To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

United States House of Representatives elections, 1792 and 1793

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States House of Representatives elections, 1792 and 1793

← 1790 / 1791 August 27, 1792 – September 6, 1793 1794 / 1795 →

All 105 seats in the U.S House of Representatives
53 seats needed for a majority
  Majority party Minority party
 
Frederick Muhlenberg.jpg
TheodoreSedgwick.jpg
Leader Frederick Muhlenberg[1] Theodore Sedgwick
Party Anti-Administration Pro-Administration
Leader's seat Pennsylvania at-large Massachusetts 2nd
Last election 30 seats 39 seats
Seats won 54 51
Seat change Increase 24 Increase 12

3rdHouse.svg
Results:      Pro-Administration (F) majority
     Anti-Administration (DR) majority
     Even split

Speaker before election

Jonathan Trumbull
Pro-Administration

Elected Speaker

Frederick Muhlenberg
Anti-Administration

Elections to the United States House of Representatives for the 3rd Congress were held in 1792 and 1793, coinciding with the re-election of George Washington as President. While Washington ran for president as an independent, his followers (more specifically, the supporters of Alexander Hamilton) formed the nation's first organized political party, the Federalist Party, whose members and sympathizers are identified as pro-Administration on this page. In response, followers of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison created the opposition Democratic-Republican Party, who are identified as anti-Administration on this page. The Federalists promoted urbanization, industrialization, mercantilism, centralized government, and a broad interpretation of the United States Constitution. In contrast, Democratic-Republicans supported the ideal of an agrarian republic made up of self-sufficient farmers and small, localized governments with limited power.

Despite nearly unanimous support for Washington as a presidential candidate, Jeffersonian ideas edged out Hamiltonian principles at the ballot box for congressional candidates, with the Democratic-Republicans taking 24 seats more than they had prior to the organization of their political movement. Most of the increase was due to the addition of new seats in Western regions as a result of the United States census of 1790. Dominated by agrarian culture, these Western territories offered strong support to Democratic-Republican congressional candidates. As a result, they secured a thin majority in the legislature.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    5 838 724
    3 378 537
    1 771
    1 320
    25 476
  • The French Revolution: Crash Course World History #29
  • La Revolución francesa en 14 minutos
  • The First U.S. 'War on Terror': The 1798 Sedition Act & Constitutional Politics
  • Federalist Party
  • French Revolution Documentary

