Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up freeThe Daily Cincinnati Republican, And Commercial Register
Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio
What is this article about?
Uncertainty surrounds the Ohio gubernatorial election results from October 11, 1836, between Whig candidate Vance and Democrat Baldwin. Initial returns from 37 counties show Vance leading by 5365 votes, but analysis suggests Democratic gains in unreported counties may secure Baldwin's victory. Opposition gains noted in legislature.
Merged-components note: The tables provide election majority data that directly continues and supports the domestic news article on Ohio elections.
OCR Quality
Full Text
MONDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 17th.
THE OHIO ELECTIONS.—All is uncertainty, as yet, with reference to the result of the elections, which transpired last Tuesday in this State, with respect to Governor, or the complexion of the next Legislature.
If, however, the statements of the whig papers are to be relied on, Vance has been elected by from 10 to 15 thousand majority—and the opposition have elected a majority of members of the State Legislature and of Congress. But these Whigs are such sad calculators, and have deceived us so often, that we have come to the conclusion to disregard their statements, and abide the result.
We must confess, that the returns, so far as ascertained, have somewhat disappointed us; though when the fact is taken into consideration, that most of the returns that have come in, are from strong Federal counties, and from the region of country where Gen. Vance resides, and has for years exercised great influence, we are not surprised at the increased majorities of the opposition.— At the present writing, thirty-seven counties have been heard from, which give Vance a majority of 5365 votes The same counties, in 1834, gave Lucas 435 majority. which exhibits an increased opposition majority, since 1834, of 5808 votes.
In the counties to be heard from, Lucas received, in 1834, a majority of 2869 votes. Most of the counties are strong democratic counties. In many of them the population has been more than doubled; and it is reasonable to infer, that they will give an increased democratic majority, sufficient to secure Baldwin's election. To effect this, it will only necessary for him to receive 2919 more than was given in the same counties to Lucas in 1834. At all events, we will hazard the opinion, under no circumstances can Vance be elected by any thing like so large majority as the opposition claim for him; and it is very doubtful in our minds whether he is elected at all. If the counties in Western Reserve do not very much deceive us, Baldwin, notwithstanding present appearances, and the extreme popularity of his opponent, will be our next Governor. But as friend Ritchie would say,
None verily. In the mean time, we would again admonish our friends, to be cautious how they hazard money on the result. Uncertain as is the result of the election for Governor, we are still more in the dark with regard to the election of members of the Legislature. So far as heard from, however, there has been a gain of eight or ten members to the opposition.
GOVERNOR'S ELECTION
Reported Majorities.
1836, Whig. Dem.
1834.
We have received the following additional returns per the Columbus Journal since the foregoing was penned,
viz:
Baldwin's majorities in the foregoing counties, 2306, which reduces Vance's majorities in the counties from which returns have been reported, to 3051.
Our readers will bear in mind, that the returns which we have published are unofficial. They are given from report.
| Majorities. | Majorities. | |||
| Vance. | Baldwin. | Findlay. | Lucas | 120 |
| Allen, | 362 | |||
| Athens, | 561 | |||
| Aabtabula, | 200 | 237 | ||
| Adams, | 50 | 123 | ||
| Belmont, | 427 | 440 | ||
| Brown, | 1360 | 922 | ||
| Butler, | 180 | |||
| Coshocton, | 485 | |||
| Champaign, | 792 | 667 | ||
| Clark, | 1112 | 882 | ||
| Columbiana, | 213 | |||
| Crawford, | 80 | 127 | ||
| Carrol, | 538 | |||
| Cayuhaga, | 550 | 657 | ||
| Clermont, | 111 | |||
| Clinton, | 557 | 143 | ||
| Dak, | 195 | |||
| Delaware, | 218 | 675 | ||
| Fairfield, | 961 | 70 | ||
| Fayette, | 7 | 175 | ||
| Franklin, | 761 | |||
| Gallia, | 404 | |||
| Greene, | 855 | 49 | ||
| Geauga, | 731 | |||
| Guernsey, | 278 | 85 | ||
| Highland, | 321 | 7 | ||
| Harrison, | 157 | |||
| Holmes, | 664 | |||
| Huron, | 500 | 465 | ||
| Hardin, | 41 | |||
| Hancock, | 269 | |||
| Hamilton, | 558 | 127 | ||
| Hocking, | 300 | 196 | ||
| Jackson, | 49 | |||
| Jefferson, | 384 | |||
| Knox, | 800 | 699 | ||
| Licking, | 391 | 911 | ||
| Logan, | 720 | 321 | ||
| Loran, | 16 | |||
| Lawrence, | 218 | |||
| Madison, | 350 | 27 | ||
| Miami, | 617 | |||
| Montgomery | 270 | 1 | ||
| Muskingum | 907 | 1290 | ||
| Morgan, | 67 | |||
| Marion, | 181 | 313 | ||
| Meigs, | 148 | 327 | ||
| Medina, | 164 | |||
| Mercer, | 172 | |||
| Monroe, | 546 | |||
| Pickaway, | 70 | 145 | ||
| Preble, | 913 | 502 | ||
| Perry, | 300 | 564 | ||
| Putnam, | 140 | |||
| Pike, | 188 | |||
| Portage, | 288 | |||
| Roes, | 312 | 253 | ||
| Richland, | 1041 | |||
| Stark, | 184 | |||
| Sandusky, | 150 | 70 | ||
| Scioto, | 600 | 343 | ||
| Shelby, | 262 | 269 | ||
| Seneca, | 150 | 5 | ||
| Trumbull, | 134 | |||
| Tuscarawas, | 346 | |||
| Union | 200 | 33 | ||
| Warren, | 824 | 562 | ||
| Wayne, | 17 | |||
| Washington, | 292 | |||
| Williams, | 35 | |||
| Wood, | 97 |
| Cuyahoga, Medina, Stark, Wayne, Richland, Jackson, Pike, Morgan, Coshocton, Tuscarawas, Holmes, | Vance do Baldwin | 540 517 300 1014 1000 19 32 250 300 350 800 |
What sub-type of article is it?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Where did it happen?
Domestic News Details
Primary Location
Ohio
Event Date
Last Tuesday (October 11, 1836)
Key Persons
Outcome
vance leads by 3051 in reported counties after updates; opposition gains 8-10 legislative seats; final outcome uncertain, with potential baldwin victory inferred from unreported democratic strongholds.
Event Details
Newspaper reports uncertainty in Ohio gubernatorial election results between Whig Vance and Democrat Baldwin. Skeptical of Whig claims of large Vance majority, notes initial returns from strong opposition areas; analysis of 1834 comparisons suggests increased Democratic support in unreported counties could elect Baldwin. Unofficial county majorities listed in tables, with additional returns reducing Vance's lead.