836 State of the Union Address
The 1836 State of the Union Address was given by Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, on December 5, 1836. He did not personally deliver the address to the 24th United States Congress, but a clerk did.


1836 State of the Union Address
He concluded it with, "All that has occurred during my Administration is calculated to inspire me with increased confidence in the stability of our institutions; and should I be spared to enter upon that retirement which is so suitable to my age and infirm health and so much desired by me in other respects, I shall not cease to invoke that beneficent Being to whose providence we are already so signally indebted for the continuance of His blessings on our beloved country."


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire
The 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire was the first of two major fires the U.S. Patent Office has had in its history. It occurred in Blodget's Hotel building, Washington on December 15, 1836. An initial investigation considered the possibility of arson due to suspected corruption in the Post Office, which shared the same building, but it was later ruled out. The cause was ultimately determined to be accidental. The fire is considered to be a unique point in the historical events of the Patent Office that caused policy changes.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire
Local fire suppression efforts were incapable of preventing the damage due to lack of fire personnel and proper equipment. Many patent documents and models from the preceding three decades were irretrievably lost. As a result of the fire, Congress and the newly legally revamped Patent Office changed the way it handled its record keeping, assigning numbers to patents and requiring multiple copies of supporting documentation.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, History
In 1810, Congress had authorized the purchase of the unfinished Blodgett's Hotel from its builder to house the Post and Patent offices. Congress was aware of the fire risk. During an event of the War of 1812, Superintendent Dr. William Thornton convinced members of the British expeditionary force to leave the Patent Office standing while they burned the rest of the city. Congress funded the covering of the building with a slate roof in 1820. They also purchased of a fire engine for protection of the building against fires.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, History
Because of those changes the volunteer fire department lost its sense of purpose and was disbanded. The complete firehouse equipped with the fire engine was just down the street. Although equipped with a forcing pump and with riveted leather hose 1,000 feet (300 m) long (all purchased 16 years earlier by Act of Congress), there were no firefighters available.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, History
The fire broke out at 3 a.m. on December 15, 1836. The Patent Office then was located in Blodget's Hotel, as was the fire department and the post office. Patent Office employees stored firewood in the basement of the hotel, near where postal employees disposed of the hot ashes from their fires. Sometime after midnight that morning the hot ashes ignited the firewood. The fire department's hose was old and defective and would not funnel water onto the fire, and running a bucket brigade to put out the building blaze turned out to be ineffective. All 9,957 patents and 7,000 related patent models were lost.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, History
John Ruggles, chairman of the Senate investigating committee, reported that the lost items included 168 folio volumes of records, 26 large portfolios of some nine thousand drawings, related descriptive patent documents, and miscellaneous paperwork. The 7,000 lost models included those of various textile manufacturing processes and several models of steam-powered machinery for propelling boats (including Robert Fulton's original bound folio of full-color patent drawings, done in his own hand). Ruggles said that the documents and models destroyed by the fire represented the history of American invention for fifty years.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, History
He also said that the Patent Office's own model-cases, presses and seals, desks, book-cases and office furniture were also destroyed. The entire library of books were lost except one that an employee just happened to have secretly taken home to read, which was Volume 6 of Repertory of Arts &  Manufactures (1794).


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, Aftermath
Congress investigated the fire immediately, suspecting arson. The Post Office Department at the time was already under investigation for allegedly awarding dishonest mail contracts. It was first thought that perhaps the fire was set to destroy evidence. However, it turned out that the Post Office Department had saved all their documents. Investigators concluded that someone had stored hot ashes in a box in the basement. The live embers then ignited the firewood; no one was identified as having caused the fire. The Patent Office was moved to the old City Hall, at the time the District Courthouse.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, Aftermath
The fire occurred when the Patent Act of 1836 was being put into place, which had required that patent applications be examined before being granted. An amendment to it the following year required submission of two copies of drawings—one for safekeeping in the patent office; the other attached to the patent grant transmitted to the applicant. The requirement ended in 1870 when the Office began printing complete copies of patents as issued.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, Aftermath
All patents from prior to the fire were listed later as X-Patents by the office. The March 3, 1837, Act made provisions to restore the models and drawings lost in the 1836 fire. An amount of $100,000 was appropriated as a budget. Around 9,957 patent records and some 7,000 invention models were lost. One method of restoration was by getting back a duplicate from the original inventor. By 1849 the restoration process was discontinued and it was determined that $88,237.32 had been spent from the budget allowed. Of the estimated 9,957, only 2,845 patent records were restored. Congress solicited for the restoration of the lost patents and appropriated monies for this purpose. It is difficult for modern researchers to find those patents because many of the related documents were burned.