Transcription

Hi, my name is John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to talk about The French Revolution. Admittedly, this wasn’t the French flag until 1794, but we just felt like he looked good in stripes. [vertical = slimming] As does this guy. Huh? So, while the American Revolution is considered a pretty good thing, the French Revolution is often seen as a bloody, anarchic mess—which— Mr. Green, Mr. Green! I bet, like always, it’s way more complicated than that. Actually no. It was pretty terrible. Also, like a lot of revolutions, in the end it exchanged an authoritarian regime for an authoritarian regime. But even if the revolution was a mess, its ideas changed human history— far more, I will argue, than the American Revolution. [Intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] Right, so France in the 18th century was a rich and populous country, but it had a systemic problem collecting taxes because of the way its society was structured. They had a system with kings and nobles we now call the ancien regime. Thank you, three years of high school French. [and Meredith the Interness] And for most French people, it sucked, [historical term] because the people with the money— the nobles and the clergy— never paid taxes. So by 1789, France was deeply in debt thanks to their funding the American Revolution— thank you, France, [also for Goddard and The Coneheads] we will get you back in World Wars I and II. And King Louis XVI was spending half of his national budget to service the federal debt. Louis tried to reform this system under various finance ministers. He even called for democracy on a local level, but all attempts to fix it failed and soon France basically declared bankruptcy. This nicely coincided with hailstorms that ruined a year’s harvest, [ah, hail] thereby raising food prices and causing widespread hunger, which really made the people of France angry, because they love to eat. Meanwhile, the King certainly did not look broke, as evidenced by his well-fed physique and fancy footwear. He and his wife Marie Antoinette also got to live in the very nice Palace at Versailles thanks to God’s mandate, but Enlightenment thinkers like Kant were challenging the whole idea of religion, writing things like: “The main point of enlightenment is of man’s release from his self-caused immaturity, primarily in matters of religion.” [while smacking folks in face w/ glove] So basically the peasants were hungry, the intellectuals were beginning to wonder whether God could or should save the King, and the nobility were dithering about, eating fois gras and songbirds, [I'd rather eat cake, personally] failing to make meaningful financial reform. In response to the crisis, Louis XVI called a meeting of the Estates General, the closest thing that France had to a national parliament, which hadn’t met since 1614. The Estates General was like a super parliament made up of representatives from the First Estate, the nobles, the Second Estate, the clergy, and the Third Estate, everyone else. The Third Estate showed up with about 600 representatives, the First and Second Estates both had about 300, and after several votes, everything was deadlocked, and then the Third Estate was like, “You know what? Forget you guys. [expletive deleted] We’re gonna leave and we’re gonna become our own National Assembly.” This did not please King Louis XVI. [everything can't be an eclair, Lou] So when the new National Assembly left the room for a break, he locked the doors, and he was like, "Sorry, guys, you can't go in there. And if you can't assemble, how you gonna be a national assembly?" […and with that, mischief managed!] Shockingly, the Third Estate representatives were able to find a different room in France, [D'oh!] this time an indoor tennis court where they swore the famous Tennis Court Oath. [Like McEnroe? You can't be serious..] And they agreed not to give up until a French constitution was established. So then Louis XVI responded by sending troops to Paris primarily to quell uprisings over food shortages, but the revolutionaries saw this as a provocation, so they responded by seizing the Bastille Prison on July 14th, which, coincidentally, is also Bastille Day. The Bastille was stormed ostensibly to free prisoners— although there were only seven in jail at the time— but mostly to get guns. But the really radical move in the National Assembly came on August 4, when they abolished most of the ancien regime. -- feudal rights, tithes, privileges for nobles, unequal taxation, they were all abolished -- in the name of writing a new constitution. And then, on August 26th, the National Assembly proclaimed the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, which laid out a system of rights that applied to every person, and made those rights integral to the new constitution. That’s quite different from the American bill of rights, which was, like, begrudgingly tacked on at the end and only applied to non-slaves. The DoRoMaC, as I called it in high school, declared that everyone had the right to liberty, property, and security— rights that the French Revolution would do an exceptionally poor job of protecting, but as noted last week, the same can be argued for many other supposedly more successful revolutions. Okay, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Meanwhile, back at Versailles, Louis XVI was still King of France, and it was looking like France might be a constitutional monarchy. Which might've meant that the royal family could hang on to their awesome house, but then, in October of 1789, a rumor started that Marie Antoinette was hoarding grain somewhere inside the palace. And in what became known as the Women's March, a bunch of armed peasant women stormed the palace and demanded that Louis and Marie Antoinette move from Versailles to Paris. Which they did, because everyone is afraid of armed peasant women. ["hell hath no rath" and all] And this is a nice reminder that to many people at the time, the French Revolution was not primarily about fancy Enlightenment ideas; it was mostly about lack of food and a political system that made economic contractions hardest on the poor. Now, a good argument can be made that this first phase of the revolution wasn’t all that revolutionary. The National Assembly wanted to create a constitutional monarchy; they believed that the king was necessary for a functioning state and they were mainly concerned that the voters and office holders be men of property. Only the most radical wing, the Jacobins, called for the creation of a republic. But things were about to get much more revolutionary— and also worse for France. First, the Jacobins had a huge petition drive that got a bit unruly, which led troops controlled not by the King but by the national assembly to fire on the crowd, killing 50 people. And that meant that the National Assembly, which had been the revolutionary voice of the people, had killed people in an attempt to reign in revolutionary fervor. You see this a lot throughout history during revolutions. What looked like radical hope and change suddenly becomes "The Man" as increasingly radical ideas are embraced. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Meanwhile, France’s monarchical neighbors were getting a little nervous about all this republic business, especially Leopold II, who in addition to being the not holy not roman and not imperial holy roman emperor, was Marie Antoinette’s brother. I should note, by the way, that at this point, the Holy Roman Empire was basically just Austria. Also, like a lot of monarchs, Leopold II liked the idea of monarchies, and he wanted to keep his job as a person who gets to stand around wearing a dress, pointing at nothing, owning winged lion-monkeys made out of gold. [must've been a real partier, that one] And who can blame him? So he and King William Frederick II of Prussia together issued the Declaration of Pilnitz, which promised to restore the French monarchy. At this point, Louis and the National Assembly developed a plan: Let’s invade Austria. [always a solid plan?] The idea was to plunder Austria’s wealth and maybe steal some Austrian grain to shore up French food supplies, and also, you know, spread revolutionary zeal. But what actually happened is that Prussia joined Austria in fighting the French. And then Louis encouraged the Prussians, which made him look like an enemy of the revolution, which, of course, he was. And as a result, the Assembly voted to suspend the monarchy, have new elections in which everyone could vote (as long as they were men), and create a new republican constitution. Soon, this Convention decided to have a trial for Louis XVI, who was found guilty and, by one vote, sentenced to die via guillotine. Which made it difficult for Austria and Prussia to restore him to the throne. Oh, it’s time for the open letter? [musical chairs undefeated champ rolls] An Open Letter to the Guillotine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, there’s nothing. Oh my gosh, Stan! Jeez. That’s not funny! [That's what Anne Boleyn said…] Dear Guillotine, I can think of no better example of Enlightenment thinking run amok. Dr. Joseph Guillotine, the inventor of the guillotine, envisioned it as an egalitarian way of dying. They said the guillotine was humane and it also made no distinction between rich or poor, noble or peasant. It killed equally. You were also celebrated for taking the torture out of execution. But I will remind you, you did not take the dying out of execution. [or have a self-cleaning function] Unfortunately for you, France hasn’t executed anyone since 1977. But you’ll be happy to know that the last legal execution in France was via guillotine. Plus, you’ve always got a future in horror movies. Best wishes, John Green The death of Louis XVI marks the beginning of The Terror, the best known or at least the most sensational phase of the revolution. I mean, if you can kill the king, you can kill pretty much anyone, which is what the government did under the leadership of the Committee of Public Safety (Motto: We suck at protecting public safety) led by Maximilien Robespierre. The terror saw the guillotining of 16,000 enemies of the revolution including Marie “I never actually said Let them eat cake” Antoinette and Maximilien Robespierre himself, who was guillotined in the month of Thermidor in the year Two. Oh, right. So while France was broke and fighting in like nine wars, the Committee of Public Safety changed the measurements of time because, you know, the traditional measurements are so irrational and religion-y. So they renamed all the months and decided that every day would have 10 hours and each hour 100 minutes. And then, after the Terror, the revolution pulled back a bit and another new constitution was put into place, this one giving a lot more power to wealthy people. At this point, France was still at war with Austria and Britain, wars that France ended up winning, largely [lol] thanks to a little corporal named Napoleon Bonaparte. The war was backdrop to a bunch of coups and counter coups that I won’t get into right now because they were very complicated, but the last coup that we’ll talk about, in 1799, established Napoleon Bonaparte as the First Consul of France. And it granted him almost unlimited executive power under yet another constitution. By which he presumably meant that France’s government had gone all the way from here to here to here. As with the American revolution, it’s easy to conclude that France’s revolution wasn’t all that revolutionary. I mean, Napoleon was basically an emperor and, in some ways, he was even more of an absolute monarch than Louis XVI had been. Gradually the nobles came back to France, although they had mostly lost their special privileges. The Catholic Church returned, too, although much weaker because it had lost land and the ability to collect tithes. And when Napoleon himself fell, France restored the monarchy, and except for a four-year period, between 1815 and 1870, France had a king who was either a Bourbon or a Bonaparte. Now, these were no longer absolute monarchs who claimed that their right to rule came from God; they were constitutional monarchs of the kind that the revolutionaries of 1789 had originally envisioned. But the fact remains that France had a king again, and a nobility, and an established religion and it was definitely not a democracy or a republic. And perhaps this is why the French Revolution is so controversial and open to interpretation. Some argue the revolution succeeded in spreading enlightenment ideals even if it didn’t bring democracy to France. Others argue that the real legacy of the Revolution wasn’t the enhancement of liberty, but of state power. Regardless, I’d argue that the French Revolution was ultimately far more revolutionary than its American counterpart. I mean, in some ways, America never had an aristocracy, but in other ways it continued to have one— the French enlightenment thinker, Diderot, felt that Americans should “fear a too unequal division of wealth resulting in a small number of opulent citizens and a multitude of citizens living in misery.” And the American Revolution did nothing to change that polarization of wealth. What made the French Revolution so radical was its insistence on the universality of its ideals. I mean, look at Article 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: “Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.” Those are radical ideas, that the laws come from citizens, not from kings or gods, and that those laws should apply to everyone equally. That’s a long way from Hammurabi— and in truth, it’s a long way from the slaveholding Thomas Jefferson. In the 1970s, Chinese President Zhou Enlai was asked what the affects of the French Revolution had been. And he said, “It’s too soon to say.” And in a way, it still is. The French Revolution asked new questions about the nature of people’s rights and the derivation of those rights. And we’re still answering those questions and sorting through how our answers should shape society today. —must government be of the people to be for the people? Do our rights derive from nature or from God or from neither? And what are those rights? As William Faulkner said, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson, the show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself, our graphics team is Thought Bubble, [If you <3 our graphics, Blame Canada!] and we are ably interned by Meredith Danko. [dba: The Interness or MTVCS] Last week’s phrase of the week was "Giant Tea Bag" [seriously, it totally was] If you want to suggest future phrases of the week, or guess at this week's you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget, Metal Ball, I Can Hear You. [slides out like an ace photobomber] [music outro] [music outro]

