Talk:1812 United States presidential election

Use of parentheses in “(Democratic-)Republican”
Natalinasmpf just made an edit, removing the parentheses from “(Democratic-)Republican” in the first paragraph, with the edit summary, “I understand they were originally called Republican, but why the parentheses?”

Almost every United States history book I've read refers to Jefferson's party as the “Republicans”. But, if every reference to Jefferson's party in the article is to the “Republicans”, inevitably somebody not terribly familiar with United States history will post a message on the talk page or make an edit in which they confuse Jefferson's party with the modern Republican party. Thus, in the first reference to the Jefferson's party, the name “Republican” is prefixed with “(Democratic-)” to differentiate this party from the modern Republicans and to simultaneously let the reader know that “Republican” will be used going forward. If the parentheses are left off, the reader might be led to believe that “Democratic-Republican” and “Republican” are referring to distinct parties.

— DLJessup (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the name of the non-Federalist Party in the early nineteenth century was not standardized. Here in Pa, the party went under the name of the Democratic Party in local newspapers. There is no question, however, that it is the same party operating under the name of the Republican Party in other states. Instead of taking away the word "Democratic" in front, I would prefer to take away the parenthesis and stick with the DRP label. Most of the psephological reference works call this party the Democratic Republican Party, usually without making any reference to the name of later parties. Examples include Michael J. Dubin, United States Congressional Elections 1788-1997 and Congressional Quarterly Press's Presidential Elections Since 1789. Chronicler3 10:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the only reason why to put it in parentheses is that the term "democratic" was originally a pejorative, ie. linking it to the French radicals or Jacobin like behaviour, and that "Republican" was one of the original namse. Of course, it doesn't seem that pejorative today so I think just sticking with "Democratic-Republican" will do. Elle  vécut heureuse  à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There's already been a lot of argumentation on the issue of what to call the party of Jefferson; for instance, see Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States). My gut feel is that “Republican” is a better term than “Democratic Republican” (and either is better than “Democratic-Republican”). One basis for this position is that, while the labels “Democratic” and “Republican” were fairly commonly used by the Jeffersonians, I don't get the impression that “Democratic Republican” was used very much before the party splintered. After the party splintered, “Democratic Republican” was a label for the faction of the Republican Party led by Jackson (as opposed to the “National Republicans” of Adams and Clay). Moreover, Jefferson, the leader of the party, referred to himself as a “Republican”, as witnessed by his first inaugural address. (“We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.”) The only good reason to use “Democratic-Republican” is as a disambiguator, and we need only disambiguate once in a given article.

— DLJessup (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been collecting information on DWC's campaign, and came across the following newspaper article. It is from the Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial & Political, 9/7/1812:


 * Lemuel Taylor, of the City of Baltimore, will be supported in conjunction with any other democratic republican candidate from another part of this district, as an elector of president and vice president of the U. States; and will, if elected, vote for Dewitt Clinton, of New York, as president of the U. States. Chronicler3 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Fusion?
How come the election map for this election describes the Federalist candidate as "Fusion"? 172.188.48.9 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DeWitt Clinton himself never was a Federalist. In 1812, he was the leader of one of the two DR factions in New York State, conveniently called the Clintonians (named for George Clinton). DWC hoped that anti-Virginia DRs would rally around him as an Independent nominee and allow other states to choose the President. He was nominated by the New York state caucus by a vote of 90-5 in 5/1812, and his initial VP running mate was Elbridge Gerry, who was also Madison's choice.

The 4th and final Federalist caucus met in New York City 9/15-17/1812 and decided not to nominate a separate candidate. They did not endorse Clinton at the meeting, but in many states the Federalists organized the Clinton electoral slates. Federalists in Virginia did not support Clinton; they ran a slate of Electors pledged to Rufus King and William R. Davie.

Near the end of the campaign, it became obvious that Gerry was actively working for Madison in Massachusetts. When the Pennsylvania Clinton convention was held on 8/26/1812 to nominate the slate of Clinton Electors, Jared Ingersoll was chosen as the VP nominee in PA. The Clinton slates in other states came out in favor of Ingersoll, who thus became Clinton's official VP running mate.

Some sources: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=1864, Ohio Elects the President (2000), p. 14; Stefan Lorant, The Glorious Burden, p. 94; Marhsall Smelser, The Democratic Republic 1801-1815, pp. 245-246. Chronicler3 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just searched the NEHGS newspaper index. The first mention of Ingersoll as a VP nominee in 1812 came in the newspaper the Bennington VT Newsletter on 9/16/1812, not long after the PA state convention referenced earlier. Chronicler3 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "Fusion" label on the map, but why is Clinton's party listed as "Federalist" in the info box just above it? Even if the Federalist Party officially endorsed him (and the discussion here suggests that even that is in question), he certainly was not a Federalist himself.

I think his party should be listed as either "Fusion" or "Democratic-Republican", with some sort of asterisk for explanation. Iglew (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Madison, along with Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama, are the only US Presidents to win second terms with a lower percentage of the electoral vote than in their first election (Madison won 69.3% of the electoral vote in 1808, but only won 58.7% of the electoral vote in 1812)." OK, this is not true, Wilson's support augmented. Just compare the 1912 and 1916 elections wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.8.73 (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wilson won more of the popular vote in 1916 (49.2% vs. 41.8%), but less of the electoral vote (277 EVs vs. 435). JCaesar (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Clinton' political party
I think there is at least a healthy level of uncertainty in listing DeWitt Clinton as a Federalist in the infobox. From reading the article (and other sources), it appears that Clinton was a Democratic-Republican who ran with some Federalist support but WITHOUT the official nomination or endorsement of the Federalist party. As such, would his candidacy not be better described as "Independent" or "Fusion" (as it is in some other sources)? Listing Clinton as a Federalist in the infovox, and then essentially stating the opposite in the rest of the article, is confusing at best and needs to be reconciled. If no-one has any objections within the next three weeks or so I will change the infobox to show Clinton as an IndependentNathaniel Greene (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States presidential election, 1812. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110202214223/http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/index.xq to http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/index.xq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Tagged: Cleanup colors
Two of the maps File:ElectoralCollege1812.svg and File:ElectoralCollege1812-Large.png are unreadable by some colorblind readers. Either use high grayscale-contrast colors, or add some non-color-based way to preceive the information.

The issue was reported at Village Pump Village pump (proposals) by Beauregard Armistead. Non-colorblind editors can test the issue using coblis-color-blindness-simulator. Alsee (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

NY
Might be worth mentioning that this was the first election in which New York was the state with the most electors (which, I believe, it remained until 1968) SecretName101 (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

LA
Might be worth mentioning that this was the first presidential election since the statehood of Louisiana (thus the first presidential election in which Louisiana voted).SecretName101 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

John Langdon
I removed Langdon from the infobox, because (unlike Eagleton in 1972), he never accepted his party's vice presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable popular vote figures from before 1824 are not available
I find it quite bizarre that Wikipedia has actually claimed popular vote figures in presidential elections from before 1824, likely fudged from another website. I have deleted dubious popular vote references from the 1820 and 1816 elections. A request for comment would be very helpful. Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are reliable popular vote references available: I can think of "A New Nation Votes" (which I think is the website you claim totals have been "fudged" from) or Michael J. Dubin, United States Presidential Elections 1788-1860, for two. While some states chose electors by the legislature in this period, others did so by popular vote and these are reasonably well recorded. I think your unilateral decision to remove vote totals is very short-sighted and should be reversed.Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)