1836 U.S. Patent Office fire, Aftermath
In the aftermath of the fire, the way patents were identified was changed. Previously the patent records were not numbered and could be researched only by the date of patent or inventor's name. After the fire, unique numbers were issued by the Patent Office for each new patent. The Patent Office through the Patent Act of 1836 became its own organization under the United States Department of State. Henry Leavitt Ellsworth became its first Commissioner in 1835. He immediately began construction of a new fire-proof building, which was not completed until 1864. A fire in 1877 destroyed the west and north wing of the new building and caused even more damage.


1836 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania
The 1836 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania was held on December 14, 1836. Future President of the United States James Buchanan was re-elected by the Pennsylvania General Assembly to the United States Senate.


1836 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, Background
After Sen. William Wilkins resigned from office to become U.S. Minister to Russia, James Buchanan was elected by the General Assembly, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in 1834 to serve the remainder of the unexpired term, which was to expire on March 4, 1837.


1836 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, Results
The Pennsylvania General Assembly convened on December 14, 1836, to elect a Senator to serve the term beginning on March 4, 1837. The results of the vote of both houses combined are as follows:


1836 United States elections
The 1836 United States elections elected the members of the 25th United States Congress. The election saw the emergence of the Whig Party, which succeeded the National Republican Party in the Second Party System as the primary opposition to the Democratic Party. The Whigs chose their name in symbolic defiance to the leader of the Democratic Party, "King" Andrew Jackson, and supported a national bank and the American System. Despite the emergence of the Whigs as a durable political party, Democrats retained the Presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress.


1836 United States elections
In the Presidential election, the Whigs ran multiple candidates designed to deny the Democratic candidate a majority of the electoral vote, and carried a scattering of states in the South, West, and Northeast. However, Democratic Vice President Martin Van Buren still took a majority of the popular and electoral vote, defeating Whig candidates William Henry Harrison of Ohio, Hugh Lawson White of Tennessee, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, and Willie Person Mangum of North Carolina. Virginia's electors refused to vote for Richard Mentor Johnson, Van Buren's running mate, leaving Johnson short of a majority of electoral votes for vice president.


1836 United States elections
The Senate elected Johnson in a contingent election, the only time the Senate has ever chosen the vice president. Van Buren was the last sitting vice president to win election as president until George H.W. Bush's election in 1988; this is also the most recent election in which a Democrat was elected to the U.S. presidency succeeding a Democrat who had served two terms as U.S. president.


1836 United States elections
In the House, Whigs won moderate gains, but Democrats retained a solid majority in the chamber.


1836 United States elections
In the Senate, Democrats gained many seats, boosting their majority.


1836 United States presidential election
The 1836 United States presidential election was the 13th quadrennial presidential election, held from Thursday, November 3 to Wednesday, December 7, 1836. In the third consecutive election victory for the Democratic Party, incumbent Vice President Martin Van Buren defeated four candidates fielded by the nascent Whig Party.


1836 United States presidential election
The 1835 Democratic National Convention chose a ticket of Van Buren (President Andrew Jackson's handpicked successor) and U.S. Representative Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky. The Whig Party, which had only recently emerged and was primarily united by opposition to Jackson, was not yet sufficiently organized to agree on a single candidate. Hoping to compel a contingent election in the House of Representatives by denying the Democrats an electoral majority, the Whigs ran multiple candidates.


1836 United States presidential election
Most Northern and border state Whigs supported the ticket led by former Senator William Henry Harrison of Ohio, while most Southern Whigs supported the ticket led by Senator Hugh Lawson White of Tennessee. Two other Whigs, Daniel Webster and Willie Person Mangum, carried Massachusetts and South Carolina respectively on single-state tickets.