Contents

Election summaries

In this period, each state fixed its own date for a congressional general election, as early as August 1792 (in New Hampshire and Rhode Island) and as late as September 1793 (in Kentucky). In some states, the congressional delegation was not elected until after the legal start of the Congress (on the 4th day of March in the odd-numbered year), but as the first session of Congress typically began in November or December, the elections took place before Congress actually met. The 3rd Congress first met on December 2, 1793.

These were the first elections held after reapportionment following the first census. Thirty-six new seats were added,[2] with 1 state losing 1 seat, 3 states having no change, and the remaining 11 states gaining between 1 and 9 seats. This was the first apportionment based on actual census data, the apportionment for the 1st and 2nd Congresses being set by the Constitution using estimated populations.

54 51
Anti-Administration Pro-Administration
State Type ↑ Date Total
seats
Anti-
Administration
Pro-Administration
Seats Change Seats Change Seats Change
General elections
New Hampshire At-large August 27, 1792 4 Increase1 1 Increase1 3 Steady
Rhode Island At-large August 28, 1792 2 Increase1 0 Increase1 2 Steady
Connecticut At-large September 17, 1792 7 Increase2 0 Steady 7 Increase2
Georgia At-large October 1, 1792 2 Decrease1 2 Decrease1 0 Steady
Maryland Districts October 1, 1792 8 Increase2 4 Increase1 4 Increase1
Delaware At-large October 2, 1792 1 Steady 1 Increase1 0 Decrease1
New Jersey At-large October 9, 1792 5 Increase1 0 Steady 5 Increase1
Pennsylvania At-large October 9, 1792 13 Increase5 8 Increase4 5 Increase1
Massachusetts Mixed November 2, 1792[a] 14 Increase6 3 Increase2 11 Increase4
New York Districts January 2, 1793 10 Increase4 3 Increase1 7 Increase3
Vermont Districts January 7, 1793[b] 2 Steady 2 Steady 0 Steady
South Carolina Districts February 5, 1793 6 Increase1 5 Increase3 1 Decrease2
North Carolina Districts February 15, 1793 10 Increase5 9 Increase6 1 Decrease1
Late elections (after the March 4, 1793 beginning of the 3rd Congress)
Virginia Districts March 18, 1793 19 Increase9 15 Increase7 4 Increase2
Kentucky Districts September 6, 1793 2 Steady 2 Steady 0 Steady
Total 105 Increase 36 54
51.4%
Increase 24 51
48.6%
Increase 12
House seats
Anti-Administration
51.43%
Pro-Administration
48.57%

House composition

End of the 2nd Congress

With new seats, due to reapportionment, outlined.

 
 
A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A V P P P
Majority→ P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P
 
 

Result of the elections

A A
A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A
Majority→ A
P P P P P P P P A A
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P
Key:
A = Anti-Administration
P = Pro-Administration
V = Vacant

Special elections

There were special elections in 1792 and 1793 during the 2nd United States Congress and 3rd United States Congress.

Elections are sorted here by state then district.

