Spirits, Freeholders, and Aliens: Contested Elections in 18th Century Virginia

I recently came across the records of Contested Elections, and with the 2024 elections right around the corner, my interest was piqued. The cases span 1790-1950 and contain petitions, depositions, poll books, and correspondence concerning objections raised during the election of delegates to the Virginia General Assembly. I was curious to examine the early cases: the challenges that were submitted, the process of resolving the disputes, and if there was any impact on the outcome of the races. The parameters concerning the election of delegates were established by Hening’s Statutes, which contains the early laws of Virginia. The 1785 law determined when the elections were held and the requisite voter qualifications and an additional 1788 law was passed establishing procedures to contest the outcome. Each county could establish a commission to summon witnesses, take depositions, and determine the validity of the challenges. There were several issues raised concerning the elections results, including the conduct of candidates, the eligibility of specific voters, and issues with the process of voting at the polls.

During this period, one prerequisite to vote was being a landowner (also known as a “freeholder”), and there were many men who did not qualify. The 1785 election law stated voters must possess “twenty-five acres of land, with a house, the superficial content of the foundation whereof is twelve feet square, or equal to that quantity, and a plantation thereon, or fifty acres of unimproved land, or a lot or part of a lot of land in a city or town.”¹ In order to help circumvent this criteria and gain support in the Wood County election of 1800, “Abner Lord…granted a number of people land under an inconsistent pretense of multiplying citizens [voters]…apparently meant to gain himself suffrages [votes].”² The Commission concluded that Lord “for the consideration of five dollars sold and conveyed to seventeen persons, whose names are therein expressed, nine hundred acres of land being part of an undivided tract of land conveyed to him.”³

Historically, election days were community events where individuals would congregate at the courthouse, and there was no such thing as a secret ballot. The earliest case in Fluvanna County from 1790 includes the poll lists, where voters would step up to the clerk’s table, announce their selections and have their name written on the list for the candidate(s) they selected. As with many contested elections, the bulk of the objections raised in the case of Robert Quarles v. George Thompson involved the qualifications of specific voters. Three candidates were vying for two positions, and the loser, Robert Quarles, challenged some of the votes cast for the second-place finisher, George Thompson. After consideration by the commission, Thompson lost the votes of George Southerland, Benjamin Thacker, and Samuel Southerland because they refused to take an oath or answer any questions proving their right to vote. Not surprisingly, many of the disputed votes hinged on proof of land ownership. In fact, Elijah Humphrey claimed his right to vote based on land his father willed him, but in his sworn deposition admitted that his father was still alive, so his vote was determined to be illegal.

The case of Allen Barnerd v. Elias Langham from Fluvanna in 1793 involved the suitability of Langham as a candidate. Allen Barnerd’s petition concedes that Langham received the most votes, but alleges he is precluded from serving as a Delegate since he was already in “possession of a lucrative office under the government as superintendent of the arsenal at Point Fork.”⁴ Although the county commission resolution deemed the challenge as reasonable, a look at the list of delegates for the October-December 1793 General Assembly session shows Elias Langham as representing Fluvanna County.

pollbook
Robert Quarles v. George Thompson, Copy of the Fluvanna County Poll List, April 1790.

Virginia. General Assembly. Contested elections, 1790-1950. Accession 36962. Box 1, BC 1076057. State government records collection, Library of Virginia.

A few years earlier, in 1791, a Franklin County election dispute involved allegations of impropriety against the candidate, Ashford Napier, for engaging in unfair electioneering. Voter Daniel Brown testified that although the candidates had agreed amongst themselves not to seek advantage by “treating,” Brown had been to several parties where Napier had distributed “spiritous liquors” and asked for votes prior to election day. The deposition continues that Napier also “intended to treat them as soon as the election was over and agreeable to his promise, he brought a quantity of rum to the courthouse and distributed amongst the people immediately after the closing of the pools [sic].”⁵

The Greensville County case of William Wyche Wilkins v. Achilles Jeffries included many similar disputes, but some voters were also accused of being under the age of 21. William Tomlinson’s age was questioned, and Winnie Clark testified that William’s mother had told her he was born on September 21, 1771. This would have made him only 20 at the time the election was held in April of 1792. Achilles Jeffries also objected to the votes cast by William and Anthony Sweat, whom he alleged were “mulatto” men. A deposition stated that Lucy Woodly was a multiracial woman emancipated by Capt. Woodley who married Constant Sweat, a multiracial man, and had two sons. When Anthony Sweat himself was deposed, he asserted his right as a freeholder and declared he was not a “mulatto” man as “he did not believe he had one fourth Negro blood in him – and he further saith that his brother William Sweat was allowed to be a legal witness in the court of Greensville.”⁶

In 1799, James Reed’s right to vote was contested in Ohio County (now West Virginia) for being an alien (not a naturalized citizen). Larchus Beatty testified that Reed had previously refused to pay his militia fines, stating that he was not required to do so since he was not a citizen. While many disputed votes were stricken from the record by the county commission, occasionally voters did supply proof to validate their eligibility. Benjamin Harvey was also charged with being an alien, but confirmed his citizenship by providing the certificate showing the oath of allegiance he took in Philadelphia in 1788.

Beyond questioning the eligibility of candidates and voters, there were also issues concerning access to the polls and the conduct of the poll workers. The deputy sheriff of Berkley County, Peter Lawson, stated that the polls had been open all day, and several announcements were made to encourage those milling around the courthouse to come in and vote.  However, he thought that some of the friends of candidate General Darke may have been encouraged to delay voting in an attempt to force the polls to reopen the following day. However, Jacob Miller had an entirely different recollection and stated that when he went up to cast his vote, he “was stopped in a rude and insolent manner by a deputy sheriff of the name of Lewis Wisenall who appeared to him to act exceedingly partial and seemed very anxious to prevent people from getting forward [whom] he thought would vote for General Darke [and] that the said deputy sheriff did not only endeavor to stop him by speaking but laid hands on him and indeavoured [sic] to pull him back by force.”⁷

The contested cases in this collection provide invaluable insight into how elections were conducted in the early years of Virginia statehood. It was surprising to me that while some of the votes that were disputed were successfully challenged, a look at the list of delegates for the years in question did not show any changes in the outcome of the elections. It is obvious that county residents were aware of the importance of voting and eager to participate in the democratic process (whether they were legally qualified to do so or not). More importantly, even though issues were raised, there was an established process to adjudicate challenges that allowed for the resolution of disputed contests, resulting in the selection of representatives to the Virginia House of Delegates.