1836 United States presidential election
Despite facing multiple candidates, Van Buren won a majority of the electoral vote, and he won a majority of the popular vote in both the North and the South. Nonetheless, the Whig strategy came very close to success, as Van Buren won the decisive state of Pennsylvania by just over two points. As Virginia's electors voted for Van Buren but refused to vote for Johnson, Johnson fell one vote short of an electoral majority, compelling a contingent election for vice president. In that contingent election, the United States Senate elected Johnson over Harrison's running mate, Francis Granger, on the first ballot.


1836 United States presidential election
Van Buren was the third incumbent vice president to win election as president, an event which would not happen again until 1988, when George H. W. Bush was elected president. Harrison finished second in both the popular and electoral vote, and his strong performance helped him win the Whig nomination in the 1840 presidential election. The election of 1836 was crucial in developing the Second Party System and a stable two-party system more generally. By the end of the election, nearly every independent faction had been absorbed by either the Democrats or the Whigs.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Democratic Party nomination
The 1835 Democratic National Convention was held in Baltimore, Maryland, on 20–22 May 1835. Incumbent President Andrew Jackson, who had announced his retirement after two terms, publicly endorsed a ticket of his vice president, Martin Van Buren of New York, and Representative Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky, a hero in the War of 1812.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Democratic Party nomination
Some Southerners opposed Johnson's nomination, due to his open relationship with an enslaved woman, whom he had regarded as his common-law wife. At the convention, Van Buren was nominated unanimously, but the Virginia delegates supported Senator William Cabell Rives against Johnson. However, Rives got little support; Johnson was also nominated.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Whig Party nomination
The Whig Party emerged during the 1834 mid-term elections as the chief opposition to the Democratic Party. The party was formed from members of the National Republican Party, the Anti-Masonic Party, disaffected Jacksonians, and small remnants of the Federalist Party (people whose last political activity was with them a decade before). Some Southerners who were angered by Jackson's opposition to states' rights, including Sen. John C. Calhoun and the Nullifiers, also temporarily joined the Whig coalition.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Whig Party nomination
Unlike the Democrats, the Whigs did not hold a national convention. Instead, state legislatures and state conventions nominated candidates, being the reason why so many candidates from the Whig party ran in the general election. Southern Nullifiers placed Tennessee Senator Hugh Lawson White into contention for the presidency in 1834 soon after his break with Jackson. White was a moderate on the states' rights issue, which made him acceptable in the South, but not in the North. The state legislatures of Alabama and Tennessee officially nominated White. The South Carolina state legislature nominated Senator Willie Person Mangum of North Carolina.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Whig Party nomination
By early 1835, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster was building support among Northern Whigs. Both Webster and White used Senate debates to establish their positions on the issues of the day, as newspapers carried the text of their speeches nationwide. The Pennsylvania legislature nominated popular former general William Henry Harrison, who had led American forces at the Battle of Tippecanoe. The Whigs hoped that Harrison's reputation as a military hero could win voter support. Harrison soon displaced Webster as the preferred candidate of Northern Whigs. State legislatures, particularly in larger states, also nominated various vice presidential candidates.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Whig Party nomination
Despite multiple candidates, there was only one Whig ticket in each state. The Whigs ended up with two main tickets: William Henry Harrison for president and Francis Granger for vice-president in the North and the border states, and Hugh Lawson White for president and John Tyler for vice-president in the middle and lower South. In Massachusetts, the ticket was Daniel Webster and Granger. In South Carolina, the ticket was Mangum for president and Tyler for vice-president. Of the four Whig presidential candidates, only Harrison was on the ballot in enough states for it to be mathematically possible for him to win a majority in the Electoral College, and even then, it would have required him to win Van Buren's home state of New York.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Anti-Masonic Party nomination
After the negative views of Freemasonry among a large segment of the public began to wane in the mid 1830s, the Anti-Masonic Party began to disintegrate. Some of its members began moving to the Whig Party, which had a broader issue base than the Anti-Masons. The Whigs were also regarded as a better alternative to the Democrats.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Anti-Masonic Party nomination
A state convention for the Anti-Masonic Party was held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania from December 14–17, 1835, to choose Presidential Electors for the 1836 election. The convention unanimously nominated William Henry Harrison for President and Francis Granger for Vice President. The Vermont state Anti-Masonic convention followed suit on February 24, 1836. Anti -Masonic leaders were unable to obtain assurance from Harrison that he was not a Mason, so they called a national convention. The second national Anti-Masonic nominating convention was held in Philadelphia on May 4, 1836. The meeting was divisive, but a majority of the delegates officially stated that the party was not sponsoring a national ticket for the presidential election of 1836 and proposed a meeting in 1837 to discuss the future of the party.