2nd Congress

District Incumbent This race
Representative Party First elected Results Candidates
Kentucky 1
"Southern District"
Kentucky admitted June 1, 1792. New member elected September 7, 1792.
Anti-Administration gain.
Winner seated November 9, 1792.[3]
Winner was later re-elected to the next term, see below.
Christopher Greenup (Anti-Administration)[c]
Robert Brackenridge
Kentucky 2
"Northern District"
Kentucky admitted June 1, 1792. New member elected September 7, 1792.
Anti-Administration gain.
Winner seated November 8, 1792.[3]
Winner was later re-elected to the next term, see below.
Alexander D. Orr (Anti-Administration)[c]
Hubbard Taylor
Georgia 1 Anthony Wayne Anti-Administration 1791 Incumbent disqualified March 21, 1792.
New member elected July 9, 1792.
Anti-Administration hold.
Winner later lost re-election to the next term, see below.
John Milledge (Anti-Administration) 55.2%
Matthew MacAllister (Pro-Administration) 44.8%
John Glen 0.2%[4]
Maryland 2 Joshua Seney Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent resigned December 6, 1792 to become Chief Justice of Maryland's 3rd Judicial District.
New member elected January 7–10, 1793.
Pro-Administration gain.
Winner was already elected to the next term, see below.
William Hindman (Pro-Administration) 63.2%
Thomas Whittington 36.8%[5]

3rd Congress

District Incumbent This race
Representative Party First elected Results Candidates
Connecticut at-large Jonathan Sturges Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent resigned to become Associate Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
New member elected April 8, 1793.[d]
Pro-Administration hold.
Uriah Tracy (Pro-Administration) 49.8%
Zephaniah Swift (Pro-Administration) 18.5%
Asher Miller[e] 16.1%
Jonathan Ingersoll (Pro-Administration) 9.9%
Tapping Reeve[e] 5.7%
Connecticut at-large Benjamin Huntington Pro-Administration 1788 Representative-elect resigned.
New member elected September 16, 1793.
Pro-Administration hold.
Jonathan Ingersoll (Pro-Administration)
[Data unknown/missing.]
Connecticut at-large Jonathan Ingersoll Pro-Administration 1793 (Special) Representative-elect Ingersoll declined the seat and Representative-elect Mitchell resigned to become U.S. Senator.
Two new members elected on a general ticket November 11, 1793.
Two Pro-Administration holds.
Joshua Coit (Pro-Administration) 35.7%
Zephaniah Swift (Pro-Administration) 24.2%
James Davenport (Pro-Administration) 17.2%
Roger Griswold (Pro-Administration) 12.6%
Chauncey Goodrich (Pro-Administration) 5.1%
Nathaniel Smith (Pro-Administration) 3.1%
Samuel W. Dana (Pro-Administration) 2.1%
Connecticut at-large Stephen M. Mitchell Pro-Administration 1792

Connecticut

Connecticut gained two seats in reapportionment following the 1790 census.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Connecticut at-large
7 seats on a general ticket
James Hillhouse Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. (Pro-Admin) 14.1%
James Hillhouse (Pro-Admin) 13.0%
Jonathan Sturges (Pro-Admin) 11.5%
Benjamin Huntington (Pro-Admin) 10.6%
Jeremiah Wadsworth (Pro-Admin) 10.4%
Amasa Learned (Pro-Admin) 9.5%
Stephen Mix Mitchell (Pro-Admin) 7.8%
Uriah Tracy (Pro-Admin) 6.3%
Jonathan Ingersoll 5.4%
Asher Miller 4.3%
Zephaniah Swift (Pro-Admin) 4.3%
Tapping Reeve 3.0%
Amasa Learned Pro-Administration 1791 (Special) Incumbent re-elected.
Jonathan Sturges Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected.
Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected.
Jeremiah Wadsworth Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.

Three special elections followed the 1792 elections in Connecticut after Representatives-elect Sturges and Huntington resigned before the start of Congress and Mitchell was elected to the Senate.

Delaware

Delaware's apportionment did not change following the 1790 census. As in the 1st and 2nd Congresses, each voter cast votes for two separate candidates, at least one of whom had to be from a different county as the voter.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Delaware at-large John M. Vining Pro-Administration 1789 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration hold.
Election was later challenged and overturned.[1]
John Patten (Anti-Admin) 38.8%
Henry Latimer (Pro-Admin) 38.3%
Francis Many 11.7%
Edward Roche 7.9%
Andrew Barrett 3.3%

Georgia

Following the 1790 census, Georgia's apportionment was decreased from 3 seats to 2 (the only state whose representation decreased after the census). Georgia switched from separate districts to at-large seats.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Georgia at-large
2 seats on a general ticket
John Milledge
Redistricted from the 1st district
Anti-Administration 1792 (special) Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration hold.
Abraham Baldwin (Anti-Admin) 44.5%
Thomas P. Carnes (Anti-Admin) 29.5%
George Mathews 10.8%
John Milledge (Anti-Admin) 8.1%
Scattering 7.0%
Francis Willis (Anti-Admin) 0.3%
Abraham Baldwin
Redistricted from the 2nd district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected.
Francis Willis
Redistricted from the 3rd district
Anti-Administration 1791 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration loss

Kentucky

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Kentucky 1
"Southern District"
Christopher Greenup Anti-Administration 1792 (New state) Incumbent re-elected. Christopher Greenup[c] (Anti-Admin)
Kentucky 2
"Northern district"
Alexander D. Orr Anti-Administration 1792 (New state) Incumbent re-elected. Alexander D. Orr[c] (Anti-Admin)

Maryland

Maryland increased from 6 to 8 representatives after the 1790 census. The previous mixed district/at-large system was replaced with a conventional district system.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Maryland 1 Philip Key Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration hold.
George Dent (Pro-Admin) 44.7%
John Parnham (Pro-Admin) 29.8%
Philip Key (Pro-Admin) 25.5%
Maryland 2 John Francis Mercer
Redistricted from the 3rd district
Anti-Administration 1791 (Special) Incumbent re-elected. John Francis Mercer (Anti-Admin) 57.0%
John Thomas (Pro-Admin) 42.1%
Richard A. Contee 0.9%
Maryland 3 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Uriah Forrest (Pro-Admin) 71.8%
William Dorsey (Anti-Admin) 28.1%
Others 0.1%
Maryland 4 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Thomas Sprigg (Anti-Admin) 100%
Maryland 5 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Samuel Smith (Anti-Admin) 61.1%
Charles Ridgely (Anti-Admin) 38.9%
Maryland 6 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Gabriel Christie (Anti-Admin) 63.6%
William Matthews (Pro-Admin) 36.4%
Maryland 7 Joshua Seney
Redistricted from the 2nd district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent retired.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Incumbent then resigned December 6, 1792 to become Chief Justice of Maryland's 3rd Judicial District.
Winner was then also elected to finish the term, see above.
William Hindman (Pro-Admin) 51.7%
James Tilghman (Anti-Admin) 48.3%[7]
Maryland 8 William V. Murray
Redistricted from the 5th district
Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. William V. Murray (Pro-Admin) 93.8%
Littleton Dennis (Pro-Admin) 5.4%
Others 0.9%

Massachusetts

Following the 1790 Census, Massachusetts's representation increased from eight to fourteen Representatives and was redistricted into four plural districts, plus a single at-large district. The 4th district covered the District of Maine (the modern-day State of Maine). The plural districts were concurrent tickets rather than a single general ticket, though the 1st and Massachusetts 2s appear to have also had a general ticket alongside the more specific tickets.

As before, a majority was required for election, in those districts where a majority was not achieved, additional ballots were required.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Massachusetts 1 (4 seats)
Seat A: At-large
None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
First ballot (November 2, 1792):
Jonathan Jones 39.8%
William Heath 31.0%
James Bowdoin 23.2%
Theophilus Parsons 6.0%

Second ballot (January 14, 1793):
Jonathan Jones 29.3%
Samuel Holten (Anti-Admin) 25.6%
James Bowdoin 17.1%
Samuel Sewall (Pro-Admin) 13.1%
William Heath 8.3%
Joseph Bradley Varnum (Anti-Admin) 3.8%
Elbridge Gerry (Anti-Admin) 2.8%

Third ballot (April 1, 1793):
Samuel Holten (Anti-Admin) 69.9%
Benjamin Austin 30.1%
Massachusetts 1 (4 seats)
Seat B: Essex County
Benjamin Goodhue
Redistricted from the 2nd district
Pro-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected. Benjamin Goodhue (Pro-Admin) 100%
Massachusetts 1 (4 seats)
Seat C: Middlesex County
Elbridge Gerry
Redistricted from the 3rd district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Samuel Dexter (Pro-Admin) 61.4%
Joseph Bradley Varnum (Anti-Admin) 26.2%
Elbridge Gerry (Anti-Admin) 12.4%
Massachusetts 1 (4 seats)
Seat D: Suffolk County
Fisher Ames Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected. Fisher Ames (Pro-Admin) 62.4%
Benjamin Austin 37.6%
Massachusetts 2 (4 seats)
Seat A: At-large
None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
First ballot (November 2, 1792):
Samuel Lyman (Pro-Admin) 41.3%
Theodore Sedgwick (Pro-Admin) 37.9%
William Lyman (Anti-Admin) 6.7%
Samuel Moorhaus 6.2%
Simson Strong 4.%
Dwight Foster (Pro-Admin) 3.5%

Second ballot (January 14, 1793):
Samuel Lyman (Pro-Admin) 35.4%
Dwight Foster (Pro-Admin) 25.1%
Thomson J. Skinner (Anti-Admin) 19.6%
William Lyman (Anti-Admin) 12.1%
Jonathan Grout (Anti-Admin) 4.0%
William Shepard (Pro-Admin) 3.8%

Third ballot (April 1, 1793):
Dwight Foster (Pro-Admin) 55.3%
Samuel Lyman (Pro-Admin) 44.7%
Massachusetts 2 (4 seats)
Seat B: Berkshire County
Theodore Sedgwick
Redistricted from the 4th district
Pro-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected. Theodore Sedgwick (Pro-Admin) 63.8%
Thomson J. Skinner (Anti-Admin) 29.1%
John Bacon (Anti-Admin) 7.1%
Massachusetts 2 (4 seats)
Seat C: Hampshire County
None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
First ballot (November 2, 1792):
Samuel Lyman (Pro-Admin) 37.4%
William Lyman (Anti-Admin) 32.3%
Thomas Dwight (Pro-Admin) 16.8%
Samuel Hinshaur 6.7%
John Williams 3.6%
Dwight Foster (Pro-Admin) 3.1%

Second ballot (January 14, 1793):
William Lyman (Anti-Admin) 38.0%
Samuel Lyman (Pro-Admin) 31.3%
William Shepard (Pro-Admin) 18.0%
Thomas Dwight (Pro-Admin) 12.7%