1836 United States presidential election, Nominations, Nullifier Party nomination
The Nullifier Party had also begun to decline sharply since the previous election, after it became clear that the doctrine of nullification lacked sufficient support outside of the party's political base of South Carolina to ever make the Nullifiers more than a fringe party nationwide. Many party members began to drift towards the Democratic Party, but there was no question of the party endorsing Van Buren's bid for the presidency, as he and Calhoun were sworn enemies. Seeing little point in running their own ticket, Calhoun pushed the party into backing the White/Tyler ticket, as White had previously sided against Jackson during the Nullification Crisis.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Campaign
In the aftermath of the Nat Turner slave rebellion and other events, slavery emerged as an increasingly prominent political issue. Calhoun attacked Van Buren, saying that he could not be trusted to protect Southern interests and accusing the sitting Vice President of affiliating with abolitionists. Van Buren defeated Harrison by a margin of 51.4% to 48.6% in the North, and he defeated White by a similar margin of 50.7% to 49.3% in the South.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Disputes
A dispute similar to that of Indiana in 1817 and Missouri in 1821 arose during the counting of the electoral votes. Michigan only became a state on January 26, 1837, and had cast its electoral votes for president before that date. Anticipating a challenge to the results, Congress resolved on February 4, 1837, that during the counting four days later the final tally was read twice, once with Michigan and once without Michigan. The counting proceeded in accordance with the resolution. The dispute had no bearing on the final result: either way Van Buren was elected, and either way no candidate had a majority for vice-president.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Results
The Whigs' strategy narrowly failed to prevent Van Buren's election as president, though he earned a somewhat lower share of the popular vote and fewer electoral votes than Andrew Jackson had in either of the previous two elections.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Results
The key state in this election was ultimately Pennsylvania, which Van Buren won from Harrison with a narrow majority of just 4,222 votes. Had Harrison won the state, Van Buren would have been left eight votes short of an Electoral College majority - despite receiving a majority (50.48%) in the popular vote - and the Whig goal to force the election into the House of Representatives (in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution) would have succeeded.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Results
In a contingent election, the House would have been required to choose between Van Buren, Harrison, and White as the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Jacksonians controlled enough state delegations (14 out of 26) and enough Senate seats (31 out of 52) to win both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency in a contingent election.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Results
This was the last election in which the Democrats won Connecticut, Rhode Island, and North Carolina until 1852. This was also the only election where South Carolina voted for the Whigs, and the last time it voted against the Democrats until 1868. It was also the last time that a Democrat was elected to the U.S. presidency succeeding a Democrat who had served two terms as U.S. president.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Contingent election for Vice-President
In an unusual turn of events, Virginia's 23 electors, who were all pledged to Van Buren and his running mate Richard Mentor Johnson, became faithless electors due to dissention related to Johnson's interracial relationship with a slave and refused to vote for Johnson, instead casting their vice-presidential votes for former South Carolina senator William Smith.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Contingent election for Vice-President
This left Johnson one electoral vote short of an Electoral College majority, forcing a contingent election in the Senate decided between the top two vote recipients, Johnson and Francis Granger. Since no vice presidential candidate received a majority of electoral votes, and for the only time in American history, the Senate decided a vice presidential race, selecting Democratic candidate Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky.


1836 United States presidential election, General election, Contingent election for Vice-President
(a) The popular vote figures exclude South Carolina where the electors were chosen by the state legislature rather than by popular vote. (b) Mangum received his electoral votes from South Carolina where the electors were chosen by the state legislatures rather than by popular vote.


1836 United States presidential election, Results by state
Source: Data from Walter Dean Burnham, Presidential ballots, 1836-1892 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955) pp 247–57.


1836 United States presidential election, 1837 contingent election
Since no candidate for vice president received a majority of the electoral votes, the U.S. Senate held a contingent election in which the top two electoral vote recipients, Richard Johnson and Francis Granger, were the candidates.