Third ballot (April 1, 1793):
William Lyman (Anti-Admin) 53.1%
Samuel Lyman (Pro-Admin) 46.9%
Massachusetts 2 (4 seats)
Seat D: Worcester County
Artemas Ward
Redistricted from the 7th district
Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. Artemas Ward (Pro-Admin) 59.5%
Jonathan Grout (Anti-Admin) 36.8%
Dwight Foster (Pro-Admin) 3.8%
Massachusetts 3 (2 seats)
Seat A: Barnstable, Dukes, & Nantucket Counties
George Leonard
Redistricted from the 6th district
Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration hold.
Peleg Coffin Jr. (Pro-Admin) 52.6%
George Leonard (Pro-Admin) 34.3%
Phanuel Bishop (Anti-Admin) 13.1%
Massachusetts 3 (2 seats)
Seat B: Bristol & Plymouth Counties
Shearjashub Bourne
Redistricted from the 5th district
Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. First ballot (November 2, 1792):
John Davis 49.2%
Shearjashub Bourne (Pro-Admin) 26.1%
James Warren 24.8%

Second ballot (January 14, 1793):
Shearjashub Bourne (Pro-Admin) 53.0%
John Davis 40.6%
James Warren 6.4%
Massachusetts 4 (3 seats)
District of Maine Seat A: Cumberland County
None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
First ballot (November 2, 1792):
Daniel Davis 40.0%
Peleg Wadsworth (Pro-Admin) 38.6%
Robert Southgate 11.7%
Josiah Thacker 9.8%

Second ballot (January 14, 1793):
Peleg Wadsworth (Pro-Admin) 48.4%
Daniel Davis 42.2%
Robert Southgate 9.4%

Third ballot (April 1, 1793):
Peleg Wadsworth (Pro-Admin) 58.0%
Daniel Davis 42.0%
Massachusetts 4 (3 seats)
District of Maine Seat B: Lincoln, Hancock, & Washington Counties
None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
First ballot (November 2, 1792):
William Lithgow 49.98%
Henry Dearborn (Anti-Admin) 32.2%
Daniel Coney 11.8%
Alan Campbell 6.0%

Second ballot (January 14, 1793):
Henry Dearborn (Anti-Admin) 60.9%
William Lithgow 39.1%
Massachusetts 4 (3 seats)
District of Maine Seat C: York County
George Thatcher
Redistricted from the 8th district
Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected. George Thatcher (Pro-Admin) 57.7%
Nathaniel Wells 35.4%
Tristan Jordan 6.9%
Massachusetts at-large None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
David Cobb (Pro-Admin) 52.6%
Charles Jarvis 9.6%
William Heath 6.9%
Theodore Sedgwick (Pro-Admin) 4.9%
Elbridge Gerry (Anti-Admin) 2.1%
Jonathan Jones 1.9%
Fisher Ames (Pro-Admin) 1.7%
James Sullivan (Anti-Admin) 1.5%
Samuel Horton 1.3%
Scattering 17.4%

New Hampshire

New Hampshire increased from 3 seats to 4 seats after the 1790 census.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
New Hampshire at-large
4 seats on a general ticket
Jeremiah Smith Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. Jeremiah Smith (Pro-Admin) 24.1%
Nicholas Gilman (Pro-Admin) 16.3%
John Samuel Sherburne (Anti-Admin) 14.2%
Paine Wingate (Pro-Admin) 12.2%
Abiel Foster (Pro-Admin) 8.9%
James Sheafe (Pro-Admin) 8.2%
Nathaniel Peabody 7.7%
Timothy Walker 4.0%
William Page 2.3%
Joshua Atherton 2.3%
Samuel Livermore Pro-Administration 1789 Retired
Anti-Administration gain.
Nicholas Gilman Pro-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.

New Jersey

Following the 1790 census, New Jersey's apportionment increased from 4 to 5 seats.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates[f]
New Jersey at-large
5 seats on a general ticket
Elias Boudinot Pro-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected. John Beatty (Pro-Admin) 16.4%
Jonathan Dayton (Pro-Admin) 13.4%
Abraham Clark (Pro-Admin) 11.8%
Elias Boudinot (Pro-Admin) 10.8%
Lambert Cadwalader (Pro-Admin) 10.1%
Thomas Sinnickson (Pro-Admin) 48.7%
Aaron Kitchell (Pro-Admin) 8.6%
James Linn 5.2%
Jonathan Elmer (Pro-Admin) 4.4%
Samuel Dick 4.1%
Thomas Henderson 2.9%
Abraham Clark Pro-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected.
Jonathan Dayton Pro-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected.
Aaron Kitchell Pro-Administration 1791 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration hold.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.

New York

Due to re-apportionment following the 1790 census, New York's congressional delegation grew from 6 to 10. Three incumbents ran for re-election, two of whom won, and the other three incumbents retired. With the increase following re-apportionment, this left seven open seats.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
New York 1 Thomas Tredwell Anti-Administration 1791 (Special) Incumbent re-elected. Thomas Tredwell (Anti-Admin) 50.1%
Joshua Sands (Pro-Admin) 26.6%
Harry Peters (Pro-Admin) 23.3%
New York 2 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
John Watts (Pro-Admin) 72.6%
William S. Livingston (Anti-Admin) 27.3%
New York 3 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Philip Van Cortlandt (Anti-Admin) 55.5%
Richard Hatfield (Pro-Admin) 44.5%
New York 4 Cornelius C. Schoonmaker Anti-Administration 1790 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Peter Van Gaasbeck (Pro-Admin) 47.3%
John Hathorn (Anti-Admin) 46.8%
John Carpenter (Anti-Admin) 2.3%
Cornelius C. Schoonmaker (Anti-Admin) 1.7%
William Thompson (Anti-Admin) 1.3%
Jesse Woodhull (Anti-Admin) 0.6%
New York 5 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Theodorus Bailey (Anti-Admin) 53.6%
James Kent (Pro-Admin) 46.4%
New York 6 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Ezekiel Gilbert (Pro-Admin) 35.1%
Peter R. Livingston (Anti-Admin) 34.1%
Peter Van Ness (Anti-Admin) 30.8%
New York 7 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
John Evert Van Alen (Pro-Admin) 56.9%
Henry K. Van Rensselaer (Anti-Admin) 42.5%
Thomas Sickles (Anti-Admin) 0.6%
New York 8 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Henry Glen (Pro-Admin) 63.8%
Jeremiah Van Rensselaer (Anti-Admin) 36.2%
New York 9 James Gordon
Redistricted from the 6th district
Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. James Gordon (Pro-Admin) 46.0%
John Williams (Anti-Admin) 41.2%
John M. Thompson (Anti-Admin) 12.8%
New York 10 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Silas Talbot (Pro-Admin) 34.1%
William Cooper (Pro-Admin) 26.6%
John Winn (Anti-Admin) 25.7%
Andrew Fink (Anti-Admin) 11.3%
Josiah Crane (Anti-Admin) 2.4%

North Carolina

Following the 1790 census, North Carolina's apportionment increased from 5 to 10 seats.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
North Carolina 1 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Joseph McDowell (Anti-Admin)[c]
North Carolina 2 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Matthew Locke (Anti-Admin)[c]
Alexander[g](Pro-Admin)
Montford Stokes
North Carolina 3 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Joseph Winston (Anti-Admin)[c]
Jesse Franklin (Anti-Admin)
John Williams (Anti-Admin)
James Martin
Clarke[g]
North Carolina 4 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Alexander Mebane (Anti-Admin) 44.8%
Stephen Moore (Pro-Admin) 39.0%
Ambrose Ramsay 16.2%
North Carolina 5 Nathaniel Macon
Redistricted from the 2nd district
Anti-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected. Nathaniel Macon (Anti-Admin)[c]
North Carolina 6 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
James Gillespie (Anti-Admin)[c]
William Henry Hill (Pro-Admin)
Benjamin Smith
North Carolina 7 William B. Grove
Redistricted from the 5th district
Pro-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected. William B. Grove (Pro-Admin) 100%[c]
North Carolina 8 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
William J. Dawson (Anti-Admin) 63.8%
Stephen Cabarrus (Anti-Admin) 36.1%
William Cumming 0.2%
North Carolina 9 John B. Ashe
Redistricted from the 3rd district
Anti-Administration 1790 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration hold.
Thomas Blount (Anti-Admin)[c]
John B. Ashe (Anti-Admin)
John Leigh (Pro-Admin)
North Carolina 10 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Benjamin Williams (Anti-Admin)[c]
William Maclure (Anti-Admin)

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania switched from using districts to electing its representatives on an at-large basis for the 3rd Congress, just as it had done for the 1st Congress. This would be the last time that Pennsylvania would elect all of its Representatives at-large. Due to re-apportionment following the 1790 census, Pennsylvania's delegation increased from 8 representatives to 13.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates[8]
Pennsylvania at-large
13 seats on a general ticket
Thomas Fitzsimons
Redistricted from the 1st district
Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected. William Findley (Anti-Admin) 8.21%
Frederick Muhlenberg (Anti-Admin) 8.01%
Daniel Hiester (Anti-Admin) 7.96%
William Irvine (Anti-Admin) 7.67%
John W. Kittera (Pro-Admin) 7.39%
Thomas Hartley (Pro-Admin) 7.06%
Peter Muhlenberg (Anti-Admin) 5.40%
Thomas Fitzsimons (Pro-Admin) 4.46%
Andrew Gregg (Anti-Admin) 4.30%
James Armstrong (Pro-Admin) 4.29%
William Montgomery (Anti-Admin) 4.22%
John Smilie (Anti-Admin) 4.15%
Thomas Scott (Pro-Admin) 4.13%
Samuel Sitgreaves (Pro-Admin) 3.86%
Jonathan D. Sergeant (Anti-Admin) 3.74%
John Barclay (Anti-Admin) 3.70%
Charles Thomson (Anti-Admin) 3.68%
William Bingham (Pro-Admin) 3.59%
Henry Wynkoop (Pro-Admin) 3.55%
Israel Jacobs (Pro-Admin) 0.65%
Frederick Muhlenberg
Redistricted from the 2nd district
Anti-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected.
Israel Jacobs
Redistricted from the 3rd district
Pro-Administration 1791 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration hold.
Daniel Hiester
Redistricted from the 4th district
Anti-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected.
John W. Kittera
Redistricted from the 5th district
Pro-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected.
Andrew Gregg
Redistricted from the 6th district
Anti-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected.
Thomas Hartley
Redistricted from the 7th district
Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected.
William Findley
Redistricted from the 8th district
Anti-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island gained a second representative from the results of the 1790 census. Rhode Island did not divide itself into districts, but elected two at-large representatives on separate tickets.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Rhode Island at-large Seat A Benjamin Bourne Pro-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. Benjamin Bourne (Pro-Admin) 100%
Rhode Island at-large Seat B None (Seat created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
Francis Malbone (Pro-Admin)[c]
Paul Mumford

South Carolina

South Carolina gained one representative as a result of the 1790 census, increasing from 5 to 6.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
South Carolina 1 William L. Smith Pro-Administration 1788 Incumbent re-elected. William L. Smith (Pro-Admin) 61.5%
Thomas Tudor Tucker (Anti-Admin) 22.2%
Jacob Read (Pro-Admin) 16.4%
Thomas Tudor Tucker
Redistricted from the 5th district
Anti-Administration 1788 Incumbent lost re-election.
Anti-Administration loss.
South Carolina 2 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
John Hunter (Anti-Admin)[c]
South Carolina 3 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Lemuel Benton (Anti-Admin)[c]
South Carolina 4 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Richard Winn (Anti-Admin)[c]
South Carolina 5 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Alexander Gillon (Anti-Admin)[c]
South Carolina 6 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Andrew Pickens (Anti-Admin)[c]