1836 United States presidential election, 1837 contingent election
On February 8, 1837, Johnson was elected on the first ballot by a vote of 33 to 16; the vote proceeded largely along party lines, albeit with three Whigs voting for Johnson, one Democrat voting for Granger, and three abstentions (Hugh L. White declined to vote out of respect for his own running-mate, John Tyler, while the two Nullifier Party senators refused to back either candidate). This is the only time that the Senate has exercised this power.


1836 United States presidential election, 1837 contingent election
■ Thomas H. Benton of Missouri■ John Black of Mississippi■ Bedford Brown of North Carolina■ James Buchanan of Pennsylvania■ Alfred Cuthbert of Georgia■ Judah Dana of Maine■ William Lee D. Ewing of Illinois■ William S. Fulton of Arkansas■ Felix Grundy of Tennessee■ William Hendricks of Indiana■ Henry Hubbard of New Hampshire■ William R. King of Alabama■ John P. King of Georgia■ Lewis F. Linn of Missouri■ Lucius Lyon of Michigan■ Samuel McKean of Pennsylvania■ Gabriel Moore of Alabama■ Thomas Morris of Ohio■ Alexandre Mouton of Louisiana■ Robert C. Nicholas of Louisiana■ John M. Niles of Connecticut■ John Norvell of Michigan■ John Page of New Hampshire■ Richard E. Parker of Virginia■ William C. Rives of Virginia■ John M. Robinson of Illinois■ John Ruggles of Maine■ Ambrose H. Sevier of Arkansas■ Robert Strange of North Carolina■ Nathaniel P. Tallmadge of New York■ John Tipton of Indiana■ Robert J. Walker of Mississippi■ Silas Wright of New York


1836 United States presidential election, 1837 contingent election
■ Richard H. Bayard of Delaware■ Henry Clay of Kentucky■ Thomas Clayton of Delaware■ John J. Crittenden of Kentucky■ John Davis of Massachusetts■ Thomas Ewing of Ohio■ Joseph Kent of Maryland■ Nehemiah R. Knight of Rhode Island■ Samuel Prentiss of Vermont■ Asher Robbins of Rhode Island■ Samuel L. Southard of New Jersey■ John Selby Spence of Maryland■ Benjamin Swift of Vermont■ Gideon Tomlinson of Connecticut■ Garret D. Wall of New Jersey■ Daniel Webster of Massachusetts


1836 United States presidential election, 1837 contingent election
■ John C. Calhoun of South Carolina   ■ William C. Preston of South Carolina■ Hugh L. White of Tennessee


1836 United States presidential election in Alabama
The 1836 United States presidential election in Alabama took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 presidential election. Voters chose seven representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Alabama
Alabama voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate Hugh White. Van Buren won Alabama by a margin of 10.68%.


1836 United States presidential election in Arkansas
The 1836 United States presidential election in Arkansas took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose three representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Arkansas
Arkansas, having been admitted to the Union as the 25th state on June 15, 1836, voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate Hugh White during its first presidential election. Van Buren won Arkansas by a margin of 28.16%.


1836 United States presidential election in Connecticut
The 1836 United States presidential election in Connecticut took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose eight representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Connecticut
Connecticut voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. Van Buren won Connecticut by a narrow margin of 1.3%.


1836 United States presidential election in Connecticut
As a result of his win, Van Buren also became the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry Connecticut.


1836 United States presidential election in Delaware
The 1836 United States presidential election in Delaware took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose three representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Delaware
Delaware voted for Whig candidate William Henry Harrison over the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren. Harrison won Delaware by a margin of 6.54%.


1836 United States presidential election in Georgia
The 1836 United States presidential election in Georgia took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose 11 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.


1836 United States presidential election in Georgia
Georgia voted for Whig candidate Hugh White over the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren. White won Georgia by a margin of 3.6%.


1836 United States presidential election in Illinois
The 1836 United States presidential election in Illinois took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose five representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Illinois
Illinois voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. Van Buren won Illinois by a margin of 9.38%.


1836 United States presidential election in Indiana
The 1836 United States presidential election in Indiana took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose nine representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Indiana
Indiana voted for Whig candidate William Henry Harrison over the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren. Harrison won Indiana by a margin of 11.94%.


1836 United States presidential election in Kentucky
The 1836 United States presidential election in Kentucky took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose 15 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Kentucky
Kentucky voted for Whig candidate William Henry Harrison over the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren. Harrison won Kentucky by a margin of 5.18%.