Vermont

Vermont had no apportionment in the House of Representatives before 1790 census because it was not admitted to the Union until 1791. Vermont's election laws at the time required a majority to win election to the House of Representatives. If no candidate won a majority, a runoff election was held, which happened in the 1st district.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates[f]
Vermont 1
"Western district"
Israel Smith Anti-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected. First ballot: January 7, 1793
Israel Smith (Anti-Admin) 44.2%
Matthew Lyon (Anti-Admin) 33.8%
Isaac Tichenor (Pro-Admin) 17.8%
Samuel Hitchcock 4.2%

Second ballot: March 20, 1793
Israel Smith (Anti-Admin) 51.0%
Matthew Lyon (Anti-Admin) 44.0%
Isaac Tichenor (Pro-Admin) 4.3%
Samuel Hitchcock 0.6%
Others[h] 0.1%
Vermont 2
"Eastern district"
Nathaniel Niles Anti-Administration 1791 Incumbent re-elected. Nathaniel Niles (Anti-Admin) 60.3%
Elijah Paine (Pro-Admin) 14.0%
Stephen Jacob 7.7%
Paul Brigham (Anti-Admin) 4.4%
Samuel Cutler 3.9%
Daniel Buck (Pro-Admin) 3.5%
Isaac Tichenor (Pro-Admin) 2.2%
Others 4.0%

Virginia

Virginia gained nine representatives from the 1790 census, and in addition, the old 2nd district was lost after its territory became the new State of Kentucky. There were, therefore, ten new districts created for the 3rd Congress.

District Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Virginia 1 Alexander White Pro-Administration 1789 Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Robert Rutherford (Anti-Admin) 56.6%
John Smith (Anti-Admin) 25.8%
Alexander White (Pro-Admin) 17.6%
Virginia 2 Andrew Moore
Redistricted from the 3rd district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected. Andrew Moore (Anti-Admin)[c]
Virginia 3 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Joseph Neville (Anti-Admin)[c]
George Jackson (Anti-Admin)
Jeremiah Jacobs
William MacCleery
Virginia 4 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Results subsequently challenged but upheld.
Francis Preston (Anti-Admin)
Abraham Trigg
Virginia 5 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Pro-Administration gain.
George Hancock (Pro-Admin) 60.5%
Charles Clay 34.0%
Calohill Minnis 5.5%
Virginia 6 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Isaac Coles (Anti-Admin)[c]
Virginia 7 Abraham B. Venable
Redistricted from the 6th district
Anti-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. Abraham B. Venable (Anti-Admin)[c]
Joseph Wyatt
Thomas Scott (Pro-Admin)
Tarlton Woodson (Pro-Admin)
Virginia 8 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Thomas Claiborne (Anti-Admin)[c]
Richard Kennon
Jesse Brown
J. Nicholson
Virginia 9 William B. Giles Anti-Administration 1790 Incumbent re-elected. William B. Giles (Anti-Admin)[c]
Robert Bolling
Virginia 10 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Carter B. Harrison (Anti-Admin)[c]
John H. Briggs
Virginia 11 Josiah Parker
Redistricted from the 8th district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected.
as Pro-Administration
Josiah Parker (Pro-Administration)[i][c]
John Neirson
Virginia 12 John Page
Redistricted from the 7th district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected. John Page (Anti-Admin)[c]
Virginia 13 Samuel Griffin
Redistricted from the 10th district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected.
as Pro-Administration
Samuel Griffin (Pro-Administration)[i][c]
Virginia 14 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Francis Walker (Anti-Admin)[c]
Virginia 15 James Madison, Jr.
Redistricted from the 5th district
Anti-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected. James Madison, Jr. (Anti-Admin)[c]
Virginia 16 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
Anthony New (Anti-Admin)[c]
John Roane (Anti-Admin)
Francis Corbin
Virginia 17 Richard Bland Lee
Redistricted from the 4th district
Pro-Administration 1789 Incumbent re-elected. Richard Bland Lee (Pro-Admin)[c]
Virginia 18 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
John Nicholas (Anti-Admin)[c]
William Pickett
Virginia 19 None (District created) New seat.
New member elected.
Anti-Administration gain.
John Heath (Anti-Admin)[c]
Walter Jones (Anti-Admin)
Francis L. Lee

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Massachusetts required a majority for election, which led to additional ballots on January 14, 1793 and April 1, 1793.
  2. ^ Vermont required a majority for election, which led to an additional ballot on March 20, 1793.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah Source does not give numbers of votes or has incomplete data.
  4. ^ Date given for the start of the term, of the person elected at the special election.[6] In some cases this is clearly wrong as the date of the legal start of the Congress is given, even though the member was elected at a later date.
  5. ^ a b Party affiliation not given in source
  6. ^ a b Only candidates with at least 1% of the vote listed.
  7. ^ a b Source does not give full name.
  8. ^ Four individuals received 1 vote each.
  9. ^ a b Had been Anti-Administration in the previous election.

References

  1. ^ a b "Third Congress (membership roster)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 6, 2014. Retrieved February 1, 2015.
  2. ^ Stat. 253
  3. ^ a b "Second Congress (membership roster) – see footnotes 12 and 13" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 6, 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013.
  4. ^ https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/tufts:ga.uscongress.special.1792
  5. ^ https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/tufts:md.uscongress2.1793
  6. ^ See Congressional Biographical Directory.
  7. ^ https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/tufts:md.uscongress7.1792
  8. ^ Wilkes University Elections Statistics Project

Bibliography

External links

This page was last edited on 14 November 2018, at 22:17
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.