1836 United States presidential election in Louisiana
The 1836 United States presidential election in Louisiana took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose five representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Louisiana
Louisiana voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate Hugh White. Van Buren won Louisiana by a narrow margin of 3.48%.


1836 United States presidential election in Maine
The 1836 United States presidential election in Maine took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose ten representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Maine
Maine voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. Van Buren won the state by a margin of 20.71%.


1836 United States presidential election in Maine
Van Buren would be the final Democratic presidential candidate until Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 to carry Somerset County.


1836 United States presidential election in Maryland
The 1836 United States presidential election in Maryland took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose 10 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Maryland
Maryland voted for Whig candidate William Henry Harrison over the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren. Harrison won Maryland by a margin of 7.46%.


1836 United States presidential election in Massachusetts
The 1836 United States presidential election in Massachusetts took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose 14 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Massachusetts
Massachusetts voted for Whig candidate and state native Daniel Webster over the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren. Webster won Massachusetts by a margin of 10.32%.


1836 United States presidential election in Michigan
The 1836 United States presidential election in Michigan took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose three representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Michigan
Michigan voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate William Henry Harrison in the states first presidential election. Van Buren won the state by a margin of 12.44%.


1836 United States presidential election in Michigan
A dispute similar to that of Indiana in 1817 and Missouri in 1821 arose during the counting of the electoral votes. Michigan only became a state on January 26, 1837, and had cast its electoral votes for president before that date. Anticipating a challenge to the results, Congress resolved on February 4, 1837, that during the counting four days later the final tally would be read twice, once with Michigan and once without Michigan. The counting proceeded in accordance with the resolution. The dispute had no bearing on the final result: either way Van Buren was elected, and either way no candidate had a majority for vice-president.


1836 United States presidential election in Mississippi
The 1836 United States presidential election in Mississippi took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose four representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Mississippi
Mississippi voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate Hugh White. Van Buren won Mississippi by a margin of 2.56%.


1836 United States presidential election in Missouri
The 1836 United States presidential election in Missouri took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose four representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Missouri
Missouri voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate Hugh White. Van Buren won Missouri by a margin of 19.96%.


1836 United States presidential election in New Hampshire
The 1836 United States presidential election in New Hampshire took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose seven representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in New Hampshire
New Hampshire voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. Van Buren won New Hampshire by a margin of 50.02%.


1836 United States presidential election in New Jersey
The 1836 United States presidential election in New Jersey took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose eight representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in New Jersey
New Jersey voted for the Whig candidate, William Henry Harrison, over Democratic candidate Martin Van Buren. Harrison won New Jersey by a margin of 1.06%.


1836 United States presidential election in New York
The 1836 United States presidential election in New York took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose 42 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in New York
New York voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. Van Buren won New York by a margin of 9.26%.


1836 United States presidential election in North Carolina
The 1836 United States presidential election in North Carolina took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose 15 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in North Carolina
North Carolina voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over Whig candidate Hugh White. Van Buren won North Carolina by a margin of 6.2%.


1836 United States presidential election in Ohio
The 1836 United States presidential election in Ohio took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose twenty-one representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Ohio
Ohio voted for Whig candidate William Henry Harrison over Democratic candidate Martin Van Buren. Harrison won Ohio by a narrow margin of 4.31%.


1836 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania
The 1836 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose 30 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania voted for the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, over the Whig candidate, William Henry Harrison. Van Buren won Pennsylvania by a narrow margin of 2.36%.


1836 United States presidential election in Rhode Island
The 1836 United States presidential election in Rhode Island took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. Voters chose four representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.


1836 United States presidential election in Rhode Island
Rhode Island voted for Democratic candidate Martin Van Buren over Whig candidate William Henry Harrison. Van Buren won Rhode Island by a narrow margin of 4.48%.


1836 United States presidential election in Rhode Island
This was the first time that Rhode Island ever voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, and Van Buren's performance would not be bettered by a Democrat in Rhode Island until Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.


1836 United States presidential election in South Carolina
The 1836 United States presidential election in South Carolina took place between November 3 and December 7, 1836, as part of the 1836 United States presidential election. The state legislature chose 11 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.